Arguments against preimplantation aneuploidy screening

References

• Kolibianakis E, Zikopoulos K, Verpoest W et al. Should we advise patients undergoing IVF to start a cycle leading to a day 3 or a day 5 transfer? Hum. Reprod.19, 2550–2554 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papanikolaou E, D’Haeseleer E, Verheyen G et al. Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavage-stage embryo transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3. A randomized prospective study. Hum. Reprod.20, 3198–3203 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Hum. Reprod.19, 2849–2858 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S. Chromosome abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod. Biomed. Online12, 234–253 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Lee A, Rosenwaks Z, Grifo J, Cohen J. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum. Reprod.8, 2185–2191 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staessen C, Michiels A, Verpoest W, Van der Elst J, Liebaers I, Devroey P. Does PGS improve pregnancy rates in young patients with single embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod.22(Suppl. 1), I31–I33 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Gianaroli L, Magli C, Ferraretti A, Munné S. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil. Steril.72, 837–844 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod. Biomed. Online7, 91–97 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munné S, Chen S, Fischer J et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertil. Steril.84(2), 331–335 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colls P, Escudo T, Cekleniak N, Sadowy S, Cohen J, Munné S. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for infertility using “no result rescue”. Fertil. Steril.88(1), 53–61 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caglar GS, Asimakopoulos B, Nikolettos N, Diedrich K, Al-Hassani S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in repeated implantation failure. Reprod. Biomed. Online10, 381–388 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taranissi M, El-Toukhy T, Gorgy A, Verlinsky Y. Influence of maternal age on the outcome of PGD for aneuploidy screening in patients with recurrent implantation failure. Reprod. Biomed. Online10, 628–632 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Magli C, Cohen J. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum. Reprod.14, 2191–2199 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Fischer J, Warner A, Chen S, Zouves C, Cohen J; The Referring Centers PGD Group. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly reduces pregnancy loss in infertile couples: a multicenter study. Fertil. Steril.85(2), 326–332 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrisi J, Colls P, Ferry KM, Zheng X, Garrisi MG, Munné S. Effect of infertility, maternal age, and number of previous miscarriages on the outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil. Steril. DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.056, (2008) (Epub ahead of print).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viville S, Mollard R, Bach M, Falquet C, Gerlinger P, Warter S. Do morphological anomalies reflect chromosomal aneuploïdies? Hum. Reprod.15(12), 2563–2566 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman S, Sertyel S, Findikli N et al. Effect of PGD on implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates in cases with predominantly macrocephalic spermatozoa. Reprod. Biomed. Online9(1), 79–84 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens J, Wale P, Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Is aneuploidy screening for patients aged 35 or over beneficial? A prospective randomized trial. Fertil. Steril.82(Suppl. 2), 249 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N. Engl. J. Med.357, 9–17 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goossens V, De Rycke M, De Vos A et al. Diagnostic efficiency, embryonic development and clinical outcome after the biopsy of one or two blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum. Reprod.23(3), 481–492 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twisk M, Mastenbroeck S, van Wely M, Heineman MJ, Van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.25(1), CD005291 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Munné S, Cohen J, Simpson JL. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N. Engl. J. Med.357, 17 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Simpson JL, Bombard AT. Chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous abortion: frequency, pathology and genetic counseling. In: Spontaneous Abortion. Edmonds K, Bennett MJ (Eds). Blackwell, London, UK (1987).
   Google Scholar
• Vouillaire L, Slater H, Williamson R, Wilton L. Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum. Genet.106, 210–217 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Weier H, Grifo J, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in human embryos. Biol. Reprod.51, 373–379 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baart E, Van Opstal D, Los F, Fauser B, Martini E. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of two blastomeres from day 3 frozen-thawed embryos followed by analysis of the remaining embryo on day 5. Hum. Reprod.19, 685–693 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coonen E, Derhaag J, Dumoulin J et al. Anaphase lagging mainly explains chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryo. Hum. Reprod.19, 316–324 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, Lappi M, Ruberti A, Farfalli V. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil. Steril.87(3), 534–541 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baart E, Martini E, van den Bergh I. Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Hum. Reprod.21, 223–233 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Marquez C, Cohen J. Chromosome mosaicism in cleavage-stage human embyos: evidence of a maternal age effect. Reprod. Biomed. Online4, 223–232 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Los FJ, van Opstal D, van den Berg C. The development of cytogenetically normal, abnormal and mosaic embryos: a theoretical model. Hum. Reprod. Update10, 79–94 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, DeUgarte CM, Surrey M, Danzer H, DeCherney A, Hill DL. Fluorescence in situ hybridization reanalysis of day-6 human blastocysts diagnosed with aneuploidy on day 3. Fertil. Steril.84, 1395–1400 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellestor F. The cytogenetic analysis of human zygotes and preimplantation embryos. Hum. Reprod. Update1, 581–585 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil. Steril.64, 382–391 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandalinas M, Sadowy S, Alikani M, Calderon G, Cohen J, Munné S. Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum. Reprod.16, 1954–1958 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munné S, Gianaroli L, Tur-Kapsa I et al. Substandard application of preimplantation genetic screening may interfere with its clinical success. Fertil. Steril.88, 781–784 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verlinsky Y, Cohen J, Nummé S et al. Over a decade of experience with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a multicenter report. Fertil. Steril.82, 292–294 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper J, Boelaert K, Geraeadts J et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection V: cycles from January to December 2002 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2003. Hum. Reprod.21, 3–21 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahine LK, Cedars M. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis does not increase pregnancy rates in patients at risk for aneuploidy. Fertil. Steril.85, 51–56 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donoso P, Staessen C, Fauser B, Devroey P. Current value of preimplantation genetic aneuploidy screening in IVF. Hum. Reprod. Update13, 15–25 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar