Morphokinetic parameters from a time-lapse monitoring system cannot accurately predict the ploidy of embryos

Zhang, Jingye; Tao, Wenrong; Liu, Hui; Yu, Guanling; Mei, Li; Ma, Shanshan; Wu, Keliang

doi:10.1007/s10815-017-0965-8

Cited by 27 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multivariate analysis in the Euploid-ET arm also revealed that the transfer of TQE was not associated with the CPR, which is in line with previous studies reporting only mild associations between embryo ploidy and morphology [25,26].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

What is the clinical impact of the endometrial receptivity array in PGT-A and oocyte donation cycles?

Neves

Devesa

Martínez

et al. 2019

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the influence of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) test on the implantation rate (IR) and pregnancy rate (PR) in patients with previous failed euploid embryo transfers (Euploid-ET) or oocyte donation embryo transfers (Donor-ET). Methods Single-center retrospective study of patients with ≥ 1 previous failed Euploi-ET (n = 24) or ≥ 2 failed Donor-ET (n = 32) who underwent an ERA test and a post-ERA Euploid-ET/Donor-ET between 2012 and 2018. Controls were patients with ≥ 1 previously failed Euploid-ET (n = 119) or ≥ 2 failed Donor-ET (n = 158) who underwent Euploid-ET/Donor-ET during the same period without performing an ERA test. Only blastocyst stage embryos were included. IR/PR was compared between the post-ERA ET and the last ET in the control group. Results There was no statistically significant difference regarding IR [55.6% (34.6-76.5%) vs. 65.0% (56.9-73.1%)] nor PR (58.3% vs.70.6%, p = 0.238) in the Euploid-ET ERA vs. Euploid-ET control groups. In the Donor-ET arm, both IR [26.8% (12.3-41.4%) vs. 57.2% (50.1-64.3%)] and PR (34.4% vs. 65.2%, p = 0.001) were significantly lower in the ERA group. Multivariate analysis confirmed that performing an ERA test did not influence the PR in the Euploid-ET arm and was associated with a diminished PR in the Donor-ET arm. In the ERA group, 41.1% patients were non-receptive (NR). No significant difference was found regarding IR/PR in NR vs. receptive patients in both Euploid-ET/Donor-ET arms. Conclusions In our sample, the performance of an ERA test did not improve pregnancy outcomes. Future prospective studies in larger samples are needed to confirm the role of the ERA test in Euploid-ET/Donor-ET.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

What is the clinical impact of the endometrial receptivity array in PGT-A and oocyte donation cycles?

Neves

Devesa

Martínez

et al. 2019

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to our data, PBB has no impact on the morphokinetic variables tPNf, t2–t9, and tMor, including the critical time parameters t3 and t5. Likewise, further subdivision of PBB embryo into euploid and aneuploid embryos did not show any differences in the embryonal development, assuming that the genetic status of the embryo does not influence early embryonal development as already confirmed by authors like Zhang et al [ 36 ]. An interesting side effect of our study was the evaluation of laser beam influences on embryo development.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Impact of polar body biopsy on embryo morphokinetics—back to the roots in preimplantation genetic testing?

Groselj‐Strele

Eberhard

Feldmeier³

et al. 2018

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposePolar body biopsy (PBB) is a common technique in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) to assess the chromosomal status of the oocyte. Numerous studies have been implemented to investigate the impact of biopsies on embryo development; however, information on embryo morphokinetics is still lacking. Hence, we investigated the impact of PBB on morphokinetic parameters in early embryo development.MethodsFour hundred four embryos (202 PBB, 202 control) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were stimulated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist ovarian hyperstimulation protocol. After fertilization check, embryos were incubated in a time-lapse incubator. The groups were matched for maternal age at time of oocyte retrieval.ResultsMean group times for reaching specific developmental time points showed no significant difference comparing embryos with PBB conducted and without. Likewise, further subdivision of the PBB group in euploid and aneuploid embryos revealed no differences in the early embryo morphokinetic development compared to the control group. Aneuploidy testing revealed a high prevalence of chromosomal aberrations for chromosomes 21, 4, 16, and 19.ConclusionsIn conclusion, PBB does not impact the morphokinetic parameters of the embryo development. PBB can be safely applied without the risk of impairing the reproductive potential of the embryo and can be highly recommended as safe and practicable PGT approach, especially in countries with prevailing restrictions regarding PGT analysis.

show abstract

“…Subsequently, Campbell’s aneuploidy risk model was applied by others on their own data sets, in order to test its ability to distinguish embryos on the basis of their ploidy. 30 , 42 , 43 Kramer and colleagues 42 retrospectively analyzed the morphokinetic development of 149 blastocysts obtained by means of either IVF or ICSI and biopsied in day-5 or day-6 cultures. The proposed model, however, failed to discriminate aneuploid embryos: the timing of blastocele formation and blastocyst expansion differed significantly from the predicted values.…”

Section: Algorithmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, an increasing number of studies reported how the embryo’s morphokinetic development can be influenced by many confounding factors related to patient’s features or clinical and biological procedures. 2 , 27 – 30 , 37 – 43 …”

Section: Confounding Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Again, two research groups tested independently this new algorithm on their own data. 29,30 In both studies, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) results obtained after the biopsy of, respectively, 167 29 and 256 30 blastocysts were analyzed. Basile's model failed to discriminate between normal and abnormal embryos in both data sets.…”

Section: Blastocyst Formation and Implantation Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The clinical use of time-lapse in human-assisted reproduction

Minasi

Greco

Varricchio

et al. 2020

Clin Med�Insights�Reprod�Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major challenge in the assisted reproduction laboratory is to set up reproducible and efficient criteria to identify the embryo with the highest developmental potential. Over the years, several methods have been used worldwide with this purpose. Initially, standard morphology assessment was the only available strategy. It is now universally recognized that besides being a very subjective embryo selection strategy, morphology evaluation alone has a very poor prognostic value. More recently, the availability of time-lapse incubators allowed a continuous monitoring of human embryo development. This technology has spread quickly and many fertility clinics over the world produced a remarkable amount of data. To date, however, a general consensus on which variables, or combination of variables, should play a central role in embryo selection is still lacking. Many confounding factors, concerning both patient features and clinical and biological procedures, have been observed to influence embryo development. In addition, several studies have reported unexpected positive outcomes, even in the presence of abnormal developmental criteria. While it does not seem that time-lapse technology is ready to entirely replace the more invasive preimplantation genetic testing in identifying the embryo with the highest implantation potential, it is certainly true that its application is rapidly growing, becoming progressively more accurate. Studies involving artificial intelligence and deep-learning models as well as combining morphokinetic with other non-invasive markers of embryo development, are currently ongoing, raising hopes for its successful applicability for clinical purpose in the near future. The present review mainly focuses on data published starting from the first decade of 2000, when time-lapse technology was introduced as a routine clinical practice in the infertility centers.

show abstract

Morphokinetic parameters from a time-lapse monitoring system cannot accurately predict the ploidy of embryos

Abstract: Morphokinetic parameters subjected to investigation in the present study failed to improve the chance of selecting euploid embryos.

Cited by 27 publications

References 34 publications

What is the clinical impact of the endometrial receptivity array in PGT-A and oocyte donation cycles?

What is the clinical impact of the endometrial receptivity array in PGT-A and oocyte donation cycles?

Impact of polar body biopsy on embryo morphokinetics—back to the roots in preimplantation genetic testing?

The clinical use of time-lapse in human-assisted reproduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About