Performance of Day 5 KIDScore™ morphokinetic prediction models of implantation and live birth after single blastocyst transfer.
Adult
Birth Rate
Blastocyst
/ physiology
Embryo Culture Techniques
/ statistics & numerical data
Embryo Implantation
/ physiology
Embryo Transfer
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Fertilization in Vitro
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Live Birth
Male
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Rate
Pregnancy, Multiple
/ statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
/ statistics & numerical data
Time-Lapse Imaging
/ methods
Blastocyst
IVF
Implantation
Prediction model
Time-lapse
Journal
Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
ISSN: 1573-7330
Titre abrégé: J Assist Reprod Genet
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9206495
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
15
04
2019
accepted:
15
08
2019
pubmed:
25
8
2019
medline:
1
5
2020
entrez:
25
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While several studies reported the association between morphokinetic parameters and implantation, few predictive models were developed to predict implantation after day 5 embryo transfer, generally without external validation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the respective performance of 2 commercially available morphokinetic-based models (KIDScore™ Day 5 versions 1 and 2) for the prediction of implantation and live birth after day 5 single blastocyst transfer. This monocentric retrospective study was conducted on 210 ICSI cycles with single day 5 embryo transfer performed with a time-lapse imaging (TLI) system between 2013 and 2016. The association between both KIDScore™ and the observed implantation and live birth rates was calculated, as well as the agreement between embryologist's choice for transfer and embryo ranking by the models. Implantation and live birth rate were both 35.7%. A significant positive correlation was found between both models and implantation rate (r = 0.96 and r = 0.90, p = 0.01) respectively. Both models had statistically significant but limited predictive power for implantation (AUC 0.60). There was a fair agreement between the embryologists' choice and both models (78% and 61% respectively), with minor differences in case of discrepancies. KIDScore™ Day 5 predictive models are significantly associated with implantation rates after day 5 single blastocyst transfer. However, their predictive performance remains perfectible. The use of these predictive models holds promises as decision-making tools to help the embryologist select the best embryo, ultimately facilitating the implementation of SET policy. However, embryologists' expertise remains absolutely necessary to make the final decision.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31444634
doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01567-x
pii: 10.1007/s10815-019-01567-x
pmc: PMC6885460
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2279-2285Références
Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1318–23.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.5.1318
Alpha Scientists in Reproductive M, Embryology ESIGo. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/der037
Gardner DK, Meseguer M, Rubio C, Treff NR. Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21:727–47.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmu064
Paternot G, Wetzels AM, Thonon F, Vansteenbrugge A, Willemen D, Devroe J, et al. Intra- and interobserver analysis in the morphological assessment of early stage embryos during an ivf procedure: a multicentre study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:127.
doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-9-127
Basile N, Caiazzo M, Meseguer M. What does morphokinetics add to embryo selection and in-vitro fertilization outcomes? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27:193–200.
doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000166
Paulson RJ, Reichman DE, Zaninovic N, Goodman LR, Racowsky C. Time-lapse imaging: clearly useful to both laboratory personnel and patient outcomes versus just because we can doesn't mean we should. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:584–91.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.042
Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35:511–20.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.022
Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Response: time-lapse systems for ART. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36:290–2.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.12.011
Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for ART. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36:288–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.12.012
Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018b;5:CD011320.
pubmed: 29800485
Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2658–71.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/der256
Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CF. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26:477–85.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.006
Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:699–704.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.005
Milewski R, Kuc P, Kuczynska A, Stankiewicz B, Lukaszuk K, Kuczynski W. A predictive model for blastocyst formation based on morphokinetic parameters in time-lapse monitoring of embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:571–9.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-015-0440-3
Motato Y, de los Santos MJ, Escriba MJ, Ruiz BA, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:376–84.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.001
Liu Y, Chapple V, Feenan K, Roberts P, Matson P. Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:656–62.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.003
Petersen BM, Boel M, Montag M, Gardner DK. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on day 3. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2231–44.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew188
Yang L, Cai S, Zhang S, Kong X, Gu Y, Lu C, et al. Single embryo transfer by day 3 time-lapse selection versus day 5 conventional morphological selection: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:869–76.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey047
Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the embryoscope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1287–94.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.738
Adamson GD, Abusief ME, Palao L, Witmer J, Palao LM, Gvakharia M. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse-enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:369–75.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.030
VerMilyea MD, Tan L, Anthony JT, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:729–36.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.005
Kirkegaard K, Campbell A, Agerholm I, Bentin-Ley U, Gabrielsen A, Kirk J, et al. Limitations of a time-lapse blastocyst prediction model: a large multicentre outcome analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:156–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.04.011
Freour T, Le Fleuter N, Lammers J, Splingart C, Reignier A, Barriere P. External validation of a time-lapse prediction model. Fertil Steril. 2015b;103:917–22.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.111
Ciray HN, Aksoy T, Goktas C, Ozturk B, Bahceci M. Time-lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media--a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:891–900.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-012-9818-7
Hardarson T, Bungum M, Conaghan J, Meintjes M, Chantilis SJ, Molnar L, et al. Noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial comparing embryo development using media developed for sequential or undisturbed culture in a time-lapse setup. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1452–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.037
Barrie A, Homburg R, McDowell G, Brown J, Kingsland C, Troup S. Examining the efficacy of six published time-lapse imaging embryo selection algorithms to predict implantation to demonstrate the need for the development of specific, in-house morphokinetic selection algorithms. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:613–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.014
Ciray HN, Campbell A, Agerholm IE, Aguilar J, Chamayou S, Esbert M, et al. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2650–60.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu278
Zaninovic N, Irani M, Meseguer M. Assessment of embryo morphology and developmental dynamics by time-lapse microscopy: is there a relation to implantation and ploidy? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:722–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.002
Liu Y, Feenan K, Chapple V, Matson P. Assessing efficacy of day 3 embryo time-lapse algorithms retrospectively: impacts of dataset type and confounding factors. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2019;22:182–90.
doi: 10.1080/14647273.2018.1425919
Storr A, Venetis C, Cooke S, Kilani S, Ledger W. Time-lapse algorithms and morphological selection of day-5 embryos for transfer: a preclinical validation study. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:276–83.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.036
Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Effect of oxygen concentration on human embryo development evaluated by time-lapse monitoring. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:738–44.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.028
Wale PL, Gardner DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22:2–22.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmv034
Liu Y, Chapple V, Feenan K, Roberts P, Matson P. Time-lapse videography of human embryos: using pronuclear fading rather than insemination in ivf and icsi cycles removes inconsistencies in time to reach early cleavage milestones. Reprod Biol. 2015;15:122–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.repbio.2015.03.002
Lammers J, Reignier A, Splingart C, Catteau A, David L, Barriere P, et al. Does sperm origin affect embryo morphokinetic parameters? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1325–32.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-015-0517-z
Kirkegaard K, Sundvall L, Erlandsen M, Hindkjær JJ, Knudsen UB, Ingerslev HJ. Timing of human preimplantation embryonic development is confounded by embryo origin. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:324–31.
pubmed: 26637491
Blank C, Wildeboer RR, DeCroo I, Tilleman K, Weyers B, de Sutter P, et al. Prediction of implantation after blastocyst transfer in in vitro fertilization: a machine-learning perspective. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:318–26.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.10.030
Tran D, Cooke S, Illingworth PJ, Gardner DK. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1011–8.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez064