A cycle-based model to predict blastocyst transfer cancellation.

BACKGROUND Extended culture for blastocyst transfer is thought to result in embryos with high implantation potential, enabling the transfer of fewer embryos and the reduction of multiple pregnancies after in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, one major drawback of extended culture is the risk of transfer cancellation if no blastocyst develops by Day 5, despite the observation of adequate early embryo development. We set out to develop a model to predict blastocyst transfer cancellation. METHODS The model was built from 562 consecutive first IVF cycles and tested on an independent validation cohort. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to test the association of patient and cycle characteristics with the presence of cultured blastocysts on Day 5 and to create a nomogram. The model's performance was quantified by discrimination and calibration and clinical utility was evaluated for various thresholds. RESULTS Fertilization technique, number and quality ratio of the Day 3 embryos and female age were independently associated with blastocyst development. The final prediction model showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75 in the training set (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.77) and was well calibrated. The AUC for the validation data set was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78-0.83) and calibration was acceptable. Using a decision threshold of 0.55, the model showed a negative predictive value of 80.5% and a false positive rate of 17%. CONCLUSION A cycle-based model could prove clinically-relevant for reducing the incidence of cancelled Day 5 transfers.

[1]  C. Racowsky,et al.  The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. , 2000, Fertility and sterility.

[2]  D. Cox Two further applications of a model for binary regression , 1958 .

[3]  T. Ebner,et al.  Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: a review. , 2003, Human reproduction update.

[4]  J. Trimarchi,et al.  Sequential assessment of individually cultured human embryos as an indicator of subsequent good quality blastocyst development. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[5]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Prediction models in reproductive medicine: a critical appraisal. , 2009, Human reproduction update.

[6]  J. Habbema,et al.  Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  Bernard Lejeune,et al.  Blastocyst development after sperm selection at high magnification is associated with size and number of nuclear vacuoles. , 2008, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[8]  Bagyalakshmi Mathiyalagan,et al.  Prediction of embryo developmental potential and pregnancy based on early stage morphological characteristics. , 2006, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  J. Lansac,et al.  Efficacy of blastocyst transfer after implantation failure. , 2004, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[10]  D. Gardner,et al.  The role of proteomics in defining the human embryonic secretome , 2009, Molecular human reproduction.

[11]  L. Rienzi,et al.  Significance of morphological attributes of the early embryo. , 2005, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[12]  J. Miller,et al.  The effect of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and semen parameters on blastocyst development in vitro. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[13]  Michael W Kattan,et al.  Nomograms as predictive models. , 2002, Seminars in urologic oncology.

[14]  D E Grobbee,et al.  External validation is necessary in prediction research: a clinical example. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  H. Tournaye,et al.  Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis , 2008 .

[16]  B. V. Van Voorhis,et al.  Clinical predictors of human blastocyst formation and pregnancy after extended embryo culture and transfer. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[17]  G A Diamond,et al.  What price perfection? Calibration and discrimination of clinical prediction models. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  M. Youssry,et al.  Current aspects of blastocyst cryopreservation. , 2008, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[19]  C. Lambalk,et al.  Metabolomic profiling by near-infrared spectroscopy as a tool to assess embryo viability: a novel, non-invasive method for embryo selection. , 2008, Human reproduction.

[20]  D. Gardner,et al.  Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? , 1997, Human reproduction update.

[21]  E. Darai,et al.  Comparison of models to predict nonsentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: a prospective multicenter study. , 2009, Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  R. Alvero,et al.  The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[23]  F. Kung,et al.  The predictive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[24]  Y. Ménézo Paternal and maternal factors in preimplantation embryogenesis: interaction with the biochemical environment. , 2006, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[25]  B Giraudeau,et al.  Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. , 2007, Human reproduction.

[26]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[27]  H. Leese,et al.  Prediction of Porcine Blastocyst Formation Using Morphological, Kinetic, and Amino Acid Depletion and Appearance Criteria Determined During the Early Cleavage of In Vitro-Produced Embryos1 , 2007, Biology of reproduction.

[28]  C. Jansen,et al.  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. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[29]  N. Johnson,et al.  Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. , 2005, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[30]  Michel Camus,et al.  In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  P. Barrière,et al.  Intracytoplasmic sperm injection with polyvinylpyrrolidone: a potential risk. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.

[32]  Barry Behr,et al.  Symposium: innovative techniques in human embryo viability assessment. Non-invasive assessment of embryo viability by metabolomic profiling of culture media ('metabolomics'). , 2008, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[33]  D. Gardner,et al.  Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. , 2000, Fertility and sterility.

[34]  Carlo Flamigni,et al.  Predictive factors for embryo implantation potential. , 2005, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[35]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[36]  D. Royère,et al.  Single Day 2 embryo versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers. , 2009, Human reproduction.

[37]  G. Raj,et al.  How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.