Identification of mosaic and segmental aneuploidies by next-generation sequencing in preimplantation genetic screening can improve clinical outcomes compared to array-comparative genomic hybridization

Table 2 Parallel comparisons between NGS and aCGH

	NGS	aCGH	P-value
Patient number	45
No. of embryo screened	178
Euploid (%)	68 (38.2%)	89 (50.0%)	0.01*
Aneuploid (%)	91 (51.1%)	82 (46.1%)
Mosaic (%)	19 (10.7%)	7 (3.9%)
Inconsistency of embryo euploidy^a	21 (11.8%)
Aneuploidy assessment
No. of aneuploid embryo	91	82
Complex aneuploidy (%)	26 (28.5%)	24 (30.5%)	0.78
Trisomy (%)	14 (15.4%)	13 (14.6%)
Monosomy (%)	32 (35.2%)	33 (40.2%)
Segmental aneuploidy (≥10 Mbp) (%)^b	19 (20.9%)	12 (14.6%)
Inconsistency of embryo aneuploidy^c	9 (5.1%)
Mosaicism assessment
No. of mosaic embryo	19	7
Whole chromosomal mosaicism	16 (84.2%)	5 (71.4%)	0.59
Segmental chromosomal mosaicism	3 (15.8%)	2 (28.6%)	0.59
Inconsistency of chromosomal mosaicism^d	12 (6.7%)

NGS next-generation sequencing, aCGH array-comparative genomic hybridization
*P-values <0.05 are defined as statistically significant, and they are calculated by Chi-square analysis
^aThe number of euploid embryos were different on the two platforms
^bThe segmental aneuploidy was defined as the variation length reaching 10 Mbp by the both two laboratories
^cThe number of aneuploid embryos were different on the two platforms
^dThe detected chromosomal mosaicism were different on the two platforms

ISSN: 1755-8166