The novel POSEIDON stratification of 'Low prognosis patients in Assisted Reproductive Technology' and its proposed marker of successful outcome

Peter Humaidan, Carlo Alviggi, Robert Fischer, Sandro C Esteves, Peter Humaidan, Carlo Alviggi, Robert Fischer, Sandro C Esteves

Abstract

In reproductive medicine little progress has been achieved regarding the clinical management of patients with a reduced ovarian reserve or poor ovarian response (POR) to stimulation with exogenous gonadotropins -a frustrating experience for clinicians as well as patients. Despite the efforts to optimize the definition of this subgroup of patients, the existing POR criteria unfortunately comprise a heterogeneous population and, importantly, do not offer any recommendations for clinical handling. Recently, the POSEIDON group ( Patient- Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualize D Oocyte Number) proposed a new stratification of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in patients with a reduced ovarian reserve or unexpected inappropriate ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropins. In brief, four subgroups have been suggested based on quantitative and qualitative parameters, namely, i. Age and the expected aneuploidy rate; ii. Ovarian biomarkers (i.e. antral follicle count [AFC] and anti-Müllerian hormone [AMH]), and iii. Ovarian response - provided a previous stimulation cycle was performed. The new classification introduces a more nuanced picture of the "low prognosis patient" in ART, using clinically relevant criteria to guide the physician to most optimally manage this group of patients. The POSEIDON group also introduced a new measure for successful ART treatment, namely, the ability to retrieve the number of oocytes needed for the specific patient to obtain at least one euploid embryo for transfer. This feature represents a pragmatic endpoint to clinicians and enables the development of prediction models aiming to reduce the time-to-pregnancy (TTP). Consequently, the POSEIDON stratification should not be applied for retrospective analyses having live birth rate (LBR) as endpoint. Such an approach would fail as the attribution of patients to each Poseidon group is related to specific requirements and could only be made prospectively. On the other hand, any prospective approach (i.e. RCT) should be performed separately in each specific group.

Keywords: Assisted Reproductive Technology; Diagnosis; Embryo aneuploidy; Gonadotropins; Group POSEIDON; Ovarian stimulation; Poor ovarian response; Prognosis..

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: PH, CA, RF, and SE are members of the POSEIDON group.

Figures

Figure 1.. Four groups of ‘low prognosis…
Figure 1.. Four groups of ‘low prognosis patients’ in assisted reproductive technology according to the POSEIDON’s stratification based on oocyte quantity and quality.
AFC: antral follicle count; AMH: anti-Müllerian hormone. Adapted with permission from Elsevier; Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number)., Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, Esteves SC, Fischer R, Galliano D, Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK, Ubaldi FM, Humaidan P. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. 2016 Jun;105(6):1452–3.

References

    1. Ata B, Kaplan B, Danzer H, et al. : Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related to the number of embryos generated. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(6):614–620. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.02.009
    1. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, et al. : ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–1624. 10.1093/humrep/der092
    1. Nagels HE, Rishworth JR, Siristatidis CS, et al. : Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;26(11): CD009749. 10.1002/14651858.CD009749.pub2
    1. Pandian Z, McTavish AR, Aucott L, et al. : Interventions for 'poor responders' to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;20(1): CD004379. 10.1002/14651858.CD004379.pub3
    1. Papathanasiou A, Searle BJ, King NM, et al. : Trends in 'poor responder' research: lessons learned from RCTs in assisted conception. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(3): pii: dmw001. 10.1093/humupd/dmw001
    1. Patrizio P, Vaiarelli A, Setti L, et al. : How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(6):581–592. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.03.002
    1. Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number), . Alviggi C, Andersen CY, et al. : A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1452–3. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.005
    1. Sakakibara Y, Hashimoto S, Nakaoka Y, et al. : Bivalent separation into univalents precedes age-related meiosis I errors in oocytes. Nat Commun. 2015;6: 7550. 10.1038/ncomms8550
    1. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L., ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition: ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod.2011;26(7) : 10.1093/humrep/der092 1616-24 10.1093/humrep/der092
    1. Younis JS, Ben-Ami M, Ben-Shlomo I: The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal. J Ovarian Res.2015;8: 10.1186/s13048-015-0204-9 76 10.1186/s13048-015-0204-9
    1. Poseidon Group Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number, Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, Esteves SC, Fischer R, Galliano D, Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK, Ubaldi FM, Humaidan P: A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril.2016;105(6) : 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.005 1452-3 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.005
    1. Cai Q, Wan F, Huang K, Zhang H: Does the number of oocytes retrieved influence pregnancy after fresh embryo transfer?. PLoS One.2013;8(2) : 10.1371/journal.pone.0056189 e56189 10.1371/journal.pone.0056189
    1. Nyboe Andersen A, Nelson SM, Fauser BC, García-Velasco JA, Klein BM, Arce JC., ESTHER-1 study group: Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertil Steril.2016; 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.033 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.033
    1. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH: Is it time for a paradigm shift in understanding embryo selection?. Reprod Biol Endocrinol.2015;13: 10.1186/1477-7827-13-3 3 10.1186/1477-7827-13-3

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever