Evidence Hub

Multicenter prospective study of concordance between embryonic cell-free DNA and trophectoderm biopsies from 1301 human blastocysts

Rubio C, Navarro-Sánchez L, García-Pascual CM, Ocali O, Cimadomo D, Venier W, Barroso G, Kopcow L et al.

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2020

371 participants · 100 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The recent identification of embryonic cell-free DNA in spent blastocyst media has opened a new era of possibilities for noninvasive embryo aneuploidy testing in assisted reproductive technologies. Yet, previous studies assessing a limited number of embryos reported variable concordance between embryonic cell-free DNA and trophectoderm biopsies, thus questioning the validity of this approach.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the concordance and reproducibility of testing embryonic cell-free DNA vs trophectoderm DNA obtained from the same embryo in a large sample of human blastocysts and to assess the contribution of the inner cell mass and trophectoderm to embryonic cell-free DNA released to the culture media.

STUDY DESIGN: This is an interim analysis of a prospective, observational study among 8 in vitro fertilization centers in 4 continents to assess consistency between noninvasive embryo aneuploidy testing of embryonic cell-free DNA and conventional trophectoderm biopsy. The analysis included 1301 day-6/7 blastocysts obtained in 406 in vitro fertilization cycles from 371 patients aged 20-44 years undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Fresh oocytes underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection or in vitro fertilization. No previous assisted hatching or vitrification was allowed before media collection. Individual spent blastocyst medium was collected from embryos cultured at least 40 hours from day 4. After media collection,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 371 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free