ICSI and conventional IVF, which one should be prefered for cases of pre-implantation genetic testing?
Nội dung chính của bài viết
Tóm tắt
Ever since its implementation in 1992, the intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) technique has been hailed as a game-changer for enhancing the outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment in cases of infertility due to male factors. However, ICSI was later widely applied to cases of infertility not due to male factors without evidence proving its effectiveness. According to the 2022 report of the European IVF Monitoring Council (EIM), the rate of fertilization cases using ICSI method accounts for 70% of IVF cases in European countries, meanwhile the conventional IVF method accounts for only 30% and this rate has remained stable from 2006 until recently. The question is whether cases of infertility not due to male factors that are indicated for pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) should be fertilized and create embryos using ICSI or conventional IVF to minimize invasiveness and reduce costs while still ensuring the accuracy of the test results.
Chi tiết bài viết
Từ khóa
Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), conventional in vitro fertilization (conventional IVF, conventional IVF), pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT), trophectoderm biopsy, genetic contamination
Tài liệu tham khảo
1. European IVF Monitoring Consortium (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Wyns C, et al. ART in Europe, 2018: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022(3):hoac022. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoac022. PMID: 35795850; PMCID: PMC9252765.
2. Agarwal A, Mulgund A, Hamada A, et al. A unique view on male infertility around the globe. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015 Apr 26;13:37. doi: 10.1186/s12958-015-0032-1. PMID: 25928197; PMCID: PMC4424520.
3. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. More than 8 million babies born from IVF since the world’s first in 1978. 2018. Available online: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703084127.htm.
4. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, et al. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340(8810):17-8. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92425-f. PMID: 1351601.
5. Boulet SL, Mehta A, Kissin DM, et al. Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. JAMA. 2015;313(3):255-63. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17985. PMID: 25602996; PMCID: PMC4343214.
6. Zheng D, Nguyen QN, Li R, et al. Is Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection the Solution for all in Unexplained Infertility? Semin Reprod Med. 2020;38(1):36-47. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1719085. Epub 2020 Nov 5. PMID: 33152769.
7. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Fertility: Assessment and Treatment for People with Fertility Problems. 2nd edition. 2013. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156/evidence/full-guideline-pdf-188539453.
8. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor indications: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(2):239-245. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.05.032. Epub 2020 Jul 9. PMID: 32654822.
9. Sciorio R, Esteves SC. Contemporary Use of ICSI and Epigenetic Risks to Future Generations. J Clin Med. 2022;11(8):2135. doi: 10.3390/jcm11082135. PMID: 35456226; PMCID: PMC9031244.
10. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG-Embryology Biopsy Working Group, Georgia Kokkali, Giovanni Coticchio, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG Embryology good practice recommendations for polar body and embryo biopsy for PGT. Human Reproduction Open. 2020;2020(3):hoaa020. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa020.
11. AR Thornhill, CE deDie-Smulders, JP Geraedts, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium ‘Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)’. Human Reproduction. 2005;20(1):35-48. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh579.
12. Palmerola KL, Vitez SF, Amrane S, et al. Minimizing mosaicism: assessing the impact of fertilization method on rate of mosaicism after next-generation sequencing (NGS) preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:153-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1347-6.
13. Lynch C, Armstrong E, Charitou M, et al. Investigation of the risk of paternal cell contamination in PGT and the necessity of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2022;1-6. doi: 10.1080/14647273.2022.2026498.
14. Ward W S. Function of sperm chromatin structural elements in fertilization and development. Molecular Human Reproduction. 2010;16(1):30-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gap080.
15. Patassini C, Garolla A, Bottacin A, et al. Molecular karyotyping of human single sperm by array- comparative genomic hybridization. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60922. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060922. Epub 2013 Apr 2. PMID: 23565289; PMCID: PMC3614952.
16. Tran Q T, Jatsenko T, Poolamets O, et al. Chromosomal scan of single sperm cells by combining fluorescence-activated cell sorting and next-generation sequencing. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2019;36(1):91-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-0181340-0.
17. Saei P, Bazrgar M, Gourabi H, et al. Frequency of sperm aneuploidy in oligoasthenoteratozoospermic (OAT) patients by comprehensive chromosome screening: A proof of concept. Journal of Reproductive Infertility. 2021;22(1):57-64. https://doi.org/10.18502/jri.v22i1.4996.
18. De Munck N, El Khatib I, Abdala A, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not superior to conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Hum Reprod. 2020;35(2):317-327. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa002. PMID: 32086522.
19. Deng J, Kuyoro O, Zhao Q, et al. Comparison of aneuploidy rates between conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection split insemination cycles. F S Rep. 2020;1(3):277-281. doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2020.07.006. PMID: 34223256; PMCID: PMC8244346.
20. Patel K, Vaughan DA, Rodday AM, et al. Compared with conventional insemination, intracytoplasmic sperm injection provides no benefit in cases of nonmale factor infertility as evidenced by comparable euploidy rate. Fertil Steril. 2023;120(2):277-286. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.04.020. Epub 2023 Apr 20. PMID: 37085098.
21. Z Li, A Y Wang, M Bowman, et al. ICSI does not increase the cumulative live birth rate in non-male factor infertility. Human Reproduction. 2018;33(7):1322-1330. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey118.
22. Song J, Liao T, Fu K, et al. ICSI Does Not Improve Live Birth Rates but Yields Higher Cancellation Rates Than Conventional IVF in Unexplained Infertility. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;7:614118. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.614118. PMID: 33644085; PMCID: PMC7902793.
23. Dang VQ, Vuong LN, Luu TM, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation in couples with infertility in whom the male partner has normal total sperm count and motility: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10284):1554-1563. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00535-3. PMID: 33894833.
24. Aya Iwamoto, Bradley J Van Voorhis, Karen M. Summers, Amy Sparks, Abigail C. Mancuso. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection vs. conventional in vitro fertilization in patients with non-male factor infertility. Fertility and Sterility. 2022;118(3):465-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.06.009.
25. Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(19):1803-13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008095. Epub 2012 May 5. PMID: 22559061. .
26. Venetis C, Choi SKY, Jorm L, et al. Risk for Congenital Anomalies in Children Conceived With Medically Assisted Fertility Treatment: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. 2023;176(10):1308-1320. doi: 10.7326/M23-0872. Epub 2023 Oct 10. PMID: 37812776.
27. Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, et al. The risk of birth defects with conception by ART. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(1):116-129. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa272. PMID: 33251542; PMCID: PMC8679367.
28. Lie RT, Lyngstadaas A, Ørstavik KH, et al. Birth defects in children conceived by ICSI compared with children conceived by other IVF-methods: a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(3):696-701. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh363.
2. Agarwal A, Mulgund A, Hamada A, et al. A unique view on male infertility around the globe. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015 Apr 26;13:37. doi: 10.1186/s12958-015-0032-1. PMID: 25928197; PMCID: PMC4424520.
3. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. More than 8 million babies born from IVF since the world’s first in 1978. 2018. Available online: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703084127.htm.
4. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, et al. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340(8810):17-8. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92425-f. PMID: 1351601.
5. Boulet SL, Mehta A, Kissin DM, et al. Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. JAMA. 2015;313(3):255-63. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17985. PMID: 25602996; PMCID: PMC4343214.
6. Zheng D, Nguyen QN, Li R, et al. Is Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection the Solution for all in Unexplained Infertility? Semin Reprod Med. 2020;38(1):36-47. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1719085. Epub 2020 Nov 5. PMID: 33152769.
7. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Fertility: Assessment and Treatment for People with Fertility Problems. 2nd edition. 2013. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156/evidence/full-guideline-pdf-188539453.
8. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor indications: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(2):239-245. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.05.032. Epub 2020 Jul 9. PMID: 32654822.
9. Sciorio R, Esteves SC. Contemporary Use of ICSI and Epigenetic Risks to Future Generations. J Clin Med. 2022;11(8):2135. doi: 10.3390/jcm11082135. PMID: 35456226; PMCID: PMC9031244.
10. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG-Embryology Biopsy Working Group, Georgia Kokkali, Giovanni Coticchio, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG Embryology good practice recommendations for polar body and embryo biopsy for PGT. Human Reproduction Open. 2020;2020(3):hoaa020. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa020.
11. AR Thornhill, CE deDie-Smulders, JP Geraedts, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium ‘Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)’. Human Reproduction. 2005;20(1):35-48. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh579.
12. Palmerola KL, Vitez SF, Amrane S, et al. Minimizing mosaicism: assessing the impact of fertilization method on rate of mosaicism after next-generation sequencing (NGS) preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:153-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1347-6.
13. Lynch C, Armstrong E, Charitou M, et al. Investigation of the risk of paternal cell contamination in PGT and the necessity of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2022;1-6. doi: 10.1080/14647273.2022.2026498.
14. Ward W S. Function of sperm chromatin structural elements in fertilization and development. Molecular Human Reproduction. 2010;16(1):30-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gap080.
15. Patassini C, Garolla A, Bottacin A, et al. Molecular karyotyping of human single sperm by array- comparative genomic hybridization. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60922. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060922. Epub 2013 Apr 2. PMID: 23565289; PMCID: PMC3614952.
16. Tran Q T, Jatsenko T, Poolamets O, et al. Chromosomal scan of single sperm cells by combining fluorescence-activated cell sorting and next-generation sequencing. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2019;36(1):91-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-0181340-0.
17. Saei P, Bazrgar M, Gourabi H, et al. Frequency of sperm aneuploidy in oligoasthenoteratozoospermic (OAT) patients by comprehensive chromosome screening: A proof of concept. Journal of Reproductive Infertility. 2021;22(1):57-64. https://doi.org/10.18502/jri.v22i1.4996.
18. De Munck N, El Khatib I, Abdala A, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not superior to conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Hum Reprod. 2020;35(2):317-327. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa002. PMID: 32086522.
19. Deng J, Kuyoro O, Zhao Q, et al. Comparison of aneuploidy rates between conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection split insemination cycles. F S Rep. 2020;1(3):277-281. doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2020.07.006. PMID: 34223256; PMCID: PMC8244346.
20. Patel K, Vaughan DA, Rodday AM, et al. Compared with conventional insemination, intracytoplasmic sperm injection provides no benefit in cases of nonmale factor infertility as evidenced by comparable euploidy rate. Fertil Steril. 2023;120(2):277-286. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.04.020. Epub 2023 Apr 20. PMID: 37085098.
21. Z Li, A Y Wang, M Bowman, et al. ICSI does not increase the cumulative live birth rate in non-male factor infertility. Human Reproduction. 2018;33(7):1322-1330. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey118.
22. Song J, Liao T, Fu K, et al. ICSI Does Not Improve Live Birth Rates but Yields Higher Cancellation Rates Than Conventional IVF in Unexplained Infertility. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;7:614118. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.614118. PMID: 33644085; PMCID: PMC7902793.
23. Dang VQ, Vuong LN, Luu TM, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation in couples with infertility in whom the male partner has normal total sperm count and motility: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10284):1554-1563. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00535-3. PMID: 33894833.
24. Aya Iwamoto, Bradley J Van Voorhis, Karen M. Summers, Amy Sparks, Abigail C. Mancuso. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection vs. conventional in vitro fertilization in patients with non-male factor infertility. Fertility and Sterility. 2022;118(3):465-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.06.009.
25. Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(19):1803-13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008095. Epub 2012 May 5. PMID: 22559061. .
26. Venetis C, Choi SKY, Jorm L, et al. Risk for Congenital Anomalies in Children Conceived With Medically Assisted Fertility Treatment: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. 2023;176(10):1308-1320. doi: 10.7326/M23-0872. Epub 2023 Oct 10. PMID: 37812776.
27. Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, et al. The risk of birth defects with conception by ART. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(1):116-129. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa272. PMID: 33251542; PMCID: PMC8679367.
28. Lie RT, Lyngstadaas A, Ørstavik KH, et al. Birth defects in children conceived by ICSI compared with children conceived by other IVF-methods: a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(3):696-701. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh363.