Skip to main content

Table 2 Parallel comparisons between NGS and aCGH

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

  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 euploidya 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 aneuploidyc 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%)
Inconsistency of chromosomal mosaicismd 12 (6.7%)
  1. NGS next-generation sequencing, aCGH array-comparative genomic hybridization
  2. *P-values <0.05 are defined as statistically significant, and they are calculated by Chi-square analysis
  3. aThe number of euploid embryos were different on the two platforms
  4. bThe segmental aneuploidy was defined as the variation length reaching 10 Mbp by the both two laboratories
  5. cThe number of aneuploid embryos were different on the two platforms
  6. dThe detected chromosomal mosaicism were different on the two platforms