Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future

Hum Reprod. 2014 Sep;29(9):1846-50. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu163. Epub 2014 Jul 8.

Abstract

All agree that in hindsight the rapid adoption of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) using cleavage stage biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in routine clinical practice without proper evaluation of (cost-)effectiveness basically resulted in couples paying more money for a less effective treatment. Now, almost 20 years later, we are on the verge of a new era of PGS. But have things really changed or are we simply going back to the future?

Keywords: IVF/ICSI; PGS; aneuploidy; efficacy; randomized controlled trials.

MeSH terms

  • Embryonic Development
  • Female
  • Humans
  • In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence
  • Pregnancy
  • Pregnancy Rate
  • Preimplantation Diagnosis / methods*
  • Preimplantation Diagnosis / standards
  • Preimplantation Diagnosis / trends
  • Reproductive Techniques, Assisted / standards
  • Reproductive Techniques, Assisted / trends