This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), array CGH, and SNP microarrays may offer greater accuracy3, 11-13


.


Informatics-based SNP microarray methods are also able to determine uniparental disomy, the parental origin of aneuploidy (maternal or paternal) and the stage of early cell division the genetic error occurred3, 13


REFERENCES:


1. Handyside AH, Lesko JG, Tarin JJ, Winston RM, Hughes MR. Birth of a normal girl after in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnostic testing for cystic fibrosis. New England Journal of Medicine. 1992; 327:905-9.


2. Kalfoglou AL, Joan Scott J, Kathy Hudson K. PGD patients’ and providers’ attitudes to the use and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Repro BioMed Online 2005; 11: 486-496.


.


Over the last 20 years, the scope of embryo screening using pre-implantation genetic diagnostic technologies has expanded to include the detection of a wide range of disease-linked genes, as well as aneuploidy for all chromosomes. The success of PGD is clearly documented allowing couples known to be at risk for having children with a heritable and debilitating genetic disease the ability to achieve pregancies and deliveries of healthy unaffected children. For couples that harbor a balanced chromosomal translocation, PGD appears to decrease the risk of spontaneous abortion and to increase the chance of achieving a live birth14


.


Unfortunately available evidence does not support the use of PGS to improve live-birth rates for patients with advanced maternal age, recurrent pregnancy loss, or implantation failure using the most widely applied technology of FISH. The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) recommends that patients be counseled about the limitations of the PGS technique, its inability to change outcomes and future treatment decisions based solely on PGS results should not be made15


. To date, there are no reports of


increased fetal malformation rates or other identifiable problems in babies born from IVF with PGD/PGS.16-17 With the incorporation of the newer pre-implantation genetic diagnostic technologies, almost any kind of genetic problem in embryos can be screened and more accurate determinations of aneuploidy can be made with the potential of improving live-birth rates and completely changing the manner in which clinicians and parents approach and manage genetic disease.


3. Demko ZP, Rabinowitz M, Johnson D. Current Methods for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. J Clin Emb 2010; 13: 11-22.


4. Masternbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, Vogel NEA, Arts EGJM, de Vries JWA, Bossuyt PM, Buys CHCM, Heineman MJ, Repping S, van der Veen F. In Vitro Fertilization with Preimplantation Genetic Screening. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:9-17


5. Liu J, Lissens W, Silber SJ, Devroey P, Liebaers I, Van Steirteghem A. Birth after preimplantation diagnosis of the cystic fibrosis delta F508 mutation by polymerase chain reaction in human embryos resulting from intracytoplasmic sperm injection with epididymal sperm. JAMA 1994; 272: 1858-60.


6. Piyamongkol W, Bermâudez MG, Harper JC, Wells D. Detailed investigation of factors influencing amplification efficiency and allele drop-out in single cell PCR: implications for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Molecular Human Reproduction. 2003; 9:411-20.


7. Piyamongkol W, Bermâudez MG, Harper JC, Wells D. Detailed investigation of factors influencing amplification efficiency and allele drop-out in single cell PCR: implications for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Molecular Human Reproduction. 2003; 9: 411-20.


8. Lewis CM, Pinel T, Whittaker JC, Handyside AH. Controlling misdiag- nosis errors in preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a comprehensive model encompassing extrinsic and intrinsic sources of error. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 : 43–50.


9. Rabinowitz M, Johnson DS, Salzman J, Banjevic M, Cinnioglu C, Behr B. Reliable concurrent calling of multiple genetic alleles and 24-chromosome ploidy without embryo freezing using Parental Support TM technology (PS). Fertil Steril 2008; 90(Suppl 1):S23.


10. Munné S, Lee A, Rosenwaks Z, Grifo J, Cohen J. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 1993; 8:2185 – 2191.


11. Wells D, Delhanty J. Evaluating comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) as a strategy for preimplantation diagnosis of unbalanced chromosome complements. Eur J Hum Genet. 1996; 4(Suppl 1):125.


12. Hu DG, Webb G, Hussey N. Aneuploidy detection in single cells using DNA array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod. 2004; 10:283 – 289.


13. Treff NR, Su J, Mavrianos J, Bergh PA, Miller KA, Scott RT. Accurate 23 chromosome aneuploidy screening in human blastomeres using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarrays. Fertility and Sterility. 2007;88:S1.


14. Munne S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Fung J, Gianaroli L, Cohen J. Outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis of translocations. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:1209–18.


15. The Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2008; 90:S136–43.


16. Liebaers I, Desmyttere S, Verpoest W, De Rycke M, Staessen C, Sermon K, Devroey P, Haentjens P, Bonduelle M. Report on a consecutive series of 581 children born after blastomere biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 275-282.


17. Simpson JL. Children born after preimplantation genetic diagnosis show no increase in congenital anomalies. Hum. Reprod 2010; 25: 6 - 8.


THE RESOURCES LISTED IN THIS DIRECTORY ARE UNSCREENED AND SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS RECOMMENDATIONS OR ENDORSEMENTS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BY THE AFA. 117


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168