Abstract
Mosaicism represents a genuine real phenomenon, but its high prevalence and undisclosed clinical significance, stress the burden on genetic counseling and the management of PGT-A results. Even though the assumption of mosaicism from NGS intermediate chromosome copy number profiles may represent a reasonable interpretation, other potential technical reasons, including amplification bias, contamination, biopsy technique, or the analysis algorithms, may constitute alternative explanations. Thresholds confining mosaicism ranges are established according to models employing mixtures of normal and abnormal cells with steady conditions of quantity and quality which are unable to reflect the full extent of variability present in a trophectoderm (TE) biopsy specimen. When the concordance of TE with the ICM is considered, mosaic TE biopsies poorly correlate with the chromosomal status of the remaining embryo, displaying mostly ICM aneuploidy in cases of TE high-range mosaics diagnosis and euploidy when mosaicism grade in TE is less than 50% (low-mid range mosaicism), which implies an evident overestimation of mosaicism results. Indeed, a binary classification of NGS profiles that excludes mosaic ranges, including only euploid and aneuploid diagnosis, provides higher specificity and accuracy in identifying abnormal embryos and discarding them. As intermediate copy number profiles do not represent strong evidence of mosaicism but only an inaccurate and misleading assumption, and considering that no increased risk has been reported in the offspring, until diagnosis specificity is improved and its clinical implications are determined, laboratories should consider limiting predictions to euploid and aneuploid and stop reporting mosaicism.