Mind-blowing article on transferring of PGS-abnormal embryos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is total garbage and PGS has helped many of us have a healthy baby. The error rate in PGS is directly related to the skill of the embryologist doing the biopsy so I encourage everyone to speak to their RE about this information before assuming you discarded good embryos.

I agree that there is a higher chance for succes with a tested embryo, but to write this off as "garbage" is simply unfair. There is research to show that you can have success with technically "abnormal" embryos. Also, some women have no choice but to do a fresh transfer before embryos reach day five because some women simply can't produce embryos that make it that far. They are not afforded the option to test or not.

We have worked with both New Hope in the past and most recently worked with Dr. Braverman. DW transferred two embryos frozen on day 1 (she has trouble getting anything to blast). She's now 25 weeks with a healthy boy. Had we stuck with SG, who all but insisted we test, we wouldn't be here now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is truly horrifying to think that so many of us could have been discarding embryos that might potentially have become healthy children. I've had 19 test abnormal over the past two years (I am in my 40s) - to think we could have tried with them, and perhaps succeeded with one, is heartbreaking. The downside of cutting-edge technology for sure. But thanks for sharing this article, OP. I am just about to start our final cycle and maybe I'll just tell them to go ahead and implant whatever we get without testing this time.

The problem is they don't know which ones will self correct and which ones will not. About the PGS normals we know that they don't need to self-correct for non-mosaic things.
So unless you're willing to stand a chance of carrying a baby with a severe genetic abnormality, your best bet is still a PGS normal. I have had over a dozen discarded after PGS, and a miscarriage of an abnormal untested embryo and zero kids, so I do feel your pain for the discarded possibilities, but in the end, until the science advances further it's just too risky to transfer PGS abnormals.

How is it risky? NIPT results will tell at 10 weeks if the pregnancy is viable and that is plenty of time for additional testing and termination. It may be more heart-wrenching than not transferring at all, but the potential rewards are infinitely higher than not transferring. For people who cannot get a PGS normal, this is amazing information.

This is so wrong. To have to terminate later is MORE heart wrenching than not to transfer. You must be out of your mind to think that. What is the percentage of the "potential rewards"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also learned that not all Fertility clinics will let you implant abnormal embryos. SGF for instance.

You mean "transfer"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also learned that not all Fertility clinics will let you implant abnormal embryos. SGF for instance.

You mean "transfer"?

As of earlier this year, CCRM did not allow transfer of non-normals either. I wonder if they will stick with that rule in light of these findings...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is truly horrifying to think that so many of us could have been discarding embryos that might potentially have become healthy children. I've had 19 test abnormal over the past two years (I am in my 40s) - to think we could have tried with them, and perhaps succeeded with one, is heartbreaking. The downside of cutting-edge technology for sure. But thanks for sharing this article, OP. I am just about to start our final cycle and maybe I'll just tell them to go ahead and implant whatever we get without testing this time.

The problem is they don't know which ones will self correct and which ones will not. About the PGS normals we know that they don't need to self-correct for non-mosaic things.
So unless you're willing to stand a chance of carrying a baby with a severe genetic abnormality, your best bet is still a PGS normal. I have had over a dozen discarded after PGS, and a miscarriage of an abnormal untested embryo and zero kids, so I do feel your pain for the discarded possibilities, but in the end, until the science advances further it's just too risky to transfer PGS abnormals.

How is it risky? NIPT results will tell at 10 weeks if the pregnancy is viable and that is plenty of time for additional testing and termination. It may be more heart-wrenching than not transferring at all, but the potential rewards are infinitely higher than not transferring. For people who cannot get a PGS normal, this is amazing information.

This is so wrong. To have to terminate later is MORE heart wrenching than not to transfer. You must be out of your mind to think that. What is the percentage of the "potential rewards"?

+1. Yeah, look, I totally see how this could impact the decision to discard embryos that *might* self-correct (and to be clear, some of these are mosaics), and create a new push for 3 day transfers, etc. And that some women who cycled hoping to bank normals without a single "normal" could be feeling incredibly discouraged. In many of those cases, when you only get a few eggs from retrieval, particularly from women over 40, the clinic will forego PGS regardless and advise to roll the dice. But let's not kid ourselves about the efficacy of PGS. I had 7 miscarriages and a second-trimester TFMR. There was no way in hell I was transferring anything into my uterus without PGS testing. After living through the trauma of a second trimester termination, my biggest fear in pregnancy was experiencing another one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is truly horrifying to think that so many of us could have been discarding embryos that might potentially have become healthy children. I've had 19 test abnormal over the past two years (I am in my 40s) - to think we could have tried with them, and perhaps succeeded with one, is heartbreaking. The downside of cutting-edge technology for sure. But thanks for sharing this article, OP. I am just about to start our final cycle and maybe I'll just tell them to go ahead and implant whatever we get without testing this time.

The problem is they don't know which ones will self correct and which ones will not. About the PGS normals we know that they don't need to self-correct for non-mosaic things.
So unless you're willing to stand a chance of carrying a baby with a severe genetic abnormality, your best bet is still a PGS normal. I have had over a dozen discarded after PGS, and a miscarriage of an abnormal untested embryo and zero kids, so I do feel your pain for the discarded possibilities, but in the end, until the science advances further it's just too risky to transfer PGS abnormals.

How is it risky? NIPT results will tell at 10 weeks if the pregnancy is viable and that is plenty of time for additional testing and termination. It may be more heart-wrenching than not transferring at all, but the potential rewards are infinitely higher than not transferring. For people who cannot get a PGS normal, this is amazing information.

This is so wrong. To have to terminate later is MORE heart wrenching than not to transfer. You must be out of your mind to think that. What is the percentage of the "potential rewards"?

Did you read the article??? ALL of the women who became pregnant with the "abnormal" embryos carried healthy babies to term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1. Yeah, look, I totally see how this could impact the decision to discard embryos that *might* self-correct (and to be clear, some of these are mosaics), and create a new push for 3 day transfers, etc. And that some women who cycled hoping to bank normals without a single "normal" could be feeling incredibly discouraged. In many of those cases, when you only get a few eggs from retrieval, particularly from women over 40, the clinic will forego PGS regardless and advise to roll the dice. But let's not kid ourselves about the efficacy of PGS. I had 7 miscarriages and a second-trimester TFMR. There was no way in hell I was transferring anything into my uterus without PGS testing. After living through the trauma of a second trimester termination, my biggest fear in pregnancy was experiencing another one.

So, my response to this is that I miscarried a PGS normal embryo, and there was no explanation for why. PGS testing doesn't guarantee success either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not new information. If has been out for awhile and most fertility places know about it. Still, they believe your best shot is with a pgs tested "normal" embryo. This information has actually been out for a couple of years.

When we first were presented with IVF options, I was given statistics by my doctor on how PGS would improve the chances of success.and when I tentatively asked about mosiacism based on a google search about PGS, it was basically scoffed at as a quack pot theory. This information about the success of transferring abnormal embryos may have been out in medical journals, but it was not presented to me by my RE. The fact that the American Society for Reproductive Medicine is likely to issue a statement stepping back from recommending PGS testing, to me, indicates that REs should not be pitching PGS testing as your best chance for a healthy baby, without at least providing the alternative evidence.

[Anonymous]

This is extremely aggravating as I always got 4 or more 5 day embryos but SGFC would only freeze 1 or 2 that met their freeze/ biopsy criteria. If I had not done PGS, I believe I would have had a greater pool of embryos that they would the would have transferred fresh. My trust in PGS has been rattled anyway as I miscarried one of the few PGS normal at 8 weeks. Products of conception testing also came back normal.

[Anonymous]

what i find interesting about the article was that THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE CASE of PGD abnormal embryo that 1) implanted 2) led to miscarriage or abnormal child. the sample sizes were small, sure, but this is still totally amazing.

i am thinking that perhaps those abnormal PGS embryos which are able to self-correct might be stronger than normal embryos.

[Anonymous]

This is fascinating. We did not do PGS on my 7 year old but she was a 6 day barely morula (super slow growing) that was looked absolutely terrible under the microsope and SG would have 100% discarded in any other cycle.

I had a previous cycle in which SG deemed a pretty large quantity of blasts as not good enough to freeze. I wonder what would have happened to them if we kept them.

[Anonymous]

I have heard that it is only mosaic embryos that have the potential to self-correct and not complex abnormals. Is this right? Do PGS test results even tell you when something is a mosaic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have heard that it is only mosaic embryos that have the potential to self-correct and not complex abnormals. Is this right? Do PGS test results even tell you when something is a mosaic?

At GW, the only thing I was told was that they were abnormal- no details. Unsure what info I could have received if I asked.

[Anonymous]

I have the same question as PP (19:34). My SG doctor acted like this only applied to mosaics (which none of my PGS-tested abnormals were), but I got the impression from several articles that they weren't just talking about mosaics. (I'm too lazy to go look them back up now...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have heard that it is only mosaic embryos that have the potential to self-correct and not complex abnormals. Is this right? Do PGS test results even tell you when something is a mosaic?

the Anti PGS doctors in the article argue that PGS is ultimately doomed because it takes the cells from what will become a placenta (of course if it took cells from the core it would damage it). So no it's not just mosaics.