Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Cost effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation and preimplantation genetic testing to prevent transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations.

Human reproduction (Oxford, England) - 29 Feb 2020

Lipton Joseph H, Zargar Mahdi, Warner Ellen, Greenblatt Ellen E, Lee Esther, Chan Kelvin K W, Wong William W L

Abstract excerpt

STUDY QUESTION: Is it cost-effective to use in vitro fertilisation and preimplantation genetic testing of monogenic defects (IVT/PGT-M) to prevent transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations to second-generation new births in comparison with naturally conceived births? SUMMARY ANSWER: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that IVF/PGT-M is cost-effective for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers if using a willingness...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to BRCA1 Protein
Share to Cost-Benefit Analysis

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Share to Fertilization in Vitro

Share to Genetic Testing

Share to Ontario

Share to Pregnancy

Share to Preimplantation Diagnosis

Share to Quality of Life

Source

Identifiers

PMID: 32099994
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez203

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 3 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Cost effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation and preimplantation genetic testing to prevent transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations.PMID 32099994Read ↗

Preimplantation genetic testing for BRCA gene mutation carriers: a cost effectiveness analysis.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Preimplantation genetic testing for BReast CAncer gene 1 and risk-reducing surgery is more effective at age 35 than age 40.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Reproductive Choices and Attitudes Toward Preimplantation Genetic Testing Among Individuals with Hereditary Cancer PredispositionSemantic proximity Read ↗

The cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in the United States: an analysis of cost and birth outcomes from 158,665 in vitro fertilization cyclesSemantic proximity Read ↗

In Vitro Fertilization with Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy for Infertility in China: A Cost-Effectiveness AnalysisSemantic proximity Read ↗

A SART data cost-effectiveness analysis of planned oocyte cryopreservation versus in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy considering ideal family sizeSemantic proximity Read ↗

Cost-Effectiveness of Population-Based Multigene Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer PreventionSemantic proximity Read ↗

Cost-effectiveness of testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes.Semantic proximity Read ↗

An economic analysis of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by polar body biopsy in advanced maternal ageSemantic proximity Read ↗

A cost-benefit analysis of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for carrier couples of cystic fibrosisSemantic proximity Read ↗

Cost-Effectiveness of BRCA 1/2 Genetic Test and Preventive Strategies: Using Real-World Data From an Upper-Middle Income CountrySemantic proximity Read ↗

A discrete event simulation to evaluate the cost effectiveness of germline <i>BRCA1</i> and <i>BRCA2</i> testing in UK women with ovarian cancerSemantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.