Oocyte Scoring Enhances Embryo-Scoring in Predicting Pregnancy Chances with IVF Where It Counts Most

Abstract

Context: Our center's quality improvement optimization process on many occasions anecdotally suggested that oocyte assessments might enhance embryo assessment in predicting pregnancy chances with in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Objective: To prospectively compare a morphologic oocyte grading system to standard day-3 morphologic embryo assessment.

Design, setting, patients: We prospectively investigated in a private academically-affiliated infertility center 94 consecutive IVF cycles based on 6 criteria for oocyte quality: morphology, cytoplasm, perivitelline space (PVS), zona pellucida (ZP), polar body (PB) and oocyte size, each assigned a value of -1 (worst), 0 (average) or +1 (best), so establishing an average total oocyte score (TOS). Embryo assessment utilized grade and cell numbers of each embryo on day-3 after oocyte retrieval. Clinical pregnancy was defined by presence of at least one intrauterine gestational sac.

Interventions: Standard IVF cycles in infertile women.

Main outcome measures: Predictability of pregnancy based on oocyte and embryo-grading systems.

Results: Average age for all patients was 36.5 ± 7.3 years; mean oocyte yield was 7.97± 5.76; Patient specific total oocyte score (PTOS) was -1.05 ± 2.24. PTOS, adjusted for patient age, was directly related to odds of increased embryo cell numbers (OR 1.12, P = 0.025), embryo grade (OR 1.19, P < 0.001) and clinical pregnancy [OR 1.58 (95%CI 1.23 to 2.02), P < 0.001]. Restricting the analysis to day three embryos of high quality (8-cell/ good grades), TOS was still predictive of clinical pregnancy (OR 2.08 (95%CI 1.26 to 3.44, P = 0.004). Among the 69 patients with embryos of Grade 4 or better available for transfer 23 achieved Clinical Pregnancy. When the analysis was restricted to the 69 transfers with good quality embryos (≥ Grade 4) the Oocyte Scoring System (TOS) (AUC±SE 0.863±0.044, oocyte score) provided significantly greater predictive value for clinical pregnancy compared to the embryo grade alone (AUC 0.646 ± 0.072, embryo grade) p = 0.015.

Conclusions: Oocyte-scoring, thus, provides useful clinical information especially in good prognosis patients with large numbers of high quality embryos. This finding appears of particular importance at a time when many IVF centers are committing sizable investments to closed incubation systems with time-lapse photography, which are exclusively meant to define embryo morphology.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Example photographs for oocyte scoring system.

The figure represents the oocyte grading system for the six morphological characteristics analyzed in this project (Morphology, Size, Cytoplasm, ZP, PVS and PB). For each oocyte, each single characteristic was graded as worst (-1), average (0), or best (1) creating a TOS by adding up individual parameter assessments.

Fig 2. Distribution of TOS among studied patients.

Fig 2 is the histogram of Total Score. The Total Score distribution is not symmetric.

Fig 3. ROC curves for oocyte and embryo scores.

Among the 69 patients with embryos of Grade 4 or better available for transfer 23 achieved Clinical Pregnancy. When the analysis was restricted to the 69 transfers with Good quality embryos (≥ Grade 4) the Oocyte Scoring System (TOS) (AUC±SE 0.863±0.044, oocyte score) provided significantly greater predictive value for clinical pregnancy compared to the embryo grade alone (AUC 0.646 ± 0.072, embryo grade) p = 0.015.