Book contents
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Series page
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Section I Limits for IVF
- Section II IVF Add-ons
- Section III The Best Policy
- Section IV Embryology
- Section V Ethics and Statistics
- Section VI Male-factor Infertility
- Section VII Genetics
- 38A Genome Editing Should Be Allowed for the Prevention of Life-Threatening Genetic Diseases
- 38B Genome Editing Should Be Allowed for the Prevention of Life-Threatening Genetic Diseases
- 39A PGT-A Should Be Offered for Recurrent Implantation Failure
- 39B PGT-A Should Be Offered for Recurrent Implantation Failure
- 40A PGT-A Should Be Offered for All Women
- 40B PGT-A Should Be Offered for All Women
- Section VIII Ovarian Stimulation
- Section IX Hormones and the Environment
- Index
- References
40B - PGT-A Should Be Offered for All Women
Against
from Section VII - Genetics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 November 2021
Book contents
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Series page
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Section I Limits for IVF
- Section II IVF Add-ons
- Section III The Best Policy
- Section IV Embryology
- Section V Ethics and Statistics
- Section VI Male-factor Infertility
- Section VII Genetics
- 38A Genome Editing Should Be Allowed for the Prevention of Life-Threatening Genetic Diseases
- 38B Genome Editing Should Be Allowed for the Prevention of Life-Threatening Genetic Diseases
- 39A PGT-A Should Be Offered for Recurrent Implantation Failure
- 39B PGT-A Should Be Offered for Recurrent Implantation Failure
- 40A PGT-A Should Be Offered for All Women
- 40B PGT-A Should Be Offered for All Women
- Section VIII Ovarian Stimulation
- Section IX Hormones and the Environment
- Index
- References
Summary
While PGT-A is a potentially valuable screening tool, its benefit is not yet well established to offer to all patients. More studies are needed to establish agreed-upon thresholds for Positive and Negative Predictive Values for PGT-A, to define what patient populations are best served, and confirm its cost-effectiveness of this intervention before universal application is introduced.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine , pp. 207 - 209Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Scott, R, Upham, K, Forman, E, Zhao, T, Treff, N. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):24–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R, Ferry, K, Su, J, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):870–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dadouh, E, Balayla, J, Garcia-Velasco, A. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1504–12.Google Scholar
Munne, A, Kaplan, B, Frattarelli, J, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryos transfer in good prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1072–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munne, S, Wells, D. Detection of mosaicism at blastocyst stage with use of high- resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1085–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed