Single best euploid versus single best unknown-ploidy blastocyst frozen embryo transfers: a randomized controlled trial

  • Kemal Ozgur
  • Murat Berkkanoglu
  • Hasan Bulut
  • Gonul Didem Akay Yoruk
  • Nevrah Nal Candurmaz
  • Kevin CoetzeeEmail author
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



This paper aims to investigate the efficacy of IVF with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), using only best-scoring blastocysts from young (≤ 35 years) infertile patients undergoing single blastocyst frozen embryo transfers (FET).


In this randomized controlled trial (RCT) registered 29 March 2017, 302 infertile patient-couples eligible to participate underwent autologous ICSI blastocyst freeze-all cycles. Two-hundred and twenty patient-couples satisfied the inclusion criteria (i.e., female age ≤ 35 years, two-day 5 ≥ 2BB blastocysts) and were randomized to either the PGT-A (PGT-A group, n = 109) selection arm or morphology score (morphology group, n = 111) selection arm. In both arms, the highest ranking (by morphological score) blastocysts were selected for FET.


Of the 109 best-scoring blastocysts that underwent PGT-A, 80 were predicted to be euploid (73.4%) and were transferred in FET (euploid subgroup). There was no statistical difference in LB rate between the euploid subgroup and morphology group (56.3% vs 58.6%, odds ratio 0.91 (95% CI 0.51–1.63), p = 0.750). In a multiple logistic regression, the transfer of euploid blastocysts was not found to be a significant predictor of LB when adjusting for female age, infertility duration, antral follicle count, and blastocyst quality, with the independent odds expressed as 0.91 (95% CI 0.50–1.66, p = 0.760).


In young (≤ 35 years) infertile patients with at least two ≥ 2BB blastocysts, PGT-A blastocyst selection does not result in an enhanced LB rate, with the evidence suggesting that the effectivity of PGT-A may be limited by the effectivity of TE biopsy.

Trial registration: ID: NCT03095053.


Preimplantation genetic testing Morphological score Blastocyst Frozen embryo transfer 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    ALPHA Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Papathanasiou A, Osmani B, Teoh PJ, Maheshwari A. Morphological assessment of embryo quality during assisted reproduction: a systematic review. Fertil Sci Res. 2014;1:67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Ivakhnenko V, Evsikov S, Wof G, White M, et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of common aneuploidies by the first- and second-polar body FISG analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;15:285–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rubio C, Simón C, Vidal F, Rodrigo L, Pehlivan T, Remohí J, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:182–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mantikou E, Wong KM, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Molecular origin of mitotic aneuploidies in preimplantation embryos. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1822:1921–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A, et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22:845–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gleicher N, Orvieto R. Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review. J Ovarian Res. 2017;10:21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kushnir VA, Darmon SK, Albertini DF, Barad DH, Gleicher N. Effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening: a reanalysis of United States assisted reproductive technology data 2011-2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:75–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1503–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:473–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Orlando G, Sapienza F, Colamaria S, et al. Pre-implantation genetic testing in ART: who will benefit and what is the evidence? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:1273–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ASRM, Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:429–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:100–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013a;100:697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ozgur K, Berkkanoglu M, Bulut H, Isikli A, Coetzee K. Higher clinical pregnancy rates from frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers compared to fresh blastocyst transfers: a retrospective matched-cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1483–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ozgur K, Berkkanoglu M, Bulut H, Humaidan P, Coetzee K. Perinatal outcomes after fresh versus vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer – a retrospective analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:899–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Toward reproductive certainty: fertility and genetics beyond 1999. London: Parthenon Publishing; 1999. p. 378–88.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ozgur K, Berkkanoglu M, Bulut H, Humaidan P, Coetzee K. Agonist depot versus OCP programming of frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective analysis of freeze-all cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016a;33:207–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barnhart KT. Live birth is the correct outcome for clinical trials evaluating therapy for the infertile couple. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1205–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:656–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dain L, Bider D, Levron J, Zinchenko V, Westler S, Dirnfeld M. Thin endometrium in donor oocyte recipients: enigma or obstacle for implantation? Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1289–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cedars MI. Fresh versus frozen: initial transfer or cumulative cycle results: how do we interpret results and design studies? Fertil Steril. 2016;106:251–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ozgur K, Humaidan P, Coetzee K. Segmented ART – the new era in ART? Reprod Biol. 2016;16:91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ahlstrom A, Westin C, Reismer E, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:3289–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang S, Luo K, Cheng D, Tan Y, Lu C, He H, et al. Number of biopsied trophectoderm cells is likely to affect the implantation potential of blastocysts with poor trophectoderm quality. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1222–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Werner MD, Leondires MP, Schoolcraft WB, Miller BT, Copperman AB, Robins ED, et al. Clinically recognizable error rate after the transfer of comprehensive chromosomal screened euploid embryos is low. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1613–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tiegs AW, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, Munne S, Grifo JA. Discrepant diagnosis rate of array comparative genomic hybridization in thawed euploid blastocysts. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:893–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Treff NR, Franasiak JM. Detection of segmental aneuploidy and mosaicism in the human preimplantation embryo: technical considerations and limitations. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sills ES, Li X, Frederick JL, Khoury CD, Potter DA. Determining parental origin of embryo aneuploidy: analysis of genetic error observed in 305 embryos derived from anonymous donor oocyte IVF cycles. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7:68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sachdev NM, Maxwell SM, Besser AG, Grifo JA. Diagnosis and clinical management of embryonic mosaicism. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scott RT Jr, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013b;100:624–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neal SA, Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Werner MD, Morin SJ, Tao X, et al. High relative deoxyribonucleic acid content of trophectoderm biopsy adversely affects pregnancy outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:731–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fiorentino F, Bono S, Biricik A, Nuccitelli A, Cotroneo E, Cottone G, et al. Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2802–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maxwell SM, Colls P, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, McCaffrey C, Wells D, et al. Why do euploid embryos miscarry? A case-control study comparing the rate of aneuploidy within presumed euploid embryos that resulted in miscarriage or live birth using next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1414–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Goodrich D, Xing T, Tao X, Lonczak A, Zhan Y, Landis J, et al. Evaluation of comprehensive chromosome screening platforms for the detection of mosaic segmental aneuploidy. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:975–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Munne S, Blazek J, Large M, Martinez-Ortiz PA, Nisson H, Liu E, et al. Detailed investigation into the cytogenetic constitution and pregnancy outcome of replacing mosaic blastocysts detected with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Munne S, Wells D. Detection of mosaicism at blastocyst stage with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1085–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Capalbo A, Rienzi L. Mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1098–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vera-Rodriguez M, Rubio C. Assessing the true incidence of mosaicism in preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1107–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;2:520–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillón G, Guillén A, Vidal C, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1122–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Munne S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Gysler M, Child TJ, Nakhuda G, et al. Gobal multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing single embryo transfer with embryo selected by preimplantation genetic screening using next generation sequencing versus morphologic assessment. Fertil Steril. 2017b;108(sppl):e19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Paulson RJ. Preimplantation genetic screening: what is the clinical efficiency? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:228–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Antalya IVFAntalyaTurkey
  2. 2.BiyoGenom, Genetic LaboratoryAntalyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations