Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 455–459 | Cite as

The impact of patient preselection on reported IVF outcomes

  • Norbert Gleicher
  • Vitaly A. Kushnir
  • David H. Barad
Opinion

Abstract

We, in this manuscript, address the fact that increasing numbers of published studies in reproductive medicine selectively report outcomes for only favorably selected patients; while failing to note that, so reported outcome data,therefore, cannot be applied to unselected patient populations. Almost all favorablepatient selection methods, starting with prolonged embryo culture to blastocyst stage, have, thus, been widely misrepresented in the literature since they almost universally report outcomes only in reference to embryo transfer. These outcome reports, however, do not include outcomes for poorer prognosis patients who do not reach embryo transfer. Study outcomes are universally applicable only if performed in unselected patient populations and reported with reference point cycle start (intent to treat). All other studies greatly exaggerate clinical pregnancy and live birth rates if applied to general populations, unless specifically noting that they can be extrapolated only to women who reach embryo transfer.

Keywords

In vitro fertilization (IVF) Patient selection biases Outcome reporting Blastocyst stage embryo culture Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) Embryo banking 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict statement

None of the authors perceive any potential conflicts in respect to here presented manuscript. N.G, and D.H.B, are co-inventors on a number of pending and already awarded U.S. patents claiming therapeutic benefits from androgen supplementation in women with low functional ovarian reserve (LFOR) and relating to the FMR1 gene in a diagnostic function in female fertility. Both receive royalties from Fertility Nutraceuticals, LLC, in which N.G. also holds shares. N.G., D.H.B and V.A.K. also are co-inventors on a pending AMH-related patent application. They report no other potential conflicts with here reported manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjö T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2392–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pavelic K, Martinovic T, Kraljevic PS. Do we understand the personalized medicine paradigm? Personalized medicine marks the beginning of a new attitude in medicine. EMBO Per. 2015;16:133–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gardner DK, Vella P, Lane M, Wagley L, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts increases implantation rates and reduces the need for multiple embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:84–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Titinen A, Halttunene M, Härkki P, Vuoristo P, Hyden-Granskog C. Elective single embryo transfer: the value of cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1140–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ozturk O, Bhahhacharya S, Templeton A. Avoiding multiple pregnancies in ART: evaluation and implementation of new strategies. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1319–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harper J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, Fiorentino F, Geraedts J, Goossens V, et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium Steering Committee. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:821–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orris JJ, Taylor TH, Gilchist JW, Hallowell SV, Glassner MJ, Winnger JD. The utility of embryo banking in order to increase the number of embryos available for preimplantation genetic screening in advanced maternal age patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:729–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hashimoto S, Kato N, Saeki K, Morimoto Y. Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly(dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:332–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rubio I, Galán A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection of morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1287–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Is it time for a paradigm shift in understanding embryo selection? Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK, Lane M, Schlenker T, Hamilton F, Meldrum DR. Blastocyst culture and transfer: analysis of results and parameters affecting outcome in two in vitro fertilization programs. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:604–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: toward a single blastocyst transfer. Fertile Steril. 2000;73:1155–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;17:CD002118.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7:CD002118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwarze JE, Balmaceda J, Pommer R. Cryopreservation in blastocyst stage effectively reduce the number of embryos cryopreserved. Rev Med Chil. 2012;140:45–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Browne LH, Graham PH. Good intentions and ICH-GCP: Trial conduct training needs to go beyond the ICH-GCP document and include the interntion-to-treat principle. Clin Trials. 2014;11:629–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yelland LN, Sullivan TR, Voysev M, Lee KJ, Cook JA, Forbes AB. Applying the intention-to-treat principle in practice: Guidance on handling randomization errors. Clin Trials. 2015;12:418–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kushnir VA, Vidali A, Barad DH, Gleicher N. The status of public reporting of clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive technology. Fertile Steril. 2013;100:736–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical applications: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:454–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation geetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1846–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gleicher N, Bard DH. A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:1159–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Stevens J, Rawlins M, Munne S. Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:157–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schoolcraft WB, Treff NR, Stevens JM, Ferry K, Katz-Jaffe M, Scott Jr RT. Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:638–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, Taylor D, Treff NR, Scott Jr RT. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1217–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Forman EJ, Hong KH, Treff NR, Scott RT. Comprehensive chromosome screening and embryo selection: moving toward single euploid blastocyst transfer. Semin Reprod Med. 2012;30:236–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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. Fertile Steril. 2013;100:107.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Forman EJ, Upham KM, Cheng M, Zhao T, Hong KH, Treff NR, et al. Comprehensive chromosome screening alters traditional morphology-based embryo selection: a prospective study of 100 consecutive cycles of planned fresg euploid blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:718–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scott Jr 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. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:697–703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scott Jr 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. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:624–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Forman EJ, Hong KH, Franasiak JM, Scott Jr RT. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes from BEST Tria: single embryo transfer with aneuploid screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:157. e1-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scott Jr RT, Franasiak JM, Forman EJ. Comprehensive chromosome screening with synchronous blastocyst transfer: time for a paradigm shift. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:660–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Franasiak JM, Scott Jr RT. Embryonic aneuploidy: overcoming molecular genetic challeneges improves outcomes and changes practice patterns. Trends Mol Med. 2014;20:499–508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Esfandiari N, Bentov Y, Casper RF. Trophectoderm biopsy for aneuploidy screening using different platforms and conflicting test results. Abstract O-034, Annual Meeting of ESHRE, Munich June 27- July 2, 2014.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Further evidence against use of PGS in poor prognosis patients: report of normal births after transfer of embryos reported as aneuploid. Fertil Steril. 2015;104 Suppl 3:e9.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Greco E, Minasi G, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2089–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Basile N, Vime P, Florensa M, Aparicio Ruiz B, Garcia Velasco JA, Remohi J, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:276–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dale B, Menezo Y, Coppola G. Trends, fads and ART! J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:489–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Gleicher
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Vitaly A. Kushnir
    • 1
    • 4
  • David H. Barad
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.The Center for Human ReproductionNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.The Foundation for Reproductive MedicineNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.The Rockefeller UniversityNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyWake Forest UniversityWinston SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations