P-564 Advanced paternal age is associated with higher rate of segmental chromosomal aberrations in preimplantation embryos
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Study question Is there a correlation between paternal age and the frequency of chromosomal aberrations in embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF)? Summary answer There is an association between paternal age and segmental aberration rates in embryos derived from young oocyte providers after adjusting for age,sperm,and IVF-cycle characteristics. What is known already Paternal reproductive aging(APA) is less understood than maternal reproductive aging(AMA). Embryo aneuploidy presents one of the most important determinants of transfer cycle success. The association of AMA with increased rate of aneuploidy is well established. The systematic review and meta-analysis published by our group did not identify an association of APA with aneuploidy, based on ∼10,000 pooled embryos, however, the power to detect subchromosomal aberrations was limited by the sensitivity of the PGT-A platform used by each center. Our aim was to study the impact of APA on chromosomal aberrations in a large sample size analyzed by high resolution PGT-A. Study design, size, duration This was a retrospective cohort study performed at the CReATe Fertility Centre Genetics Laboratory, Toronto, Canada, between January 2019-December 2021. A total of 17731 blastocysts from 3506 cycles (2502 patients) were analyzed using high resolution NGS PGT-A (10Mb resolution; 30%-70% reported as mosaicism). Clinical, laboratory and demographic data were obtained for statistical analysis. Participants/materials, setting, methods Embryos were allocated into two groups by oocyte-provider age: ≤33years and ≥34years. Each group was divided into four sub-groups by paternal age: Group A 20-29(n = 484); GroupB 30-39(n = 9704); GroupC 40-49(n = 6341); GroupD≥50(n = 1202). Multiple logistic/ordinal regressions were conducted to evaluate euploidy, mosaicism and aneuploidy rates between age groups, as appropriate. Each was further sub-analyzed by type of abnormality A-single-whole-chromosome, S-segmental, C-complex (≥2 full-chr-aberrations). Segmental aberrations were divided into subgroups of S + (segmental gain), S-(segmental loss) and CS(complex segmental). Main results and the role of chance High resolution NGS PGT-A analysis of 17731 embryos showed 54.9% were euploid, 31.5% were aneuploid and 13.6% mosaic. In the oocyte provider’s age of ≤ 33 group, significant differences between paternal age group A vs. B, C and D were found in euploidy rates (68.8%, 62.5%, 61.7%, 59.0% respectively; p = 0.00559). There were no significant differences in aneuploidy rates (19.1%, 22.7%, 22.5%, 24.6% respectively; p = 0.07184) or mosaicism rates (12.1%, 14.8%, 15.8%, 16.3%; respectively, p = 0.23754). In the oocyte provider’s age of ≥ 34 group, decreasing euploidy rates and increasing aneuploidy rates were observed between all paternal age groups (p = 0.00001 and p < 0.00001,respectively), and no significant differences in mosaicism rates (14%, 12%, 10.2%, 11.6% respectively) reflecting the maternal age effect on euploidy/aneuploidy. In the oocyte provider’s age of ≤ 33 group, paternal group A (2.3%) had significantly lower segmental (S) rates compared to groups B (4.3%, p = 0.027599), C (3.3%, p = 0.039924) and D (4.6%, p = 0.018478). In addition, segmental losses (S-) were lower in group A (1.3%) compared to groups B (3.4%, p = 0.020431), C (3.1%, p = 0.043166) and D (3.7%, p = 0.016385). Limitations, reasons for caution The main limitation was the retrospective nature of this study; however, multiple regression analyses were conducted to limit potential bias by adjusting for sperm and oocyte characteristics. In addition, PGT-A analysis cannot provide information on origin of the aneuploidy and all conclusions are deduced from indirect associations to paternal age. Wider implications of the findings The results of this study provide important information to assist fertility practitioners when providing pre-conception counseling to patients, particularly for couples in which the male partner belongs to an older age group. Trial registration number na
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».