Relationship Between Morphology, Euploidy and Implantation Potential of Cleavage and Blastocyst Stage Embryos

Gaurav Majumdar, Abha Majumdar, Ishwar C Verma, Kailash C Upadhyaya, Gaurav Majumdar, Abha Majumdar, Ishwar C Verma, Kailash C Upadhyaya

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the morphology, euploidy and implantation rate of cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryos.

Setting: Institution-based, tertiary care in-vitro fertilization centre.

Study design: This study included a retrospective data analysis of 306 embryos: 154 cleavage stage embryos and 152 blastocysts that underwent biopsy on day 3 and day 5/6, respectively, which were subsequently screened for aneuploidy by array comparative genomic hybridization analysis.

Materials and methods: Both cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryos were categorized according to their morphology into the following three groups: good, average and poor. In addition, blastocysts were categorized into day 5 and day 6 embryos on the basis of their developmental rate.

Results: The euploidy rate was found to be significantly higher for blastocysts with good morphology as compared to those with poor morphology, with 73.2, 50 and 40.5% euploid embryos in the good, average and poor morphology groups, respectively (P = 0.001). No significant association was found between day 3 embryo morphology and euploidy rates with 40.6, 29.3 and 25.8% euploid embryos in the three groups, respectively (P = 0.254). The implantation rates, as per morphology, for the transferred euploid cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryos were 43.8, 37.5 and 0% (P = 0.354) and 51.7, 71.4 and 66.7% (P = 0.562) in the good, average and poor morphology groups, respectively. The euploidy rate for day 5 blastocysts was significantly higher (70% vs. 34.1%, P < 0.001) than that of day 6 blastocysts, but the implantation rate was similar in both the groups (58.8 and 50%, respectively). The miscarriage rates for the euploid cleavage stage and the blastocysts stage embryos were 18.2 and 8.3% (P = 0.575), respectively.

Conclusion: Blastocyst morphology and the rate of development were found to be significantly associated with euploidy, whereas cleavage stage morphology was not. The implantation rates of the good quality, euploid cleavage stage embryos were higher than that of the poor quality embryos. The implantation rates were similar for all transferred euploid blastocysts, irrespective of their morphology or the rate of development.

Keywords: Aneuploidy; blastocyst; cleavage stage embryo; implantation rate; morphology; preimplantation genetic screening.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1999 11:307–11. Available from: .
    1. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:520–4.
    1. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: An observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1173–81.
    1. Pellestor F, Anahory T, Hamamah S. Effect of maternal age on the frequency of cytogenetic abnormalities in human oocytes. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;111:206–12.
    1. Fragouli E, Wells D, Delhanty JD. Chromosome abnormalities in the human oocyte. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2011;133:107–18.
    1. Duncan FE, Hornick JE, Lampson MA, Schultz RM, Shea LD, Woodruff TK. Chromosome cohesion decreases in human eggs with advanced maternal age. Aging Cell. 2012;11:1121–4.
    1. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: A review of 15, 169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:656–63.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.004.
    1. Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, Michiels A, Tournaye H, Camus M, et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2849–58.
    1. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];N Engl J Med. 2007 357:9–17. Available from: . Engl J Med/N Engl J Med 2007 Mastenbroek. .
    1. Staessen C, Verpoest W, Donoso P, Haentjens P, Van Der Elst J, Liebaers I, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2818–25.
    1. Twisk M, Mastenbroek S, Hoek A, Heineman M-J, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM, et al. No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2813–7.
    1. Hardarson T, Hanson C, Lundin K, Hillensjö T, Nilsson L, Stevic J, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2806–12.
    1. Hellani A, Abu-Amero K, Azouri J, El-Akoum S. Successful pregnancies after application of array-comparative genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:841–7.
    1. Treff NR, Levy B, Su J, Northrop LE, Tao X, Scott RT. SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Mol Hum Reprod. 2010 16:583–9. Available from: .
    1. Treff NR, Northrop LE, Kasabwala K, Su J, Levy B, Scott RT. Single nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based concurrent screening of 24-chromosome aneuploidy and unbalanced translocations in preimplantation human embryos. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Fertil Steril. 2011 95:1606–12.e2. Available from: .
    1. Gutiérrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sánchez-García J, Escudero T, Prates R, Ketterson K, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Fertil Steril. 2011 95:953–8. Available from: .
    1. Treff NR, Tao X, Ferry KM, Su J, Taylor D, Scott RT. Development and validation of an accurate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction-based assay for human blastocyst comprehensive chromosomal aneuploidy screening. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Fertil Steril. 2012 97:819–24. Available from: .
    1. Treff NR, Tao X, Taylor D, Hong KH, Forman EJ, Scott RT. Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based 24-chromosome aneuploidy screening system. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Fertil Steril. 2013 100:S82. Available from: .
    1. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1700–6.
    1. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: Results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:24.
    1. Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: A randomized controlled trial. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Fertil Steril. 2013 100:697–703. Available from: .
    1. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: A randomized controlled trial. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Fertil Steril. 2013 100:100–7.e1. Available from: .
    1. Keltz MD, Vega M, Sirota I, Lederman M, Moshier EL, Gonzales E, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) with comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:1333–9.
    1. Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG. Comprehensive chromosome screening of trophectoderm with vitrification facilitates elective single-embryo transfer for infertile women with advanced maternal age. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Fertil Steril. 2013 100:615–9. Available from: .
    1. Majumdar G, Majumdar A, Lall M, Verma I, Upadhyaya K. Preimplantation genetic screening for all 24 chromosomes by microarray comparative genomic hybridization significantly increases implantation rates and clinical pregnancy rates in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with poor prognosis. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];J Hum Reprod Sci. 2016 9:94. Available from: .
    1. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Preimplantation genetic screening is alive and very well: Really? Fertil Steril. 2013;100:e36. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.019.
    1. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: A systematic review. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014 12:22. Available from: .
    1. Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Zhao T, Treff NR. Cleavage-stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: A randomized and paired clinical trial. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Fertil Steril. 2013 100:624–30. Available from: .
    1. Phan V, Littman E, Harris D, La A. Correlation between embryo morphology and development and chromosomal complement. Asian Pac J Reprod. 2014;3:85–9.
    1. Kroener LL, Ambartsumyan G, Pisarska MD, Briton-Jones C, Surrey M, Hill D. Increased blastomere number in cleavage-stage embryos is associated with higher aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:694–8.
    1. Harton GL, Munné S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh DH, et al. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1695–703.
    1. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:344–8.
    1. Barbash-Hazan S, Frumkin T, Malcov M, Yaron Y, Cohen T, Azem F, et al. Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:890–6.
    1. Bazrgar M, Gourabi H, Valojerdi MR, Yazdi PE, Baharvand H. Self-correction of chromosomal abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 16];Stem Cells Dev. 2013 22:2449–56. Available from: .
    1. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Jaroudi S, Sarasa J, Enciso M, et al. The origin and impact of embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Genet. 2013;132:1001–13.
    1. Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, Lappi M, Ruberti A, Farfalli V. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:534–41.
    1. Munné S, Chen S, Colls P, Garrisi J, Zheng X, Cekleniak N, et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:628–34. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10) 61057-7.
    1. Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Barrett CB, Thornton KL, Penzias AS. Influence of patient age on the association between euploidy and day-3 embryo morphology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:365–7.
    1. Moayeri SE, Allen RB, Brewster WR, Kim MH, Porto M, Werlin LB. Day-3 embryo morphology predicts euploidy among older subjects. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:118–23.
    1. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20:117–26.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться