* Author Topic: PGS - Good Idea or just an Add on?  (Read 540 times)

0 Members

Offline IGEORGE

  • Un-Ranked
  • *
modify
PGS - Good Idea or just an Add on?
« on: 28/11/16, 17:38 »
Hi Peeps,

We are about to start IVF in Jan at the OFU with PGS, I am now in two minds after reading/listening to the BBC piece on add on?

I am 36, have only ever had one miscarriage (2015 April) and not aware of any genetic issues in either of our families?

Advice please, has anyone had PGS, would did they think?

Help.....

Izzy xx

FertilityFriends

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    Offline Mrsfw

    • Full Member
    • ***
    modify
    PGS - Good Idea or just an Add on?
    « Reply #1 on: 5/12/16, 21:37 »
    Hi Izzy-

    That awful programme has raised some frustrating questions.


    I've just completed my 1st cycle with PGS after 2 failed IUI and 3 failed IVF. The results have been invaluable. We tested 10 embryos of which 1 has come back as useable. If we hadn't have find this test, this could have been 5-9 more tries at implantation which would have all failed.

    I will do it again. Hope that helps and good luck to you x

    Offline VCR

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    modify
    PGS - Good Idea or just an Add on?
    « Reply #2 on: 10/12/16, 19:52 »
    Hi Izzy - sorry but I have only just seen this question.  I am pro PGS - my signature shows why.  I am not confident we would have had our son if we hadn't done PGS - I think we would have transferred another abnormal embryo on the third go and had another miscarriage.  The PGS gave us the chance not to transfer yet more abnormal embryos...  Vxx

    Offline bananafish81

    • Gold Member
    • *****
    modify
    PGS - Good Idea or just an Add on?
    « Reply #3 on: 27/12/16, 15:57 »
    The problem is that people don't want to enter into clinical trials so there simply isn't the evidence available and most interventions are based on empirical evidence

    They say PGS has no evidence in favour of it - which I can believe, because the Cochrane evidence is based on 10 years of FISH data. And FISH was crap compared to NGS. The new data for PGS is much more compelling. But regardless of the historic data, without PGS, we would have been throwing embryos into my uterus without knowing if the problem was the seed or the soil.

    My four frozen embryos were ALL PGS abnormal. Statistically at least one of them should have been normal. We could have done 4 failed FET / more miscarriages and we wouldn't have known which cycles we had fixed the uterine environment (my first miscarriage was of a chromosomally normal embryo) but the embryo was a dud. Or whether the embryo was normal but the problem was me. Or both

    We saved ourselves 4 cycles that were always doomed to failure by doing PGS - for which there may be 'no evidence', but I wasn't prepared to be a guinea pig.

    We know I have now miscarried two chromosomally normal embryos and that the problem is me. Which we wouldn't know without PGS. Which means diagnostically we can draw a line in the sand. If we can't fix the uterine environment then we know I won't be able to support a pregnancy

    Embryo grading is just a beauty contest. It doesn't say anything about the genetic integrity of the embryo. PGS may be unproven but I can't see the alternative would have offered us any benefits whatsoever

    This is an excellent riposte to the issues covered in Panorama from the chief of the British Fertility Society

    http://www.adambalen.com/ivf-practices-challenged-2/

    /links

    modify
    PGS - Good Idea or just an Add on?
    « Reply #4 on: 21/01/17, 09:35 »
    Hi, this is a rather late reply but may help others. I was sceptical too after seeing that BBC programme. But a recent chat with a genetic counsellor shed a plausible light on the controversy. She explained that the old PGS only screened certain chromosomes, a small fraction of the 23 pairs, and those higher numbered ones like 18, 21 etc. She explained that the chromosomes that typically cause early miscarriage are the lower numbered ones. There are techniques nowadays that screen all chromosomes, which are showing a ~75% success rate, apparently.

    Offline bananafish81

    • Gold Member
    • *****
    modify
    PGS - Good Idea or just an Add on?
    « Reply #5 on: 21/01/17, 09:42 »
    The old kind of PGS which only looks at a few chromosomes is hardly used by any centres

    Both array CGH and NGS (next generation sequencing) count all the chromosomes and are 98%+ accurate for mosaicism

    The data is all for FISH which was crap as it only looked at a few chromosomes

    Any centres which still use this method should be avoided!!

     

     
    SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal