Making IVF more effective through the evolution of prediction models: is prognosis the missing piece of the puzzle?

References

• Alebic MS, Stojanovic N, Zuvic-Butorac M. 2013. The IVF outcome counseling based on the model combining DHEAS and age in patients with low AMH prior to the first cycle of GnRH antagonist protocol of ovarian stimulation. Int J Endocrinol. 2013:637919.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Allegra A, Marino A, Volpes A, Coffaro F, Scaglione P, Gullo S, La Marca A. 2017. A randomized controlled trial investigating the use of a predictive nomogram for the selection of the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 34(4):429–438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anifandis G, Dafopoulos K, Messini CI, Chalvatzas N, Messinis IE. 2010. Effect of the position of the polar body during ICSI on fertilization rate and embryo development. Reprod Sci. 17(9):849–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arvis P, Lehert P, Guivarc’h-Leveque A. 2012. Simple adaptations to the Templeton model for IVF outcome prediction make it current and clinically useful. Hum Reprod. 27(10):2971–2978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashrafi M, Bahmanabadi A, Akhond MR, Arabipoor A. 2015. Predictive factors of early moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in non-polycystic ovarian syndrome patients: a statistical model. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 292(5):1145–1152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beuchat A, Thevenaz P, Unser M, Ebner T, Senn A, Urner F, Germond M, Sorzano CO. 2008. Quantitative morphometrical characterization of human pronuclear zygotes. Hum Reprod. 23(9):1983–1992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouckaert A, Psalti I, Loumaye E, De Cooman S, Thomas K. 1994. The probability of a successful treatment of infertility by in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 9(3):448–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brison DR, Houghton FD, Falconer D, Roberts SA, Hawkhead J, Humpherson PG, Lieberman BA, Leese HJ. 2004. Identification of viable embryos in IVF by non-invasive measurement of amino acid turnover. Hum Reprod. 19(10):2319–2324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broekmans FJ, Verweij PJ, Eijkemans MJ, Mannaerts BM, Witjes H. 2014. Prognostic models for high and low ovarian responses in controlled ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Hum Reprod. 29(8):1688–1697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalumeau C, Moreau J, Gatimel N, Cohade C, Lesourd F, Parinaud J, Leandri R. 2018. Establishment and validation of a score to predict ovarian response to stimulation in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 36(1):26–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neubourg D, Gerris J, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Vercruyssen M, Elseviers M. 2004. Single top quality embryo transfer as a model for prediction of early pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod. 19(6):1476–1479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devjak R, Burnik Papler T, Verdenik I, Fon Tacer K, Vrtacnik Bokal E. 2016. Embryo quality predictive models based on cumulus cells gene expression. Balkan J Med Genet. 19(1):5–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhillon RK, McLernon DJ, Smith PP, Fishel S, Dowell K, Deeks JJ, Bhattacharya S, Coomarasamy A. 2016. Predicting the chance of live birth for women undergoing IVF: a novel pretreatment counselling tool. Hum Reprod. 31(1):84–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickey RP. 2003. A year of inaction on high-order multiple pregnancies due to ovulation induction. Fertil Steril. 79(1):14–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Tews G. 2003. Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: a review. Hum Reprod Update. 9(3):251–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eijkemans MJC, Kersten FAM, Lintsen AME, Hunault CC, Bouwmans CAM, Roijen LH, Habbema JDF, Braat DDM. 2017. Cost-effectiveness of ‘immediate IVF’ versus ‘delayed IVF’: a prospective study. Hum Reprod. 32(5):999–1008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eijkemans MJC, Lintsen AM, Hunault CC, Bouwmans CA, Hakkaart L, Braat DD, Habbema JD. 2008. Pregnancy chances on an IVF/ICSI waiting list: a national prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 23(7):1627–1632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eijkemans MJC, Polinder S, Mulders AG, Laven JS, Habbema JD, Fauser BC. 2005. Individualized cost-effective conventional ovulation induction treatment in normogonadotrophic anovulatory infertility (WHO group 2). Hum Reprod. 20(10):2830–2837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESHRE. 2000. Multiple gestation pregnancy. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Hum Reprod. 15(8):1856–1864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauser B. 2017. Patient-tailored ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 108(4):585–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferlitsch K, Sator MO, Gruber DM, Rucklinger E, Gruber CJ, Huber JC. 2004. Body mass index, follicle-stimulating hormone and their predictive value in in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 21(12):431–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisch JD, Rodriguez H, Ross R, Overby G, Sher G. 2001. The Graduated Embryo Score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. Hum Reprod. 16(9):1970–1975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou I, Nardo LG. 2010. The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 94(3):936–945.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Van De Meerssche M, Valkenburg M. 1999. Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 14(10):2581–2587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerris J, De Sutter P, De Neubourg D, Van Royen E, Vander Elst J, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M, Kok P, Elseviers M, Annemans L, et al. 2004. A real-life prospective health economic study of elective single embryo transfer versus two-embryo transfer in first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 19(4):917–923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Fortini D, Grieco N. 2003. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 80(2):341–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P, Hans E, Spach JL, Salzmann J, Roulier R. 1995. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod. 10(9):2427–2431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K, Garello C, Gennarelli G, Revelli A, Bergh T. 2007. 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. 22(2):548–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hossain A, Phelps J, Agarwal A, Sanz E, Mahadevan M. 2016. A review of the society for assisted reproductive technology embryo grading system and proposed modification. Int J Fertil Steril. 10(2):141–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes EG, King C, Wood EC. 1989. A prospective study of prognostic factors in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 51(5):838–844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunault CC, Eijkemans MJ, Pieters MH, Te Velde ER, Habbema JD, Fauser BC, Macklon NS. 2002. A prediction model for selecting patients undergoing in vitro fertilization for elective single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 77(4):725–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunault CC, Te Velde ER, Weima SM, Macklon NS, Eijkemans MJ, Klinkert ER, Habbema JD. 2007. A case study of the applicability of a prediction model for the selection of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization for single embryo transfer in another center. Fertil Steril. 87(6):1314–1321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamath MS, Kirubakaran R, Mascarenhas M, Sunkara SK. 2018. Perinatal outcomes after stimulated versus natural cycle IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 36(1):94–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilani S, Cooke S, Kan A, Chapman M. 2009. Are there non-invasive markers in human oocytes that can predict pregnancy outcome? Reprod Biomed Online. 18(5):674–680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Marca A, Grisendi V, Giulini S, Argento C, Tirelli A, Dondi G, Papaleo E, Volpe A. 2013. Individualization of the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles using the antral follicle count. J Ovarian Res. 6(1):11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• La Marca A, Papaleo E, Grisendi V, Argento C, Giulini S, Volpe A. 2012. Development of a nomogram based on markers of ovarian reserve for the individualisation of the follicle-stimulating hormone starting dose in in vitro fertilisation cycles. BJOG. 119(10):1171–1179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lensen SF, Wilkinson J, Leijdekkers JA, La Marca A, Mol BWJ, Marjoribanks J, Torrance H, Broekmans FJ. 2018. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2:CD012693.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leushuis E, van der Steeg JW, Steures P, Bossuyt PM, Eijkemans MJ, van der Veen F, Mol BW, Hompes PG. 2009. Prediction models in reproductive medicine: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 15(5):537–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis SE, O’Connell M, Stevenson M, Thompson-Cree L, McClure N. 2004. An algorithm to predict pregnancy in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 19(6):1385–1394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loi K, Prasath EB, Huang ZW, Loh SF, Loh SK. 2008. A cumulative embryo scoring system for the prediction of pregnancy outcome following intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Singapore Med J. 49(3):221–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukassen HG, Braat DD, Wetzels AM, Zielhuis GA, Adang EM, Scheenjes E, Kremer JA. 2005. Two cycles with single embryo transfer versus one cycle with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 20(3):702–708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, Stern JE, Baker VL, Widra E, Coddington CC 3rd, Gibbons WE, Ball GD. 2014. A prediction model for live birth and multiple births within the first three cycles of assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 102(3):744–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, Stern JE, Baker VL, Widra E, Coddington CC 3rd, Gibbons WE, Van Voorhis BJ, Ball GD. 2015. Application of a validated prediction model for in vitro fertilization: comparison of live birth rates and multiple birth rates with 1 embryo transferred over 2 cycles vs 2 embryos in 1 cycle. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 212(5):676 e671–677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenna A, Crosby J, Zegers-Hochschild F. 2013. Sibling embryo blastocyst development as a prognostic factor for the outcome of day-3 embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 26(5):486–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLernon DJ, Steyerberg EW, Te Velde ER, Lee AJ, Bhattacharya S. 2016. Predicting the chances of a live birth after one or more complete cycles of in vitro fertilisation: population based study of linked cycle data from 113 873 women. BMJ. 355:i5735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minaretzis D, Harris D, Alper MM, Mortola JF, Berger MJ, Power D. 1998. Multivariate analysis of factors predictive of successful live births in in vitro fertilization (IVF) suggests strategies to improve IVF outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 15(6):365–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon KY, Kim H, Lee JY, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim KC, Lee WD, Lim JH, Kim SH. 2016. Nomogram to predict the number of oocytes retrieved in controlled ovarian stimulation. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 43(2):112–118.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murber A, Fancsovits P, Ledo N, Gilan ZT, Rigo J Jr., Urbancsek J. 2009. Impact of GnRH analogues on oocyte/embryo quality and embryo development in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a case control study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 7:103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nayudu PL, Gook DA, Hepworth G, Lopata A, Johnston WI. 1989. Prediction of outcome in human in vitro fertilization based on follicular and stimulation response variables. Fertil Steril. 51(1):117–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson SM, Fleming R, Gaudoin M, Choi B, Santo-Domingo K, Yao M. 2015. Antimullerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as prognostic indicators in a personalized prediction model of live birth. Fertil Steril. 104(2):325–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson SM, Lawlor DA. 2011. Predicting live birth, preterm delivery, and low birth weight in infants born from in vitro fertilisation: a prospective study of 144,018 treatment cycles. PLoS Med. 8(1):e1000386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olivennes F. 2000. Avoiding multiple pregnancies in ART. Double trouble: yes a twin pregnancy is an adverse outcome. Hum Reprod. 15(8):1663–1665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottosen LD, Kesmodel U, Hindkjaer J, Ingerslev HJ. 2007. Pregnancy prediction models and eSET criteria for IVF patients–do we need more information? J Assist Reprod Genet. 24(1):29–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne JF, Raburn DJ, Couchman GM, Price TM, Jamison MG, Walmer DK. 2005. Relationship between pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) and standard day 2 or 3 embryo morphology with regard to assisted reproductive technique outcomes. Fertil Steril. 84(4):900–909.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen BM, Boel M, Montag M, Gardner DK. 2016. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on Day 3. Hum Reprod. 31(10):2231–2244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering SJ, Taylor A, Johnson MH, Braude PR. 1995. An analysis of multinucleated blastomere formation in human embryos. Hum Reprod. 10(7):1912–1922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian YL, Ye YH, Xu CM, Jin F, Huang HF. 2008. Accuracy of a combined score of zygote and embryo morphology for selecting the best embryos for IVF. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 9(8):649–655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racowsky C, Ohno-Machado L, Kim J, Biggers JD. 2009. Is there an advantage in scoring early embryos on more than one day? Hum Reprod. 24(9):2104–2113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racowsky C, Vernon M, Mayer J, Ball GD, Behr B, Pomeroy KO, Wininger D, Gibbons W, Conaghan J, Stern JE. 2010. Standardization of grading embryo morphology. J Assist Reprod Genet. 27(8):437–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ragni G, Vegetti W, Riccaboni A, Engl B, Brigante C, Crosignani PG. 2005. Comparison of GnRH agonists and antagonists in assisted reproduction cycles of patients at high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Reprod. 20(9):2421–2425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhenman A, Berglund L, Brodin T, Olovsson M, Milton K, Hadziosmanovic N, Holte J. 2015. Which set of embryo variables is most predictive for live birth? A prospective study in 6252 single embryo transfers to construct an embryo score for the ranking and selection of embryos. Hum Reprod. 30(1):28–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodgaard T, Heegaard PM, Callesen H. 2015. Non-invasive assessment of in-vitro embryo quality to improve transfer success. Reprod Biomed Online. 31(5):585–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rongieres C, Colella C, Lehert P. 2015. To what extent does Anti-Mullerian Hormone contribute to a better prediction of live birth after IVF? J Assist Reprod Genet. 32(1):37–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarais V, Reschini M, Busnelli A, Biancardi R, Paffoni A, Somigliana E. 2016. Predicting the success of IVF: external validation of the van Loendersloot’s model. Hum Reprod. 31(6):1245–1252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scher AI, Petterson B, Blair E, Ellenberg JH, Grether JK, Haan E, Reddihough DS, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Nelson KB. 2002. The risk of mortality or cerebral palsy in twins: a collaborative population-based study. Pediatr Res. 52(5):671–681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott L, Finn A, O’Leary T, McLellan S, Hill J. 2007. Morphologic parameters of early cleavage-stage embryos that correlate with fetal development and delivery: prospective and applied data for increased pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod. 22(1):230–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sher G, Keskintepe L, Nouriani M, Roussev R, Batzofin J. 2004. Expression of sHLA-G in supernatants of individually cultured 46-h embryos: a potentially valuable indicator of ‘embryo competency’ and IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 9(1):74–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon A, Laufer N. 2012. Assessment and treatment of repeated implantation failure (RIF). J Assist Reprod Genet. 29(11):1227–1239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith AD, Tilling K, Lawlor DA, Nelson SM. 2015. External validation and calibration of IVFpredict: a national prospective cohort study of 130,960 in vitro fertilisation cycles. PLoS One. 10(4):e0121357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steer CV, Mills CL, Tan SL, Campbell S, Edwards RG. 1992. The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod. 7(1):117–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolwijk AM, Straatman H, Zielhuis GA, Jansen CA, Braat DD, Van Dop PA, Verbeek AL. 1998. External validation of prognostic models for ongoing pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 13(12):3542–3549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Te Velde ER, Nieboer D, Lintsen AM, Braat DD, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD, Vergouwe Y. 2014. Comparison of two models predicting IVF success; the effect of time trends on model performance. Hum Reprod. 29(1):57–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Templeton A, Morris JK, Parslow W. 1996. Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Lancet. 348(9039):1402–1406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terriou P, Sapin C, Giorgetti C, Hans E, Spach JL, Roulier R. 2001. Embryo score is a better predictor of pregnancy than the number of transferred embryos or female age. Fertil Steril. 75(3):525–531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, Bergh C. 2004. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 351(23):2392–2402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Loendersloot L, Repping S, Bossuyt PM, van der Veen F, van Wely M. 2014a. Prediction models in in vitro fertilization; where are we? A mini review. J Adv Res. 5(3):295–301.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Loendersloot L, van Wely M, Repping S, Bossuyt PM, van der Veen F. 2013. Individualized decision-making in IVF: calculating the chances of pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 28(11):2972–2980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Loendersloot L, van Wely M, van der Veen F, Bossuyt P, Repping S. 2014b. Selection of embryos for transfer in IVF: ranking embryos based on their implantation potential using morphological scoring. Reprod Biomed Online. 29(2):222–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wathlet S, Adriaenssens T, Segers I, Verheyen G, Van Landuyt L, Coucke W, Devroey P, Smitz J. 2013. Pregnancy prediction in single embryo transfer cycles after ICSI using QPCR: validation in oocytes from the same cohort. PLoS One. 8(4):e54226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolner-Hanssen P, Rydhstroem H. 1998. Cost-effectiveness analysis of in-vitro fertilization: estimated costs per successful pregnancy after transfer of one or two embryos. Hum Reprod. 13(1):88–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yenkie KM, Diwekar U. 2015. Uncertainty in clinical data and stochastic model for in vitro fertilization. J Theor Biol. 367:76–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarinara A, Zeraati H, Kamali K, Mohammad K, Shahnazari P, Akhondi MM. 2016. Models predicting success of infertility treatment: a systematic review. J Reprod Infertil. 17(2):68–81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen AG, Gabrielsen A, Andersen AN. 1997. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 12(7):1545–1549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar