Table 1.
Comparison of embryo ploidy between two PGS 2.0 assessments
| Pat.# | Emb# | Biopsy # | Original PGS analysis (all embryos reported as abnormal) | Repeat PGS analysisa (multiple biopsies) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A1 | 1 | 45, XY, -18b | Normal 46, XX |
| 2 | A2 | 1 | Complex aneuploidb | XY, +10, -18q |
| A3 | 2 | XY, +11, +16, -21 | ||
| A4 | 3 | XX, -3q | ||
| 3 | A5 | 1 | 46, XY, +3, -11, +15, -14b | XX, -2 |
| A6 | 2 | Normal 46XX | ||
| A7 | 3 | 45, XY, -18 | ||
| A8 | 4 | Normal 46,XX | ||
| 4 | B1 | 1 | 46,XY, +3, -11b | 45, XY, -14 |
| B2 | 2 | 45, XY, -14 | ||
| B3 | 3 | 45, XY, -14 | ||
| B4 | 4 | 45, XY, -14 | ||
| 5 | B5 | 1 | 47,XY, +19b | 47, XY, +3 |
| B6 | 2 | 47, XY, +3 | ||
| B7 | 3 | 47, XY, +3 | ||
| B8 | 4 | Normal 46, XY | ||
| 6 | C1 | 1 | 45, XX, -1b | Normal 46, XX |
| C2 | 2 | Normal 46, XX | ||
| C3 | 3 | Normal 46, XX | ||
| 7 | C4 | 1 | 47, XY, +19b | Normal 46, XY |
| C5 | 2 | Normal 46, XY | ||
| C6 | 3 | Normal 46, XY | ||
| 8 | C7 | 1 | 47, XY, +19c | Normal 46, XY |
| C8 | 2 | Normal 46, XY | ||
| C9 | 3 | Normal 46, XY | ||
| C10 | 4 | Normal 46, XY | ||
| 9 | D1 | 1 | Complex aneuploidc | Normal 46, XY |
| D2 | 2 | 47, +18 | ||
| 10 | D3 | 1 | Complex aneuploidc | 47, XY, +8q, -15, +16 |
| D4 | 2 | 46, XY, -15, +16 | ||
| D5 | 3 | 46, XY, -15, +16 | ||
| D6 | 4 | 46, XY, -15, +16 | ||
| D7 | 5 | 46, XY, -15, +16 | ||
| 11 | D8 | 1 | 46, XX, +14, -15c | 46, XX, +14, -15 |
| D9 | 2 | 46, XX, +14, -15 | ||
| D10 | 3 | 46, XX, +14, -15 | ||
| D11 | 4 | 46, XX, +14, -15 |
Pat# patient number, Emb# embryo number; The diagnostic platforms utilized by the various PGS laboratories are described under Methods: aaCGH, bqPCR and caray CGH