A continuation from my previous post, this discusses the pros and cons of CGH microarray. If there is anything I have missed out, please bring it up here.
2 kinds of embryo biopsies:
First a little background, and its going to get technical. You can biopsy a developing embryo at 2 points- around day 3, where you pull out a single blastomere, and on day 5-6, after the blastocyst has begun hatching- here you can get out multiple cells. The latter is called a trophectoderm biopsy.
A blastomere biopsy on day 3 is more harmful to the embryo, because "removal of one or two cells from a six- to eight-cell embryo on day 3 depletes the embryonic mass by 12.5%–25% or more, risking the inadvertent removal of critical cells from the embryo, especially if attempting to improve diagnostic certainty by taking more than one cell for testing." Also, with a single cell biopsy on day 3, you have a significant chance on missing out on mosaicism, a condition where chromosomal errors can be introduced during cell division after fertilization, at any point. The earlier the mosaicism is introduced, obviously, the greater impact it would have.
A trophectoderm biopsy on day 6 appears to have 2 advantages over a blastomere biopsy on day 3-- a) it is potentially less damaging to the embryo (you remove a much lower percentage of the total number of cells, and one lab, who had done this a gazillion times and were now expert at this, clearly, reported that "after allowing for blastocele reconstitution" the majority of their embryos survived their freeze-thaw) and b) It has a much higher chance (but is not a 100% reliable obviously), of catching out on mosaicism.
Ok- those technicalities being explained, my RE wisely chose a trophectoderm biopsy, so lets move on to the pros and cons of that, with CGH micrroarray thrown in.
Cons
Damage to the embryo during biopsy: The more the lack of experience of the tech doing this, the higher the possibility of damage, or so i think--correct me if I'm wrong, it does not seem like a simple procedure, no idea what the learning curve is like. Additionally, there are different options of herniating the zona pellucida(?) prior to biopsy, and some may be safer than others, it depends on available technology.
Obviously, as stated above a trophoectoderm biopsy is better than a blastomere biopsy, because you take less from the embryo. But the risk remains that you can damage the embryo, worst case, none of your chromosomal normals might survive the thaw. Or they might be able to survive, but might have a lower chance of implanting. My mother had a unique worry: that there would be flawed development of the baby due to embryo biopsy. Nothing I've read shows any indication of abnormalities in any children resulting from biopsy (there have been 700 children born from blastomere biopsy worldwide in 2005, apparently). There are plenty of logical reasons to think it decreases your chances of having viable embryos in itself, and based on the hardiness of the embryo and the skill/experience of the tech doing this delicate procedure, may even result in your IVF cycle producing zero clinical pregnancies. That, I think is the worst case scenario, and its one I've considered.I think my final decision will be made after considering the experience my clinic has had with this procedure. If I'm one the first people they try it with, I'll be aware before I decide, one way or the other.
It does not eliminate the possibility of mosaicism: Obviously, a trophectoderm biopsy is your best chance of detecting this, while it is not foolproof. Again, it comes down to the luck of the draw and about overall risk reduction of pregnancy loss. My goal is to eliminate as many aneuploids as possible. I know that I may not be able to get them all.
Limitations of the technique itself: My RE bought this one up- its a new-ish procedure, with limitations. In the very best hands with the very best luck, its limits of detection are possibly microdeletions/microinsertions. Still room for things to go wrong. But right now, I'm considering it only for its core ability- the ability to detect gross aneuploidy. Good enough for me.
Practical issues: I'm doing this in India, where CGH microarray is not offered as a procedure (I hope some enterprising individual comes across this and decides to start this as a business venture, sometime soon, though its not going to happen for me). So we are doing it in a clinic where this is not usually done (and I am deeply and utterly grateful for their willingness to take this on), then will be attempting to ship DNA across continents (So much can go wrong there), then I have to find a lab willing to do this, who accepts extracted, amplified DNA from another country as raw material for this procedure (anybody who has had this done, can you tell me the name of your lab?) CCRM girls, this is done in house (right?)
Right now, I just know of 24suretest (in England) and CCRM.
Pros:
It would definitely improve the chances of success. One study reported that after taking into account aneuploidy and mosaicism, over 50 % of the generated embryos of 'young women' were chromosomally abnormal. Clearly, age does not protect you fully. And I'm young (in that I appear to have plenty of eggs left, with excellent FSH, AMH, estradiol and AFC--similar to that of any egg donor), and I make eggs capable of fertilization and implantation, and 2 out of my 3 eggs may have been chromosomally abnormal.
If 40 % of the embryos generated through IVF are aneuploid (and embryo grade is not much of an indicator of whether am embryo is euploid or not!) then I would need some serious luck to avoid having a surrogate go through loss. Both my RE and my mother were of the thought process that, if my surrogate went through one loss, or more, it would be something easily borne, because it is not me going through the pregnancy. I think everybody was startled when I burst into tears at the very thought of my surrogate losing the pregnancy--and the 20 week amnio time point was under discussion here. I think women who have lost babies will completely understand my horrified reaction, while others would think--- its not your body, so what is the matter? To that, I'm going to say, its still your child. So you will be devastated each and every time it happens, especially if you get to the point of 20 weeks, where your hopes have really been built up. For people having gone through the process of using a surrogate, if you could address how you felt at the thought of anything happening to the surrogate pregnancy in the comments section, that would be very useful.
It would potentially decrease time required for success: Lets start with the assumption that around 40% of my embryos will be aneuploid. I line up one surrogate. Transfer one embryo (I refuse to do multiple embryo transfers to one surrogate). If its aneuploid, best case, we lose around 3 months.Worst case, its something that we don't detect for 20 weeks (again, bloody scary prospect for the mother, while the general audience thinks this is not a big deal). Then, we repeat the process again. If we get unlucky, it would really be a while before we hit on a winning combination. I want to stay in India around 3-4 years maximally. I also want any children I have to spend atleast the first formative 2 years of their lives around my family---which means, for my 2 plans to mesh, this has to work quickly. While IVF with PGS does not guarantee this---I could totally lose a chromosomally normal embryo, at 5 months, for multiple reasons, it reduces the overall risk of pregnancy loss.
A valuable learning experience: If we embark on this road, everybody involved could learn a lot, even if no pregnancy results from this IVF cycle. I could learn more about the nature of my embryos. The person doing this should get valuable laboratory experience at this technique. If this entire IVF fails, the only commodity that would be definitively lost is money and time. The time would smart, but the money? We spend money on so many things, so many of them relatively inconsequential that I'm not going to feel bad about spending money on this, even if it fails utterly. My mom wants to get me a diamond set worth around a million rupees for the wedding. The possibility of a baby is definitely something priceless, and this venture may set us back around 1/5th of that price, so I'm not going to quibble about it.
This is a post utterly open to lively comment and debate. I hope there is some of that, and more importantly feedback on available facilities (in the US, or anywhere else) that do this routinely and are willing to accept samples and my $$$. I know a lot of people, from everywhere, read this blog. I hope that will come in useful here!
2 kinds of embryo biopsies:
First a little background, and its going to get technical. You can biopsy a developing embryo at 2 points- around day 3, where you pull out a single blastomere, and on day 5-6, after the blastocyst has begun hatching- here you can get out multiple cells. The latter is called a trophectoderm biopsy.
A blastomere biopsy on day 3 is more harmful to the embryo, because "removal of one or two cells from a six- to eight-cell embryo on day 3 depletes the embryonic mass by 12.5%–25% or more, risking the inadvertent removal of critical cells from the embryo, especially if attempting to improve diagnostic certainty by taking more than one cell for testing." Also, with a single cell biopsy on day 3, you have a significant chance on missing out on mosaicism, a condition where chromosomal errors can be introduced during cell division after fertilization, at any point. The earlier the mosaicism is introduced, obviously, the greater impact it would have.
A trophectoderm biopsy on day 6 appears to have 2 advantages over a blastomere biopsy on day 3-- a) it is potentially less damaging to the embryo (you remove a much lower percentage of the total number of cells, and one lab, who had done this a gazillion times and were now expert at this, clearly, reported that "after allowing for blastocele reconstitution" the majority of their embryos survived their freeze-thaw) and b) It has a much higher chance (but is not a 100% reliable obviously), of catching out on mosaicism.
Ok- those technicalities being explained, my RE wisely chose a trophectoderm biopsy, so lets move on to the pros and cons of that, with CGH micrroarray thrown in.
Cons
Damage to the embryo during biopsy: The more the lack of experience of the tech doing this, the higher the possibility of damage, or so i think--correct me if I'm wrong, it does not seem like a simple procedure, no idea what the learning curve is like. Additionally, there are different options of herniating the zona pellucida(?) prior to biopsy, and some may be safer than others, it depends on available technology.
Obviously, as stated above a trophoectoderm biopsy is better than a blastomere biopsy, because you take less from the embryo. But the risk remains that you can damage the embryo, worst case, none of your chromosomal normals might survive the thaw. Or they might be able to survive, but might have a lower chance of implanting. My mother had a unique worry: that there would be flawed development of the baby due to embryo biopsy. Nothing I've read shows any indication of abnormalities in any children resulting from biopsy (there have been 700 children born from blastomere biopsy worldwide in 2005, apparently). There are plenty of logical reasons to think it decreases your chances of having viable embryos in itself, and based on the hardiness of the embryo and the skill/experience of the tech doing this delicate procedure, may even result in your IVF cycle producing zero clinical pregnancies. That, I think is the worst case scenario, and its one I've considered.I think my final decision will be made after considering the experience my clinic has had with this procedure. If I'm one the first people they try it with, I'll be aware before I decide, one way or the other.
It does not eliminate the possibility of mosaicism: Obviously, a trophectoderm biopsy is your best chance of detecting this, while it is not foolproof. Again, it comes down to the luck of the draw and about overall risk reduction of pregnancy loss. My goal is to eliminate as many aneuploids as possible. I know that I may not be able to get them all.
Limitations of the technique itself: My RE bought this one up- its a new-ish procedure, with limitations. In the very best hands with the very best luck, its limits of detection are possibly microdeletions/microinsertions. Still room for things to go wrong. But right now, I'm considering it only for its core ability- the ability to detect gross aneuploidy. Good enough for me.
Practical issues: I'm doing this in India, where CGH microarray is not offered as a procedure (I hope some enterprising individual comes across this and decides to start this as a business venture, sometime soon, though its not going to happen for me). So we are doing it in a clinic where this is not usually done (and I am deeply and utterly grateful for their willingness to take this on), then will be attempting to ship DNA across continents (So much can go wrong there), then I have to find a lab willing to do this, who accepts extracted, amplified DNA from another country as raw material for this procedure (anybody who has had this done, can you tell me the name of your lab?) CCRM girls, this is done in house (right?)
Right now, I just know of 24suretest (in England) and CCRM.
Pros:
It would definitely improve the chances of success. One study reported that after taking into account aneuploidy and mosaicism, over 50 % of the generated embryos of 'young women' were chromosomally abnormal. Clearly, age does not protect you fully. And I'm young (in that I appear to have plenty of eggs left, with excellent FSH, AMH, estradiol and AFC--similar to that of any egg donor), and I make eggs capable of fertilization and implantation, and 2 out of my 3 eggs may have been chromosomally abnormal.
If 40 % of the embryos generated through IVF are aneuploid (and embryo grade is not much of an indicator of whether am embryo is euploid or not!) then I would need some serious luck to avoid having a surrogate go through loss. Both my RE and my mother were of the thought process that, if my surrogate went through one loss, or more, it would be something easily borne, because it is not me going through the pregnancy. I think everybody was startled when I burst into tears at the very thought of my surrogate losing the pregnancy--and the 20 week amnio time point was under discussion here. I think women who have lost babies will completely understand my horrified reaction, while others would think--- its not your body, so what is the matter? To that, I'm going to say, its still your child. So you will be devastated each and every time it happens, especially if you get to the point of 20 weeks, where your hopes have really been built up. For people having gone through the process of using a surrogate, if you could address how you felt at the thought of anything happening to the surrogate pregnancy in the comments section, that would be very useful.
It would potentially decrease time required for success: Lets start with the assumption that around 40% of my embryos will be aneuploid. I line up one surrogate. Transfer one embryo (I refuse to do multiple embryo transfers to one surrogate). If its aneuploid, best case, we lose around 3 months.Worst case, its something that we don't detect for 20 weeks (again, bloody scary prospect for the mother, while the general audience thinks this is not a big deal). Then, we repeat the process again. If we get unlucky, it would really be a while before we hit on a winning combination. I want to stay in India around 3-4 years maximally. I also want any children I have to spend atleast the first formative 2 years of their lives around my family---which means, for my 2 plans to mesh, this has to work quickly. While IVF with PGS does not guarantee this---I could totally lose a chromosomally normal embryo, at 5 months, for multiple reasons, it reduces the overall risk of pregnancy loss.
A valuable learning experience: If we embark on this road, everybody involved could learn a lot, even if no pregnancy results from this IVF cycle. I could learn more about the nature of my embryos. The person doing this should get valuable laboratory experience at this technique. If this entire IVF fails, the only commodity that would be definitively lost is money and time. The time would smart, but the money? We spend money on so many things, so many of them relatively inconsequential that I'm not going to feel bad about spending money on this, even if it fails utterly. My mom wants to get me a diamond set worth around a million rupees for the wedding. The possibility of a baby is definitely something priceless, and this venture may set us back around 1/5th of that price, so I'm not going to quibble about it.
This is a post utterly open to lively comment and debate. I hope there is some of that, and more importantly feedback on available facilities (in the US, or anywhere else) that do this routinely and are willing to accept samples and my $$$. I know a lot of people, from everywhere, read this blog. I hope that will come in useful here!