What are patients doing with their mosaic embryos? Decision making after genetic counseling
Patient decisions regarding mosaic-embryo transfer were assessed. More than one-fourth of patients without euploid embryos pursued transfer; those who pursued additional treatment had a greater chance of ongoing pregnancy.
Volume 111, Issue 1, Pages 132–137.e1
Andria G. Besser, M.S., David H. McCulloh, Ph.D., James A. Grifo, M.D., Ph.D.
To assess patient decisions regarding mosaic embryos and their impact on clinical outcomes.
Review of patients who had genetic counseling regarding mosaic embryos.
Ninety-eight patients who had mosaic embryos but no euploid embryos.
Genetic counseling to discuss mosaic-embryo transfer (MET) after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.
Main Outcome Measure(s)
Patient decisions regarding MET. Outcomes for patients who pursued MET were compared with those for patients who pursued additional in vitro fertilization or intrauterine insemination cycles. Decisions regarding prenatal testing after MET were assessed.
Initially, 29.6% of patients pursued MET and 41.8% attempted a new treatment cycle. Only 6.1% of patients discarded their mosaic embryos without further treatment. Of the remaining patients, 2.0% transported their mosaic embryos to a different facility and 20.5% had not taken further action while their embryos remain stored. Patients who pursued additional cycles were more likely to have an ongoing pregnancy compared with those who pursued MET (51.2% vs. 27.6%; P<.05); however, there was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients who had at least one biochemical pregnancy or spontaneous abortion. Ultimately, 32.7% of patients underwent MET, and 54.5% of pregnant patients pursued amniocentesis.
MET is desired by a substantial proportion of patients who do not have euploid embryos. Patients who opt for additional treatment cycles have a greater chance of achieving an ongoing pregnancy compared with those who pursue MET; however, future studies are needed to compare the cost-effectiveness for both options.