Embryo assessment strategies and their validation for clinical use: A critical analysis of methodology

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 141-150

  Uyar, Asli ^a   Seli, Emre ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

assisted reproductive technology; embryo assessment; embryo metabolism; in vitro fertilization; metabolomics; multiple pregnancies

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANEUPLOIDY; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL STUDY; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; HUMAN; LIVE BIRTH; METABOLOMICS; METHODOLOGY; MORPHOLOGY; NOVEL EMBRYO ASSESSMENT TEST; PARAMETERS; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEOMICS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; STUDY DESIGN; TRANSCRIPTOMICS; VALIDATION STUDY;

EMBRYO, MAMMALIAN; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; INFERTILITY; METABOLOMICS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; VALIDATION STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84861097305     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: 1473656X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e328352cd17     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Benyamini Y, Gozlan M, Kokia E. Variability in the difficulties experienced by women undergoing infertility treatments. Fertil Steril 2005;83:275-283.
2. Mosher WD, Pratt WF, National Center for Health Statistics (U. S.). Fecundity and infertility in the United States, 1965-88. Hyattsville, MD: U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics; 1990. 9 pp.
3. Ata B, Seli E. Economics of assisted reproductive technologies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2010;22:183-188. A detailed review of economic aspects of assisted reproductive technology treatments around the world. ART seems expensive for the individual but affordable for the society.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2006 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates: National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2008.
5. Bromer JG, Seli E. Assessment of embryo viability in assisted reproductive technology: shortcomings of current approaches and the emerging role of metabolomics. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008;20:234-241.
6. Bromer JG, Ata B, Seli M, et al. Preterm deliveries that result from multiple pregnancies associated with assisted reproductive technologies in the USA: a cost analysis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2011;23:168-173.
7. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978;2:366.
8. Edwards RG, Fishel SB, Cohen J, et al. Factors influencing the success of in vitro fertilization for alleviating human infertility. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1984;1:3-23.
9. Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1003-1013.
10. 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;14:1318-1323.
11. Veeck LL. An atlas of human gametes and conceptuses an illustrated reference for assisted reproductive technology. New York: Parthenon Pub. Group; 1999. 215 pp.
12. Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, et al. Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2581-2587.
13. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2345-2349.
14. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards reproductive certainty: fertility and genetics beyond 1999. Carnforth: Parthenon publishing; 1999. pp. 378-388.
15. Seli E, Robert C, Sirard MA. OMICS in assisted reproduction: possibilities and pitfalls. Mol Hum Reprod 2010;16:513-530. Detailed review of the emerging OMICS technologies involving genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic or metabolomic profiling of oocytes, granulosa or cumulus cells, embryos or culture media as markers of embryo viability.
16. Racowsky C, Ohno-Machado L, Kim J, et al. Is there an advantage in scoring early embryos on more than one day? Hum Reprod 2009;24:2104-2113. A large study reported that day 2 or day 3 evaluations are sufficient alone for selection of cleavage stage embryos. The consistent methodology is of special interest.
17. Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K, et al. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 2007;22:548-557.
18. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, et al. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1155-1158.
19. Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, et al. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2004;81:551-555.
20. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis increases the implantation rate in human in vitro fertilization by avoiding the transfer of chromosomally abnormal embryos. Fertil Steril 1997;68:1128-1131.
21. Munne S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:91-97.
22. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007;357:9-17.
23. Staessen C, Verpoest W, Donoso P, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2818-2825.
24. Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Stevens J, et al. Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial. Fertil Steril 2009;92:157-162.
25. Sher G, Keskintepe L, Keskintepe M, et al. Genetic analysis of human embryos by metaphase comparative genomic hybridization (mCGH) improves efficiency of IVF by increasing embryo implantation rate and reducing multiple pregnancies and spontaneous miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1886-1894.
26. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1700-1706.
27. Schoolcraft WB, Treff NR, Stevens JM, et al. Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertil Steril 2011;96:638-640.
28. Cillo F, Brevini TA, Antonini S, et al. Association between human oocyte developmental competence and expression levels of some cumulus genes. Reproduction 2007;134:645-650.
29. Feuerstein P, Cadoret V, Dalbies-Tran R, et al. Gene expression in human cumulus cells: one approach to oocyte competence. Hum Reprod 2007;22:3069-3077.
30. Gasca S, Pellestor F, Assou S, et al. Identifying new human oocyte marker genes: a microarray approach. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:175-183.
31. Assou S, Haouzi D, Mahmoud K, et al. A noninvasive test for assessing embryo potential by gene expression profiles of human cumulus cells: a proof of concept study. Mol Hum Reprod 2008;14:711-719.
32. Van Montfoort AP, Geraedts JP, Dumoulin JC, et al. Differential gene expression in cumulus cells as a prognostic indicator of embryo viability: a microarray analysis. Mol Hum Reprod 2008;14:157-168.
33. Hamel M, Dufort I, Robert C, et al. Identification of differentially expressed markers in human follicular cells associated with competent oocytes. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1118-1127.
34. Hamel M, Dufort I, Robert C, et al. Genomic assessment of follicular marker genes as pregnancy predictors for human IVF. Mol Hum Reprod 2010;16:87-96.
35. Hamel M, Dufort I, Robert C, et al. Identification of follicular marker genes as pregnancy predictors for human IVF: new evidence for the involvement of luteinization process. Mol Hum Reprod 2010;16:548-556.
36. Katz-Jaffe MG, Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Analysis of protein expression (secretome) by human and mouse preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril 2006;86:678-685.
37. Dominguez F, Gadea B, Esteban FJ, et al. Comparative protein-profile analysis of implanted versus nonimplanted human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1993-2000.
38. Dominguez F, Gadea B, Mercader A, et al. Embryologic outcome and secretome profile of implanted blastocysts obtained after coculture in human endometrial epithelial cells versus the sequential system. Fertil Steril 2010;93:774.e1-782.e1.
39. Hardy K, Hooper MA, Handyside AH, et al. Noninvasive measurement of glucose and pyruvate uptake by individual human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 1989;4:188-191.
40. Gott AL, Hardy K, Winston RM, et al. Noninvasive measurement of pyruvate and glucose uptake and lactate production by single human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 1990;5:104-108.
41. Turner K, Martin KL, Woodward BJ, et al. Comparison of pyruvate uptake by embryos derived from conception and nonconception natural cycles. Hum Reprod 1994;9:2362-2366.
42. Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, et al. Noninvasive assessment of human embryo nutrient consumption as a measure of developmental potential. Fertil Steril 2001;76:1175-1180.
43. Houghton FD, Hawkhead JA, Humpherson PG, et al. Noninvasive amino acid turnover predicts human embryo developmental capacity. Hum Reprod 2002;17:999-1005.
44. Brison DR, Houghton FD, Falconer D, et al. Identification of viable embryos in IVF by noninvasive measurement of amino acid turnover. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2319-2324.
45. Seli E, Sakkas D, Scott R, et al. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of embryo culture media using Raman and near-infrared spectroscopy correlates with reproductive potential of embryos in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2007;88:1350-1357.
46. Scott R, Seli E, Miller K, et al. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of human embryo culture media using Raman spectroscopy predicts embryonic reproductive potential: a prospective blinded pilot study. Fertil Steril 2008;90:77-83.
47. Vergouw CG, Botros LL, Roos P, et al. Metabolomic profiling by near-infrared spectroscopy as a tool to assess embryo viability: a novel, noninvasive method for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1499-1504.
48. Seli E, Vergouw CG, Morita H, et al. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling as an adjunct to morphology for noninvasive embryo assessment in women undergoing single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010;94:535-542.
49. Hardarson T, Ahlstrom A, Rogberg L, et al. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of day 2 and 5 embryo culture medium: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2012;27:89-96.
50. Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett 2006;27:861-874. The ROC curves can be utilized as a comprehensive analysis tool to determine the diagnostic power of a given medical test. This study may serve as a performance analysis guide for researchers investigating validity of embryo assessment technologies.
51. He X, Frey E. ROC, LROC, FROC, AFROC: an alphabet soup. J Am Coll Radiol 2009;6:652-655.
52. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. xii, 373 pp.
53. Seli E, Bruce C, Botros L, et al. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of day 5 morphology grading and metabolomic Viability Score on predicting implantation outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2011;28:137-144. This study presents extended use of ROC curves for comparison of day 5 morphology grading and metabolomics approaches as indicators of embryo viability.
54. Scott RT Jr, Treff NR. Assessing the reproductive competence of individual embryos: a proposal for the validation of new '-omics' technologies. Fertil Steril 2010;94:791-794. A clear proposal for the appropriate experimental design of studies investigating validation of new '-omics' technologies as embryo assessment strategies.
55. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1887-1892.
56. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1270-1283.
57. Treff NR, Su J, Tao X, et al. Accurate single cell 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening using whole genome amplification and single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. Fertil Steril 2010;94:2017-2021.
58. Checa MA, Alonso-Coello P, Sola I, et al. IVF/ICSI with or without preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy in couples without genetic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2009;26:273-283.
59. Scott R T J, Miller K, Olivares R, et al. Microarray based 24 chromosome preimplantation genetic diagnosis (mPGD) is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective blinded nonselection trial. Fertil Steril 2008; S90:22-23.