A cycle-based model to predict blastocyst transfer cancellation

Human Reproduction

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 598-604

  Dessolle, Lionel ^a,b   Fréour, Thomas ^a   Barrire, Paul ^a   Daraï, Emile ^b   Ravel, Célia ^c   Jean, Miguel ^a   Coutant, Charles ^b  

^a NANTES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^b Service de Gynécologie Obstétrique II et Médecine de la Reproduction   (France)

^c ASSISTANCE PUBLIQUE HÔPITAUX DE PARIS   (France)

Author keywords

Blastocyst; Elective single embryo transfer; In vitro fertilization; Nomogram; Prediction models

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BLASTOCYST; CALIBRATION; EMBRYO; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN CELL CULTURE; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NOMOGRAM; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; VALIDATION STUDY;

EID: 76749167012     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep439     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;CD002118.
2. Bleeker SE, Moll HA, Steyerberg EW, Donders AR, Derksen-Lubsen G, Grobbee DE, Moons KG. External validation is necessary in prediction research: a clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56: 826-832.
3. Booth PJ, Watson TJ, Leese HJ. Prediction of porcine blastocyst formation using morphological, kinetic, and amino acid depletion and appearance criteria determined during the early cleavage of in vitro-produced embryos. Biol Reprod 2007;77:765-779.
4. Borini A, Lagalla C, Cattoli M, Sereni E, Sciajno R, Flamigni C, Coticchio G. Predictive factors for embryo implantation potential. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10:653-668.
5. Coutant C, Olivier C, Lambaudie E, Fondrinier E, Marchal F, Guillemin F, Seince N, Thomas V, Levêque J, Barranger E et al. Comparison of models to predict nonsentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: a prospective multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2800-2808.
6. Cox DR. Two further applications of a model for binary regression. Biometrika 1958;45:562-565.
7. Diamond GA. What price perfection ? Calibration and discrimination of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:85-89.
8. Eastham JA, Kattam MW, Scardino PT. Nomograms as predictive models. Semin Urol Oncol 2002;20:108-115.
9. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Tews G. Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: a review. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9:251-262.
10. Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update 1997;3: 367-382.
11. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1155-1158.
12. Guerif F, Bidault R, Gasnier O, Couet ML, Gervereau O, Lansac J, Royere D. Efficacy of blastocyst transfer after implantation failure. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:630-636.
13. Guerif F, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B, Poindron J, Bidault R, Gasnier O, Royere D. Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod 2007;22:1973-1981.
14. Guerif F, Lemseffer M, Bidault R, Gasnier O, Saussereau MH, Cadoret V, Jamet C, Royere D. Single Day 2 versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2009;24:1051-1058.
15. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.
16. Iasonos A, Schrag D, Raj GV, Panageas KS. How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis? J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1364-1370.
17. Jean M, Mirallié S, Boudineau M, Tatin C, Barrière P. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection with polyvinylpyrrolidone: a potential risk. Fertil Steril 2001;76:419-420.
18. Katz-Jaffe MG, McReynolds S, Gardner DK, Schoolkraft WB. The role of proteomics in defining the human embryonic secretome. Mol Hum Reprod 2009;15:271-277.
19. Lan KC, Huang FJ, Lin YC, Kung FS, Hsieh CH, Huang HW, Tan PH, Chang SY. The predictive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1299-1306.
20. Leushuis E, van der Steeg JW, Steures P, Bossuyt PM, Eijkemans MJ, van der Veen F, Mol BW, Hompes PG. Prediction models in reproductive medicine: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:537-552.
21. Ménézo YJ. Paternal and maternal factors in preimplantation embryogenesis: interaction with the biochemical environment. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12:616-621.
22. Miller JE, Smith TT. The effect of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and semen parameters on blastocyst development in vitro. Hum Reprod 2001;16:918-924.
23. Nagy ZP, Sakkas D, Behr B. Symposium: innovative techniques in human embryo viability assessment. Non-invasive assessment of embryo viability by metabolomic profiling of culture media ('metabolomics'). Reprod Biomed Online 2008;17:502-507.
24. Neuber E, Rinaudo P, Trimarchi JR, Sakkas D. Sequential assessment of individually cultured human embryos as an indicator of subsequent good quality blastocyst development. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1307-1312.
25. Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyststage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1139-1146.
26. Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Tournaye H, Venetis CA, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, Devroe P. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage stage embryos in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2008;23:91-99.
27. Racowsky C, Jackson KV, Cekleniak NA, Fox JH, Hornstein MD, Ginsburg ES. The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;73:558-564.
28. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M, Romano S, Minasi MG, Ferrero S, Sapienza F, Baroni E, Greco E. Significance of morphological attributes of the early embryo. RBM Online 2005;10:669-681.
29. Rijnders PM, Jansen CA. The predictive value of day 3 embryo morphology regarding blastocyst formation, pregnancy and implantation rate after day 5 transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2869-2873.
30. Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M, Miller B. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Hum Reprod 2000;15:2394-2403.
31. Sjöblom P, Menezes J, Cummins L, Mathiyalagan B, Costello MF. Prediction of embryo developmental potential and pregnancy based on early stage morphological characteristics. Fertil Steril 2006;86:848-861.
32. Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE Jr, Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54:774-781.
33. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988; 240:1285-1293
34. The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril 2006;86(Suppl. 4):S89-S92.
35. Thomas MR, Sparks AE, Ryan GL, Van Voorhis BJ. Clinical predictors of human blastocyst formation and pregnancy after extended embryo culture and transfer. Fertil Steril 2009; April 2009 [Epub ahead of print].
36. Vanderzwalmen P, Hiemer A, Rubner P, Bach M, Neyer A, Stecher A, Uher P, Zintz M, Lejeune B, Vanderzwalmen S et al. Blastocyst development after sperm selection at high magnification is associated with size and number of nuclear vacuoles. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17:617-627.
37. Vergouw CG, Botros LL, Roos P, Lens JW, Schats R, Hompes PG, Burns DH, Lambalk CB. Metabolomic profiling by near-infrared spectroscopy as a tool to assess embryo viability: a novel, non-invasive method for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:1499-1504.
38. Youssry M, Ozmen B, Zohni K, Diedrich K, Al-Hasani S. Current aspects of blastocyst cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;16:311-320.