Abstract
Purpose
Assessment of embryo viability is a key component of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and currently relies largely on embryo morphology and cleavage rate. In this study, we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to compare the Viability Score (generated by metabolomic profiling of spent embryo culture media using near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy) to morphologic grading for predicting pregnancy in women undergoing single embryo transfer (SET) on day 5.
Methods
A total of 198 spent embryo culture media samples were collected in four IVF centers located in the USA, Europe and Australia. First, 137 samples (training set) were analyzed by NIR to develop an algorithm that generates a Viability Score predictive of pregnancy for each sample. Next, 61 samples (validation set) were analyzed by observers blinded to embryo morphology and IVF outcome, using the Day 5 algorithm generated with the training set. Pregnancy was defined as fetal cardiac activity (FCA) at 12 weeks of gestation.
Results
The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was greater for the metabolomic Viability Score compared to Morphology [Training set: 0.75 versus 0.55, p = 0.0011; Validation set: 0.68 versus 0.50, P = 0.021], and for a Composite score (obtained using a model combining Viability Score with morphologic grading), compared to morphology alone [0.74 versus 0.50, p = 0.004].
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that Viability Score alone or in combination with morphologic grading has the potential to be a better classifier for pregnancy outcome than morphology alone in women undergoing SET on day 5.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
SART. Assisted reproductive technology success rates. National summary and fertility clinic reports. Centers for disease control, USA; 2007.
Ata B, Seli E. Economics of assisted reproductive technologies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010; epub Feb 1.
Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet. 1978;2:366.
Trounson A, Leeton J, Wood C, Webb J, Wood J. Pregnancies in humans by fertilization in vitro and embryo transfer in the controlled ovulatory cycle. Science. 1981;216:681–2.
Edwards R, Fishel S, Cohen J. Factors influencing the success of in vitro fertilization for alleviating human infertility. J In Vitro Fertil Embryo Transf 1984:3–23.
Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: MD JR, editor. Towards reproductive certainty: fertility and genetics beyond. Carnforth: Parthenon; 1999. p. 378–88.
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;14:2581–7.
Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfer the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1003–13.
Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear state morphology. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1318–23.
VanRoyan E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Van de Meerssche M, Ryckaert G, et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2345–9.
Veeck L. An atlas of human gametes and conceptuses: an illustrated reference for assisted reproductive technology. New York: Parthenon; 1999.
Sakkas D, Percival G, D’Arcy Y, Sharif K, Afnan M. Assessment of early cleaving in vitro fertilized human embryos at the 2-cell stage before transfer improves embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:1150–6.
Toner JP. Progress we can be proud of: U.S. trends in assisted reproduction over the first 20 years. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:943–50.
Bromer JG, Seli E. Assessment of embryo viability in assisted reproductive technologies: shortcomings of current approaches and the emerging role of metabolomics. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20:234–41.
Sakkas D, Gardner DK. Noninvasive methods to assess embryo quality. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:283–8.
Botros L, Sakkas D, Seli E. Metabolomics and its application for non-invasive embryo assessment in IVF. Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14:679–90.
Katz-Jaffe MG, Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Analysis of protein expression (secretome) by human and mouse preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:678–85.
Fuzzi B, Rizzo R, Criscuoli L, Noci I, Melchiorri L, Scarselli B, et al. HLA-G expression in early embryos is a fundamental prerequisite for the obtainment of pregnancy. Eur J Immunol. 2002;32:311–5.
Vercammen MJ, Verloes A, Van de Velde H, Haentjens P. Accuracy of soluble human leukocyte antigen-G for predicting pregnancy among women undergoing infertility treatment: meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:209–18.
Oliver SG, Winson MK, Kell DB, Baganz F. Systematic functional analysis of the yeast genome. Trends Biotechnol. 1998;16:373–8.
Seli E, Sakkas D, Scott R, Kwok JS, Rosendahl S, Burns DH. Non-invasive metabolomic profiling of human embryo culture media using Raman and near infrared spectroscopy correlates with reproductive potential of embryos in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:1350–7.
Scott RT, Seli E, Miller K, Sakkas D, Scott K, Burns DH. Non-invasive 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.
Vergouw CG, Botros LL, Roos P, Lens JW, Schats R, Hompes PGA, et al. Metabolomic profiling by near-infrared spectroscopy as a tool to assess embryo viability: a novel, non-invasive method for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1499–504.
Seli E, Vergouw CG, Morita H, Botros L, Roos P, Lambalk CB, et al. Non-invasive metabolomic profiling as an adjunct to morphology for non-invasive embryo assessment in women undergoing single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:535–42.
Seli E, Botros L, Henson M, Roos P, Sakkas D, group. Ms. Viability scores determined by metabolomic assessment of embryo culture media correlate with IVF outcome in women undergoing single embryo transfer on day 2: a prospective multi-center trial. In: Annual Meeting of American Society of Reproductive Medicine; 2009; Atlanta, GA.; 2009.
Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:3940–1.
R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL: http://www.R-project.org; 2005.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. Wiley; 2000.
Vergara IA, Norambuena T, Ferrada E, Slater AW, Melo F. StAR: a simple tool for the statistical comparison of ROC curves. BMC Bioinform. 2008;9:265.
He X, Frey E, ROC, LROC, FROC, AFROC. An alphabet soup. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:652–5.
Gardner DK. Dissection of culture media for embryos: the most important and less important components and characteristics. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2008;20:9–18.
Biggers JD, Summers MC. Choosing a culture medium: making informed choices. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:473–83.
Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Wagley L, Schlenker T, Stevens J, Hesla J. A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:3434–40.
Behr B, Pool TB, Milki AA, Moore D, Gebhardt J, Dasig D. Preliminary clinical experience with human blastocyst development in vitro without co-culture. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:454–7.
Van der Auwera I, Debrock S, Spiessens C, Afschrift H, Bakelants E, Meuleman C, et al. A prospective randomized study: day 2 versus day 5 embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1507–12.
Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:551–5.
Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:CD002118.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Capsule
In women undergoing single embryo transfer on day 5, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis suggests that metabolomic Viability Score alone or in combination with morphologic grading has the potential to be a better classifier for pregnancy outcome than morphology alone.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
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 28, 137–144 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9501-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9501-9