Endometrial pinopodes indicate a shift in the window of receptivity in IVF cycles

Nikas, George; Develíoğlu, Osman; Toner, James P.; Jones, Howard W.

doi:10.1093/humrep/14.3.787

Cited by 203 publications

(134 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is now a common practice to date endometrium according to days after the LH peak [29] [30]. Ultrastructural changes in human endometrium throughout the cycle also allow dating of the endometrium [31,32] and assist in determining the "implantation window". The implantation window is a short interval during the mid-secretory phase, when the endometrium is most receptive to blastocyst implantation.…”

Section: Endometrial Dating and The Window Of Implantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many molecular markers such as integrins, IL-1, calcitonin, amphiregulin, EGF, HB (heparin binding)-EGF, colony stimulating factor-1, LIF, mucins, leptin, selectin-L ligands, Hoxa genes, and COX (cyclooxygenase) have been proposed to identify this period of receptivity [9,[38][39][40][41][42]. The beginning of the implantation window is also characterized by remarkable ultrastructural changes in endometrial epithelial cell morphology [31,32]. However, the implantation process is a complex and multifactorial event, with association and interplay of the different factors involved.…”

Section: Molecular and Structural Markers Of Endometrial Receptivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uterine receptivity to human embryonic implantation: Histology, biomarkers, and transcriptomics

Aghajanova¹,

Hamilton²,

Giudice³

2008

Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Embryonic implantation is a dynamic process of paracrine interactions between the maternal compartment and the conceptus and involves a receptive endometrium and a developmentally competent blastocyst. Herein, we review histology, clinical approaches, and the promise of transcriptomics in elucidating mechanisms underlying implantation and development of biomarkers of uterine receptivity -with an eye to diagnose and treat implantation-based disorders of miscarriage, fetal growth restriction, pre-eclampsia, and infertility.Keywords human implantation; endometrium; microarray; blastocyst Challenges and approaches in studying the process of human implantation Clinical implicationsSuccessful embryo implantation is a crucial event in natural and assisted human reproduction. Blastocyst implantation is a dynamic process, involving embryo apposition, attachment to the maternal endometrial epithelium, and invasion into the endometrial stroma [1]. With in vitro fertilization (IVF), implantation failure can occur due to several factors [2], including embryonic defects such as chromosomal abnormalities, which are the most common cause of implantation failure [3,4]. Another widely acknowledged barrier to successful blastocyst implantation and, therefore, successful treatment of infertile women with implantation failure, is an inappropriately developed endometrium. It is well established that embryos cannot implant in a poorly matured endometrium [5], and this may be responsible for low implantation rates with transfer of "good quality" embryos. The success of embryonic implantation further relies upon cross-talk between the embryo and a receptive endometrium [5]. Optimization of IVF results are important for many reasons, and achieving optimal implantation is even more important in the setting of single embryo transfer, a common practice aimed to avoid multiple pregnancies.Corresponding author: Linda C. Giudice, MD, PhD, MSc, Professor and Chair, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, The Robert B. Jaffe, MD Endowed Professor in the Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave., M1496, Box 0132, San Francisco, CA 94143-0132, Tel: +1 4154762564, Fax: +1 415476181, giudice@obgyn.ucsf.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. The implantation window and challenges of studying it NIH Public AccessThe endometrium is receptive to blastocyst implantation during a spatially and temporally restricted "window", when the luminal epithelium is favorable for blastocyst implantation even in the absence of an implanting ...

show abstract

Section: Endometrial Dating and The Window Of Implantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Molecular and Structural Markers Of Endometrial Receptivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Uterine receptivity to human embryonic implantation: Histology, biomarkers, and transcriptomics

Aghajanova¹,

Hamilton²,

Giudice³

2008

Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this stimulation is related to supraphysiologic hormonal levels that are associated with modifications in the periimplantation endometrium [8,9], biochemical and morphologic endometrial alterations, and endometrial advancement [10,11]. Since IVF success depends not only on embryo quality, but also on endometrial receptivity and on embryo-endometrium interactions [12], these modifications might jeopardize IVF outcomes following fresh embryo transfer and not after FET [13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freeze-all cycle for all normal responders?

Roque

Valle

Guimarães

et al. 2016

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the freeze-all strategy in subgroups of normal responders, to assess whether this strategy is beneficial regardless of ovarian response, and to evaluate the possibility of implementing an individualized embryo transfer (iET) based on ovarian response. Methods This was an observational, cohort study performed in a private IVF center. A total of 938 IVF cycles were included in this study. The patients were submitted to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and a cleavage-stage day 3 embryo transfer. We performed a comparison of outcomes between the fresh embryo transfer (n = 523) and the freezeall cycles (n = 415). The analysis was performed in two subgroups of patients based on the number of retrieved oocytes: Group 1 (4-9 oocytes) and Group 2 (10-15 oocytes). Result(s) In Group 1 (4-9 retrieved oocytes), the implantation rates (IR) were 17.9 and 20.5% (P = 0.259) in the fresh and freeze-all group, respectively; the ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) were 31 and 33% (P = 0.577) in the fresh and freezeall group, respectively. In Group 2 (10-15 oocytes), the IR were 22.1 and 30.1% (P = 0.028) and the OPR were 34 and 47% (P = 0.021) in the fresh and freeze-all groups, respectively. Conclusion(s) Although the freeze-all policy may be related to better in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in normal responders, these potential advantages decrease with worsening ovarian response. Patients with poorer ovarian response do not benefit from the freeze-all strategy.

show abstract

“…Although cryopreservation may entail some risks to the embryo, FET may provide an endometrium with increased receptivity, as compared to that after ovarian stimulation. The timing of the Bwindow of implantation( WOI) in stimulated cycles is complicated by the fact that it may be advanced or delayed, and therefore easily mistimed [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Shapiro et al [23] showed that the clinical pregnancy rate per transfer is significantly greater in the cryopreservation group than in the fresh group in normal responders and concluded that the difference was due to impaired endometrial receptivity in fresh embryo transfer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal embryo transfer strategy in poor response may include freeze-all

Berkkanoğlu

Coetzee

Bulut

et al. 2016

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the best embryo transfer strategy in ICSI cycles with ≤4 oocytes collected at oocyte retrieval. Methods Women who underwent antagonist co-treatment COS for ICSI treatment between January 2010 and December 2015 at a private ART clinic (N = 2263). Eight hundred seventy-nine women (group 1) had ≤4 oocytes collected at oocyte retrieval, of whom 645 (group A) had cleavage stage embryo transfer (ET), and 234 (group B) had blastocyst ET. One thousand three hundred eighty-four women (group 2) had 10-15 oocytes collected at oocyte retrieval, of whom 676 (group C) had cleavage stage ET, and 708 women (group D) had blastocyst ET. Blastocyst vitrification was performed using the Cryotop method and FET using artificial cycles. Results In group 1, the cancellation rate was significantly lower in group A (25.2 vs 38 %). The pregnancy rate (PR), clinical PR, implantation rate (IR), and live birth rate (LBR) per ET and per oocyte retrieval were all lower in group A. The clinical PR, IR, and LBR per ET of vitrified-warmed blastocyst ET were significantly the highest. In group 2, the cycle cancellation rate was significantly lower in group C (3.5 vs 13.4 %). The PR, clinical PR, and IR per ET and per oocyte retrieval were all lower in group C. The LBR per ET was significantly lower, but the LBR per oocyte retrieval was not significantly lower in group C. Again, the PR, clinical PR, and IR per ET of vitrifiedwarmed blastocyst ET were significantly the highest. Conclusions Day 5 ET strategy has been reserved for normal or high responders. The improved pregnancy outcomes from blastocyst culture and cryopreservation may challenge ART to extend this benefit to poor responders.

show abstract

Endometrial pinopodes indicate a shift in the window of receptivity in IVF cycles

Cited by 203 publications

References 18 publications

Uterine receptivity to human embryonic implantation: Histology, biomarkers, and transcriptomics

Uterine receptivity to human embryonic implantation: Histology, biomarkers, and transcriptomics

Freeze-all cycle for all normal responders?

Optimal embryo transfer strategy in poor response may include freeze-all

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About