Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T04:47:23.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 14 - Biopsy Techniques from Polar Body to Blastocyst

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2023

By
Danilo Cimadomo ,
Nicoletta Barnocchi ,
Letizia Papini ,
Federica Innocenti ,
Filippo Maria Ubaldi  and
Laura Rienzi
Edited by
Catherine Racowsky ,
Jacques Cohen  and
Nicholas Macklon
Catherine Racowsky
Affiliation:
Hôpital Foch, France
Jacques Cohen
Affiliation:
IVF 2.0, New York
Nicholas Macklon
Affiliation:
London Women's Clinic
Get access

Summary

Chromosomal aneuploidies mainly affect blastocysts produced from advanced maternal age women (≥35yr). Nevertheless, also in younger patients the aneuploidy rate is ~30%. If one of the partners is carrier of a structural rearrangement, the risk of producing aneuploid gametes is high, independently of woman age. Moreover, ~2% of the couples are carrier of an inheritable monogenic disease. To circumvent the risk of transferring affected and/or chromosomally-abnormal embryos, pre-implantation genetic testing has been introduced in IVF. Throughout the last 30 years, three biopsy approaches have been implemented: blastomere biopsy at the cleavage stage, polar body biopsy from oocytes/zygotes, and trophectoderm biopsy from the blastocyst. The latter is the current gold standard. Here we describe the three approaches along with tips and troubleshooting inherent to trophectoderm biopsy, to correctly perform it, optimize its outcomes, and cope with peculiar situations.

Keywords

polar body biopsyblastomere biopsytrophectoderm biopsyPGTbiopsy troubleshooting
Type
Chapter
Information
Manual of Embryo Selection in Human Assisted Reproduction , pp. 149 - 157
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Handyside, AH, Kontogianni, EH, Hardy, K, Winston, RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;344:768–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 2013;100:624–30.Google Scholar
Capalbo, A, Ubaldi, FM, Cimadomo, D, Maggiulli, R, Patassini, C, Dusi, L, et al. Consistent and reproducible outcomes of blastocyst biopsy and aneuploidy screening across different biopsy practitioners: a multicentre study involving 2586 embryo biopsies. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:199–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, RT, Jr., Ferry, K, Su, J, Tao, X, Scott, K, Treff, NR. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:870–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veiga, A, Sandalinas, M, Benkhalifa, M, Boada, M, Carrera, M, Santalo, J, et al. Laser blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation diagnosis in the human. Zygote. 1997;5:351–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Boer, KA, Catt, JW, Jansen, RP, Leigh, D, McArthur, S. Moving to blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and single embryo transfer at Sydney IVF. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:295–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McArthur, SJ, Leigh, D, Marshall, JT, de Boer, KA, Jansen, RP. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1628–36.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Verlinsky, Y, Cieslak, J, Ivakhnenko, V, Evsikov, S, Wolf, G, White, M, et al. Preimplantation diagnosis of common aneuploidies by the first- and second-polar body FISH analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;15:285–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Verlinsky, Y, Ginsberg, N, Lifchez, A, Valle, J, Moise, J, Strom, CM. Analysis of the first polar body: preconception genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 1990;5:826–9.Google Scholar
Capalbo, A, Ubaldi, FM, Rienzi, L, Scott, R, Treff, N. Detecting mosaicism in trophectoderm biopsies: current challenges and future possibilities. Hum Reprod. 2016;32:492–8.Google Scholar
Capalbo, A, Rienzi, L. Mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1098–1106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;102:1613–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiegs, AW, Hodes-Wertz, B, McCulloh, DH, Munné, S, Grifo, JA. Discrepant diagnosis rate of array comparative genomic hybridization in thawed euploid blastocysts. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:893–7.Google Scholar
Tiegs, AW, Tao, X, Whitehead, C, Neal, SA, Osman, EK, Kim, J, et al. Does preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) harm embryos? No – a multicenter, prospective, blinded, non-selection study evaluating the predictive value of an aneuploid diagnosis and impact of biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2019;115:627–37.Google Scholar
ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35:494–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokkali, G, Coticchio, G, Bronet, F, Celebi, C, Cimadomo, D, Goossens, V, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG Embryology good practice recommendations for polar body and embryo biopsy for PGT. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;3:hoaa020.Google Scholar
Cimadomo, D, Capalbo, A, Levi-Setti, PE, Soscia, D, Orlando, G, Albani, E, et al. Associations of blastocyst features, trophectoderm biopsy and other laboratory practice with post-warming behavior and implantation. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1992–2001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cimadomo, D, Rienzi, L, Romanelli, V, Alviggi, E, Levi-Setti, PE, Albani, E, et al. Inconclusive chromosomal assessment after blastocyst biopsy: prevalence, causative factors and outcomes after re-biopsy and re-vitrification: A multicenter experience. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1839–46.Google Scholar
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 ScholarPubMed
Cimadomo, D, Ubaldi, FM, Capalbo, A, Maggiulli, R, Scarica, C, Romano, S, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis of witnessing protocols for ensuring traceability during PGD/PGS cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33:360–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, SU, Chao, KH, Wu, MY, Chen, CD, Ho, HN, Yang, YS. The simplified two-pipette technique is more efficient than the conventional three-pipette method for blastomere biopsy in human embryos. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:569–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magli, MC, Ferraretti, AP, Crippa, A, Lappi, M, Feliciani, E, Gianaroli, L. First meiosis errors in immature oocytes generated by stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:629–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J, Malter, H, Fehilly, C, Wright, G, Elsner, C, Kort, H, et al. Implantation of embryos after partial opening of oocyte zona pellucida to facilitate sperm penetration. Lancet. 1988;2:162.Google Scholar
Germond, M, Nocera, D, Senn, A, Rink, K, Delacretaz, G, Fakan, S. Microdissection of mouse and human zona pellucida using a 1.48-microns diode laser beam: efficacy and safety of the procedure. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:604–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Licciardi, F, Gonzalez, A, Tang, YX, Grifo, J, Cohen, J, Neev, Y. Laser ablation of the mouse zona pellucida for blastomere biopsy. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12:462–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montag, M, van der Ven, K, Delacretaz, G, Rink, K, van der Ven, H. Laser-assisted microdissection of the zona pellucida facilitates polar body biopsy. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:539–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verpoest, W, Staessen, C, Bossuyt, PM, Goossens, V, Altarescu, G, Bonduelle, M, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1767–76.Google Scholar
Magli, MC, Montag, M, Koster, M, Muzi, L, Geraedts, J, Collins, J, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: technical aspects. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:3181–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montag, M, Koster, M, Strowitzki, T, Toth, B. Polar body biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:603–7.Google Scholar
Malter, HE, Cohen, J. Partial zona dissection of the human oocyte: a nontraumatic method using micromanipulation to assist zona pellucida penetration. Fertil Steril. 1989;51:139–48.Google Scholar
Dumoulin, JC, Bras, M, Coonen, E, Dreesen, J, Geraedts, JP, Evers, JL. Effect of Ca2+/Mg2+-free medium on the biopsy procedure for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and further development of human embryos. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2880–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, AE, Wright, G, Kort, HI, Straub, RJ, Nagy, ZP. Comparison of laser-assisted hatching and acidified Tyrode’s hatching by evaluation of blastocyst development rates in sibling embryos: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:487–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, WH, Kaskar, K, Ren, Y, Gill, J, DeSplinter, T, Haddad, G, et al. Comparison of development and implantation of human embryos biopsied with two different methods: aspiration and displacement. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:536–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, C, Bellver, J, Rodrigo, L, Castillon, G, Guillen, 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.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×