JBRA Assisted Reproduction 2025;29(Suppl.2 SBRA 2025):61
Poster Presentation
29th Annual Congress of the SBRA. São Paulo/SP - Brazil, 2025
doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20263600
P-49. Consistency Between Reproductive Genetics Laboratories in PGT-A: An Observational Analysis Based on Real-World Data
Priscila Loyola Campos1, Julia Lopes Tabuquini Sodre1, Nicolle Barbosa Katayama1, Vanessa Rodrigues Alves1, Theresa Laurenti Gheller2, Ivan Andrade de Araujo Penna2
1 Embrion Medicina Reprodutiva - Rio de janeiro - RJ - Brasil
2 Universidade Federal Fluminense - Niterói - RJ - Brasil
Objective: The objective of this work is to compare two reproductive genetics laboratories (Laboratory A and Laboratory B) in terms of euploidy rates. As a secondary objective, to evaluate the consistency of these results across different age groups.
Methods: This is a retrospective observational study with 1,235 embryos biopsied between May 2023 and May 2025 in a human reproduction center in Rio de Janeiro. A total of 678 embryos analyzed by Laboratory A and 557 by Laboratory B were included, focusing on the embryo euploidy results. Age stratification was performed among three groups: under 35 years, 35–39 years, and over 40 years. Comparisons were made using the z-test for proportions (significance level: 5%). Statistical power was calculated a priori.
Results: Laboratory A analyzed 678 samples, of which 252 were euploid, while Laboratory B analyzed 557 samples, with 230 being euploid, resulting in a total of 809 euploid samples. The assessment of the groups by age category yielded the following results: under 35 years> Lab A = 23 (53.5%) and Lab B = 40 (67.8%); 35–39 years> Lab A = 158 (45.5%) and Lab B = 103 (45.2%); and the age group over 40 years> Lab A = 73 (25.4%) and Lab B = 88 (32.6%). Using a z-score test with a significance value of 0.5%, we obtained a z-score of ±1.96. The overall euploidy rates between the laboratories were similar, with the values: Lab A 37.1% and Lab B 41.2%. These results did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference. And when the results were assessed by age, no difference between the laboratories was also demonstrated. However, due to the limited sample size, these data have low statistical power.
Conclusion: The reliability of PGT-A (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies) depends not only on technical accuracy but also on consistency between laboratories. Evaluating whether different analysis platforms maintain stability in findings is essential for safe clinical practices, especially when multiple laboratories are utilized by the same center. The results suggest a high level of consistency between the two laboratories, even when evaluated across different age groups. The findings reinforce the importance of inter-laboratory standardization as a tool for local clinical validation and ensuring safety in patient choice.