Observational analysis showed reduced time for obtaining PGT-M results in patients, implying improved laboratory efficiency.
OBJECTIVE: Assess efficacy of PGT-M after implementation of simultaneous PGT-M test optimization and testing of biopsied embryo samples. DESIGN: In January 2024, simultaneous optimization and testing of biopsied samples replaced sequential PGT-M test optimization at a reference laboratory (CooperSurgical, NJ). Retrospective chart review was completed for patients initiating PGT-M in January-March over 3 years (2022, 2023, 2024). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dates of required PGT-M initiation steps (patient consultation, DNA collection, PGT-M test optimization completion (if applicable), and PGT-M biopsy results) were collected and compared. Interval days (d) between patient consult and result reporting was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using a one-way Chi squared test. Cases resulted within intervals of 60d, 61-90d, 91-120d, 121-150d, 151-180d, and > 180d of case initiation were calculated for each study year. RESULTS: PGT-M was successful for all patients submitting biopsies. In 2022, 2023, and 2024, 275, 265, and 396 patients completed PGT-M initiation, respectively (Table 1). In 2022 and 2023, PGT-M test optimization was completed in an average of 54.5d. For 2022 or 2023 patients, the average number of days for completed PGT-M initiation was 198.7 and 179.3, respectively (p = 0.202), against a current 2024 average of 98.4 (p < 0.0001). This represents an average time savings of 100.3d and 80.9d against 2022 and 2023 timeframes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous PGT-M test optimization and testing of biopsied samples significantly reduces the time to receive results for first-time PGT-M patients. The observed time reduction represented savings beyond those directly delivered by the changed laboratory PGT-M process, indicating additional time savings within the IVF process. This potentially allows patients additional time for further reproductive planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johal et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: