Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A quantitative approach to blastocyst quality evaluation: morphometric analysis and related IVF outcomes

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To quantify blastocyst morphologic parameters with a feasible and standardized tool, investigating their predictive value on implantation outcome.

Method

The study retrospectively analyzes 124 blastocysts from 75 patients. Quantitative measurements of blastocyst expansion, inner cell mass and trophoectoderm were taken using digital image analysis software.

Result(s)

Blastocysts areas were found to be ranging from 11626.2 up to 35076.4 μm2. The area of an early blastocyst is A ≤ 18500 μm2 with a mean diameter d = 140 ± 9 μm, and the area of an expanded blastocyst is A ≥ 24000 with d = 190 ± 9 μm. While blastocyst mean area was not related to implantation rate, more expanded blastocysts displayed a significantly higher implantation rate. Trophoectoderm cell number is a predictor of positive outcome: since a higher of cells (25.6 ± 11.3 vs 16.3 ± 12.8) `forming a tightly knit epithelium is prognostic of implantation potential. Conversely, inner cell mass size is significantly related to implantation only in expanded blastocysts (3122.7 ± 739.0 vs. 2978.1 ± 366.0 μm2).

Conclusion(s)

Evaluation of blastocyst morphology with a digital image system could be a valuable tool to standardize blastocyst grading based on quantitative parameters. Therefore, digital analysis may be helpful in identifying the best blastocyst to transfer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ESHRE. ESHRE ART fact sheet. http://www.eshre.eu/ESHRE/English/Guidelines-Legal/ART-factsheet/page.aspx/1061.

  2. Fragouli J, Wells D. Aneuploidy in the human blastocyst. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2011;133:149–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Munne S. Chromosome Abnormalities and their relationship to morphology and development of human embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(2):234–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature. 1988;332:459–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In vitro culture of human blastocyst. In: Janson R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards Reproductive Certainty: Infertility and Genetics Beyond 1999. Carnforth: Parthenon Press; 1999. p. 378–88.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:CD002118.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Tournaye H, Venetis CA, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, et al. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:91–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer J, Grøndahl M, Kesmodel U, Ingerslev H. A randomized clinical trial comparing embryo culture in a conventional incubator with a time-lapse incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:565–72.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cruz M, Gadea B, Garrido N, Pedersen KS, Martinez M, Perez-Cano I, et al. Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28:569–73.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bendus AEB, Mayer JF, Shipley SK, Catherino WH. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:1608–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22:632–46.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(6):1270–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hnida C, Engenheiro E, Ziebe S. Computer-controlled, multilevel, morphometric analysis of blastomere size as biomarker of fragmentation and multinuclearity in human embryos. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:288–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ziebe S. Morphometric analysis of human embryos to predict developmental competence. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2013;26(1):55–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Paternot G, Debrock S, De Neubourg D, D’Hooghe TM, Spiessens C. Semi-automated morphometric analysis of human embryos can reveal correlations between total embryo volume and clinical pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(3):627–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Beuchat A, Thevenaz P, Unser M, Ebner T, Senn A, Urner F, et al. Quantitative morphometrical characterization of human pronuclear zygotes. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1983–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Santos Filho E, Noble JA, Wells D. A review on automatic analysis of human embryo microscope images. Open Biomed Eng J. 2010;4:170–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Santos Filho ES, Noble JA, Poli M, Griffiths T, Emerson G, Wells D. A method for semi-automatic grading of human blastocyst microscope images. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:2641–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. De Kock AD, Smuts MP, Madden JD, Rodriguez AJ, Chantilis SJ, Meintjes M. Digital image analysis of blastocysts. Morphometrics correlations with pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S51–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ahlstrom A, Westin C, Reismer E, Wikland M, Hardarson T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:3289–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Balaban B, Urman B, Sertac A, Alatas C, Aksoy S, Mercan R. Blastocyst quality affects the success of blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:282–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dokras A, Sargent IL, Barlow DH. Human blastocyst grading: an indicator of developmental potential? Hum Reprod. 1993;8:2119–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goto S, Kadowaki T, Tanaka S, Hashimoto H, Kokeguchi S, Shiotani M. Prediction of pregnancy rate by blastocyst morphological score and age, based on 1,488 single frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:948–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hill MJ, Richter KS, Heitmann RJ, Graham JR, Tucker MJ, Decherney AH, et al. Trophectoderm grade predicts outcomes of single-blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(5):1283-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Honnma H, Baba T, Sasaki M, Hashiba Y, Ohno H, Fukunaga T, et al. Trophectoderm morphology significantly affects the rates of ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage in frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer cycle in vitro fertilization. Fertil Stertil. 2012;98:361–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zaninovic N, Berrios R, Clarke RN, Bodine R, Ye Z, Veeck LL. Blastocyst expansion, inner cell mass (ICM) formation, and trophectoderm (TM) quality: is one more important for implantation? Fertil Steril. 2001;76:S8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Richter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST, Shapiro BS. Quantitative grading of a human blastocyst: optimal inner cell mass size and shape. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:1157–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dal Prato L, Borini A, Trevisi MR, Bonu MA, Sereni E, Flamigni C. Effect of reduced dose of triptorelin at the start of ovarian stimulation on the outcome of IVF: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(7):1409–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Veeck LL, Zaninović N. An atlas of human blastocysts. New York: Parthenon Publishing Group; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Thomas S. Large blastocyst diameter, early blastulation, and low preovulatory serum progesterone are dominant predictors of clinical pregnancy in fresh autologous cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:302–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CF. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(5):477–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, Stevens J, Gutierrez-Mateo C, Schoolcraft WB, et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:520–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Balaban B, Yakin K, Urman B. Randomized comparison of two different blastocyst grading systems. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:559–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tecnobios Procreazione, Centre for Reproductive Health, 40125 via Dante 15, Bologna, Italy

    Cristina Lagalla, Marzia Barberi, Giovanna Orlando, Raffaella Sciajno, Maria Antonietta Bonu & Andrea Borini

Authors
  1. Cristina Lagalla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marzia Barberi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanna Orlando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raffaella Sciajno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Antonietta Bonu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrea Borini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Borini.

Additional information

Capsule Blastocyst quantitative measurements are a useful tool to standardize morphological grading and highly indicative of embryo implantation potential.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lagalla, C., Barberi, M., Orlando, G. et al. A quantitative approach to blastocyst quality evaluation: morphometric analysis and related IVF outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 705–712 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0469-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0469-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation