Ask Our Doctors – Archive
Our Medical Directors are outstanding physicians that you will find to be very personable and compassionate, who take care to ensure that you have the most cutting-edge fertility treatments at your disposal. This is your outlet to ask your questions to the doctors.
Hi Dr Sher
My history is a complicated one- I am 31 years old and have been TTC for 3.5 years. I got pregnant naturally twice but ended in an ectopic & a chemical miscarriage. We went for tests after this which showed my AMH was 4.0 and Fsh 15. I was recommended to go straight to IVF. We have had 3 cycles now where I get about 5/6 eggs and 3 blasts (usually graded Bs). I got pregnant 2 of these cycles but miscarriaged 5-6 weeks. The last cycle we did pgs testing and the embryos were normal.
How can I know if it’s my egg quality or whether it’s my body? I have had blood clothing and nk cells test and both were negative. I am desperate for answers.
Thank you
Dr Sher,
I like to ask a question but first I would like to thank you for the most interesting book “In vitro fertilization” which I and my husband have found very interesting and valuable to read.
We have recently get the result of an PGS test and after watching your blog about mosaic embryos we wandering about how we should understand the result which is as follows
45, sex chr. normal, -12
45, sex chr. normal, -16
45, sex chr. normal, -18
47, sex chr. normal, +16
46, sex chr. normal/47, sex chr. normal, +19
Thanks in advance for anything that can enlighten us
No matter what you are told, from a practical point of view it is currently unreliable to diagnose a mosaic embryo. However, what I can tell you is that based upon the fact that your blastocysts all have single chromosomal abberations, any/all could be mosaic and I would Not discard them.
Human embryo development occurs through a process that encompasses reprogramming, sequential cleavage divisions and mitotic chromosome segregation and embryonic genome activation. Chromosomal abnormalities may arise during germ cell and/or preimplantation embryo development, and represents a major cause of early pregnancy loss. About a decade ago, I and an associate, Levent Keskintepe PhD were the first to introduce full embryo karyotyping (identification of all 46 chromosomes) through preimplantation genetic sampling (PGS) as a method by which to selectively transfer only euploid embryos (i.e. those that have a full component of chromosomes) to the uterus. We subsequently reported on a 2-3 fold improvement in implantation and birth rates as well as a significant reduction in early pregnancy loss, following IVF. Since then PGS has grown dramatically in popularity such that it is now widely used throughout the world.
Most IVF programs that offer PGS services, require that all participating patients consent to all their aneuploid embryos (i.e. those with an irregular quota of chromosomes) be disposed of. However, there is now growing evidence to suggest that following embryo transfer, some aneuploid embryos will in the process of ongoing development, convert to the euploid state (i.e. “autocorrection”) and then go on to develop into chromosomally normal offspring. In fact, I am personally aware of several such cases occurring within our IVF network. So clearly , summarily discarding all aneuploid embryos as a matter of routine we are sometimes destroying some embryos that might otherwise have “autocorrected” and gone on to develop into normal offspring.
Thus by discarding aneuploid embryos the possibility exists that we could be denying some women the opportunity of having a baby. This creates a major ethical and moral dilemma for those of us that provide the option of PGS to our patients. On the one hand, we strive “to avoid knowingly doing harm” (the Hippocratic Oath) and as such would prefer to avoid or minimize the risk of miscarriage and/or chromosomal birth defects and on the other hand we would not wish to deny patients with aneuploid embryos, the opportunity to have a baby.
The basis for such embryo “autocorrection” lies in the fact that some embryos found through PGS-karyotyping to harbor one or more aneuploid cells (blastomeres) will often also harbor chromosomally normal (euploid) cells (blastomeres). The coexistence of both aneuploid and euploid cells coexisting in the same embryo is referred to as “mosaicism.” As stated, some mosaic embryos will In the process of subsequent cell replication convert to the normal euploid state (i.e. autocorrect)
It is against this background, that an ever increasing number of IVF practitioners, rather than summarily discard PGS-identified aneuploid embryos are now choosing to cryobanking (freeze-store) certain of them, to leave open the possibility of ultimately transferring them to the uterus. In order to best understand the complexity of the factors involved in such decision making, it is essential to understand the causes of embryo aneuploidy of which there are two varieties:
1.Meiotic aneuploidy” results from aberrations in chromosomal numerical configuration that originate in either the egg (most commonly) and/or in sperm, during preconceptual maturational division (meiosis). Since meiosis occurs in the pre-fertilized egg or in and sperm, it follows that when aneuploidy occurs due to defective meiosis, all subsequent cells in the developing embryo/blastocyst/conceptus inevitably will be aneuploid, precluding subsequent “autocorrection”. Meiotic aneuploidy will thus invariably be perpetuated in all the cells of the embryo as they replicate. It is a permanent phenomenon and is irreversible. All embryos so affected are thus fatally damaged. Most will fail to implant and those that do implant will either be lost in early pregnancy or develop into chromosomally defective offspring (e.g. Down syndrome, Edward syndrome, Turner syndrome).
2.“Mitotic aneuploidy” occurs when following fertilization and subsequent cell replication (cleavage), some cells (blastomeres) of a meiotically euploid early embryo mutate and become aneuploid. This is referred to as mosaicism. Thereupon, with continued subsequent cell replication (mitosis) the chromosomal make-up (karyotype) of the embryo might either comprise of predominantly aneuploid cells or euploid cells. The subsequent viability or competency of the conceptus will thereupon depend on whether euploid or aneuploid cells predominate. If in such mosaic embryos aneuploid cells predominate, the embryo will be “incompetent”). If (as is frequently the case) euploid cells prevail, the mosaic embryo will be “competent” and capable of propagating a normal conceptus.
Since some mitotically aneuploid (“mosaic”) embryos can, and indeed do “autocorrect’ while meiotically aneuploid embryos cannot, it follows that an ability to differentiate between these two varieties of aneuploidy would be of considerable clinical value. And would provide a strong argument in favor of preserving certain aneuploid embryos for future dispensation.
Aneuploidy, involves the addition (trisomy) or subtraction (monosomy) of one chromosome in a given pair. As previously stated, some aneuploidies are meiotic in origin while others are mitotic “mosaics”. Certain aneuploidies involve only a single, chromosome pair (simple aneuploidy) while others involve more than a single pair (i.e. complex aneuploidy). Aside from monosomy involving absence of the y-sex chromosome (i.e. XO) which can resulting in a live birth (Turner syndrome) all monosomies involving autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) are lethal and will not result in viable offspring). Some autosomal meiotic aneuploidies, especially trisomies 13, 18, 21, can progress to viable, but severely chromosomally defective babies. All other meiotic autosomal trisomies will almost invariably, either not attach to the uterine lining or upon attachment, will soon be rejected. All forms of meiotic aneuploidy are irreversible while mitotic aneuploidy (“mosaicism) often autocorrects in the uterus. Most complex aneuploidies are meiotic in origin and will almost invariably fail to propagate viable pregnancies.
There is presently no practical test that can reliable differentiate between meiotic and mitotic aneuploidy. Notwithstanding this, the fact that some “mosaic” embryos can autocorrect in the uterus, makes a strong argument in favor of transferring aneuploid of embryos in the hope that the one(s) transferred might be “mosaic” and might propagate viable healthy pregnancies. On the other hand, it is the fear that embryo aneuploidy might result in a chromosomally abnormal baby that has led many IVF physicians to strongly oppose the transfer of aneuploid embryos to the uterus.
Certain meiotic aneuploid trisomy embryos (e.g. trisomies 13, 18, & 21) can and sometimes do, result in aneuploid concepti. Thus, in my opinion, unless the woman/couple receiving such embryos is willing to commit to terminating a resulting pregnancy found through amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) to be so affected, she/they are probably best advised not to transfer such embryos. Other autosomal trisomy embryos will hardly ever produce viable euploid concepti and can thus, in my opinion be transferred in the hope that auto correction will occur in-utero. However, in all cases, and amniocentesis or CVS should be performed to make certain that the baby is euploid. Conversely, no autosomal monosomy embryos are believed to be capable of resulting in viable pregnancies, thereby making the transfer of autosomal monosomy embryos, in the hope that they are “mosaic”, a far less risky proposition. Needless to say, if such action is being contemplated in any such cases, it is absolutely essential to make full disclosure to the patient (s) , and to insure the completion of a detailed informed consent agreement which would include a commitment by the patient (s) to undergo prenatal genetic testing (amniocentesis/CVS) aimed at excluding a chromosomal defect in the developing baby and/or a willingness to terminate the pregnancy should a serious birth defect be diagnosed.
Hope this helps!
Geoff Sher
Hi Dr Sher
Reference to your article on “Taking The Birth Control Pill Prior to IVF: Does It Compromise Outcome?” After two failed IVFs attempts my wife and I started at a new clinic and they introduced us to the idea of taking BCP prior to COH. At first, I thought it was the clinics approach to “grouping patients” on the same cycle. After reading your article I was excited to learn that, providing there is overlap of BCP and GnRHa, taking BCP prior can be advantageous in women with low ovarian reserve (which is our case). We received our COH schedule and they want her to stop BCP three days prior (August 20) to the first dose of Lupron (August 23), so no overlap… You stated that the overlap is imperative which creates some concern. How can I approach our Doctor about this? Don’t want to come across as that guy telling someone how to do their job.
Respectfully, in my opinion, BCP should only be used if overlapped with an agonist (Lupron, Superfact, Buserelin, aminopeptidyl etc).
Here again is the article I wrote:
One often hears the expressed opinion that the BCP suppresses response to ovarian stimulation. This is not the case, provided that the BCP is overlapped with administration of an agonist (e.g. Lupron, Buserelin, Superfact) for several days leading up to the start of menstruation and the initiation of ovarian stimulation cycle with gonadotropin drugs. If the latter precaution is not taken, and the cycle of stimulation is initiated coming directly off the BCP the response will often be blunted and subsequent egg quality could be adversely affected. The explanation for this is that in natural (unstimulated) as well as in cycles stimulated with fertility drugs, the ability of follicles to properly respond to FSH stimulation is dependent on their having developed FSH-responsive receptors . Pre-antral follicles (PAF) do not have such primed FSH receptors and thus cannot respond properly to FSH stimulation with gonadotropins. The acquisition of FSH receptor responsivity requires that the pre-antral follicles be exposed to FSH, for a number of days (5-7) during which time they attain “FSH-responsivity” and are now known as antral follicles (AF). These AF’s are now able to respond properly to stimulation with administered FSH-gonadotropins. In regular menstrual cycles, the rising FSH output from the pituitary gland insures that PAFs convert tor AF’s. The BCP (as well as prolonged administration of estrogen/progesterone) suppresses FSH. This suppression needs to be countered by artificially causing blood FSH levels to rise in order to cause PAF to AF conversion prior to COS commencing, otherwise pre-antral-to –antral follicle conversion will not take place in an orderly fashion, the duration of ovarian stimulation will be prolonged and both follicle and egg development may be compromised. GnRH agonists (e.g. Lupron, Buserelin, Superfact) , cause an immediate surge in release of FSH by the pituitary gland thus causing conversion from PAF to SAF. This is why, women who take a BCP to launch a cycle of COS need to have an overlap of the BCP with an agonist. By overlapping the BCP with an agonist for a few days prior to menstruation the early recruited follicles are able to complete their developmental drive to the AF stage and as such, be ready to respond appropriately to optimal ovarian stimulation. Using this approach, the timing of the initiation of the IVF treatment cycle can readily and safely be regulated and controlled by varying the length of time that the woman is on the BCP.
Since optimizing follicular response to COS requires that prior to stimulation with gonadotropins, FSH-induced conversion from PAF to AF’s first be completed and the BCP suppresses FSH, it follows when it comes to women launching COS coming off a BCP something needs to be done to cause a rise in FSH for 5-7 days prior to menstruation heralding the cycle of CO S.This is where overlapping the BCP with an agonist (e.g. Lupron/Superfact/Buserelin) comes in. The agonist causes FSH to be released by the pituitary gland and if overlapped with the BCP for several days and this will (within 2-5 days) facilitate PAF to AF conversion…. in time to start COS with the onset of menstruation. Initiating ovarian stimulation in women taking a BCP, without doing this is suboptimal
I believe it to be essential regardless of the protocol of COS protocol being contemplated, for women who launching ovarian stimulation coming off a BCP to overlap with an agonist for several days in advance of initiating ovarian stimulation with the onset of menstruation,
Hope this helps!
Geoff Sher
Hi Dr Sher, do you prefer medicated or natural FETs? My lining at the last IVF cycle last month was thinner than normal at 6.8 on CD10, and my Estrogen was also low at 76 on CD5 (but it increased after stimulations starting on CD5 to acceptable levels). Would this be a reason to consider a medicated FET over natural? I would prefer natural if it doesn’t make a difference.
I personally hardly ever do non-medicated FET’s. Results are better when HRT is used.
Geoff Sher
Hi Dr Sher
My history is a complicated one- I am 31 years old and have been TTC for 3.5 years. I got pregnant naturally twice but ended in an ectopic & a chemical miscarriage. We went for tests after this which showed my AMH was 4.0 and Fsh 15. I was recommended to go straight to IVF. We have had 3 cycles now where I get about 5/6 eggs and 3 blasts (usually graded Bs). I got pregnant 2 of these cycles but miscarriaged 5-6 weeks. The last cycle we did pgs testing and the embryos were normal.
How can I know if it’s my egg quality or whether it’s my body? I have had blood clothing and nk cells test and both were negative. I am desperate for answers.
Thank you
Dear Dr Sher
Apologies is the below reply for me?