Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 11/2019

01-11-2019 | ICSI | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Performance of Day 5 KIDScore™ morphokinetic prediction models of implantation and live birth after single blastocyst transfer

Authors: Arnaud Reignier, Jean-Maxime Girard, Jenna Lammers, Sana Chtourou, Tiphaine Lefebvre, Paul Barriere, Thomas Freour

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 11/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

While several studies reported the association between morphokinetic parameters and implantation, few predictive models were developed to predict implantation after day 5 embryo transfer, generally without external validation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the respective performance of 2 commercially available morphokinetic-based models (KIDScore™ Day 5 versions 1 and 2) for the prediction of implantation and live birth after day 5 single blastocyst transfer.

Methods

This monocentric retrospective study was conducted on 210 ICSI cycles with single day 5 embryo transfer performed with a time-lapse imaging (TLI) system between 2013 and 2016. The association between both KIDScore™ and the observed implantation and live birth rates was calculated, as well as the agreement between embryologist’s choice for transfer and embryo ranking by the models.

Results

Implantation and live birth rate were both 35.7%. A significant positive correlation was found between both models and implantation rate (r = 0.96 and r = 0.90, p = 0.01) respectively. Both models had statistically significant but limited predictive power for implantation (AUC 0.60). There was a fair agreement between the embryologists’ choice and both models (78% and 61% respectively), with minor differences in case of discrepancies.

Conclusions

KIDScore™ Day 5 predictive models are significantly associated with implantation rates after day 5 single blastocyst transfer. However, their predictive performance remains perfectible. The use of these predictive models holds promises as decision-making tools to help the embryologist select the best embryo, ultimately facilitating the implementation of SET policy. However, embryologists’ expertise remains absolutely necessary to make the final decision.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1318–23.CrossRef Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1318–23.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Alpha Scientists in Reproductive M, Embryology ESIGo. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.CrossRef Alpha Scientists in Reproductive M, Embryology ESIGo. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Gardner DK, Meseguer M, Rubio C, Treff NR. Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21:727–47.CrossRef Gardner DK, Meseguer M, Rubio C, Treff NR. Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21:727–47.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Paternot G, Wetzels AM, Thonon F, Vansteenbrugge A, Willemen D, Devroe J, et al. Intra- and interobserver analysis in the morphological assessment of early stage embryos during an ivf procedure: a multicentre study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:127.CrossRef Paternot G, Wetzels AM, Thonon F, Vansteenbrugge A, Willemen D, Devroe J, et al. Intra- and interobserver analysis in the morphological assessment of early stage embryos during an ivf procedure: a multicentre study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:127.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Basile N, Caiazzo M, Meseguer M. What does morphokinetics add to embryo selection and in-vitro fertilization outcomes? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27:193–200.CrossRef Basile N, Caiazzo M, Meseguer M. What does morphokinetics add to embryo selection and in-vitro fertilization outcomes? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27:193–200.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Paulson RJ, Reichman DE, Zaninovic N, Goodman LR, Racowsky C. Time-lapse imaging: clearly useful to both laboratory personnel and patient outcomes versus just because we can doesn't mean we should. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:584–91.CrossRef Paulson RJ, Reichman DE, Zaninovic N, Goodman LR, Racowsky C. Time-lapse imaging: clearly useful to both laboratory personnel and patient outcomes versus just because we can doesn't mean we should. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:584–91.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35:511–20.CrossRef Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35:511–20.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Response: time-lapse systems for ART. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36:290–2.CrossRef Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Response: time-lapse systems for ART. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36:290–2.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for ART. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36:288–9.CrossRef Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for ART. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36:288–9.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018b;5:CD011320.PubMed Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018b;5:CD011320.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2658–71.CrossRef Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2658–71.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference 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;26:477–85.CrossRef 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;26:477–85.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:699–704.CrossRef Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:699–704.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Milewski R, Kuc P, Kuczynska A, Stankiewicz B, Lukaszuk K, Kuczynski W. A predictive model for blastocyst formation based on morphokinetic parameters in time-lapse monitoring of embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:571–9.CrossRef Milewski R, Kuc P, Kuczynska A, Stankiewicz B, Lukaszuk K, Kuczynski W. A predictive model for blastocyst formation based on morphokinetic parameters in time-lapse monitoring of embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:571–9.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Motato Y, de los Santos MJ, Escriba MJ, Ruiz BA, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:376–84.CrossRef Motato Y, de los Santos MJ, Escriba MJ, Ruiz BA, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:376–84.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Liu Y, Chapple V, Feenan K, Roberts P, Matson P. Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:656–62.CrossRef Liu Y, Chapple V, Feenan K, Roberts P, Matson P. Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:656–62.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Petersen BM, Boel M, Montag M, Gardner DK. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on day 3. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2231–44.CrossRef Petersen BM, Boel M, Montag M, Gardner DK. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on day 3. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2231–44.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Yang L, Cai S, Zhang S, Kong X, Gu Y, Lu C, et al. Single embryo transfer by day 3 time-lapse selection versus day 5 conventional morphological selection: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:869–76.CrossRef Yang L, Cai S, Zhang S, Kong X, Gu Y, Lu C, et al. Single embryo transfer by day 3 time-lapse selection versus day 5 conventional morphological selection: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:869–76.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the embryoscope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1287–94.CrossRef Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the embryoscope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1287–94.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Adamson GD, Abusief ME, Palao L, Witmer J, Palao LM, Gvakharia M. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse-enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:369–75.CrossRef Adamson GD, Abusief ME, Palao L, Witmer J, Palao LM, Gvakharia M. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse-enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:369–75.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference VerMilyea MD, Tan L, Anthony JT, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:729–36.CrossRef VerMilyea MD, Tan L, Anthony JT, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:729–36.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kirkegaard K, Campbell A, Agerholm I, Bentin-Ley U, Gabrielsen A, Kirk J, et al. Limitations of a time-lapse blastocyst prediction model: a large multicentre outcome analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:156–8.CrossRef Kirkegaard K, Campbell A, Agerholm I, Bentin-Ley U, Gabrielsen A, Kirk J, et al. Limitations of a time-lapse blastocyst prediction model: a large multicentre outcome analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:156–8.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Freour T, Le Fleuter N, Lammers J, Splingart C, Reignier A, Barriere P. External validation of a time-lapse prediction model. Fertil Steril. 2015b;103:917–22.CrossRef Freour T, Le Fleuter N, Lammers J, Splingart C, Reignier A, Barriere P. External validation of a time-lapse prediction model. Fertil Steril. 2015b;103:917–22.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Ciray HN, Aksoy T, Goktas C, Ozturk B, Bahceci M. Time-lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media--a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:891–900.CrossRef Ciray HN, Aksoy T, Goktas C, Ozturk B, Bahceci M. Time-lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media--a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:891–900.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hardarson T, Bungum M, Conaghan J, Meintjes M, Chantilis SJ, Molnar L, et al. Noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial comparing embryo development using media developed for sequential or undisturbed culture in a time-lapse setup. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1452–9.CrossRef Hardarson T, Bungum M, Conaghan J, Meintjes M, Chantilis SJ, Molnar L, et al. Noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial comparing embryo development using media developed for sequential or undisturbed culture in a time-lapse setup. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1452–9.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Barrie A, Homburg R, McDowell G, Brown J, Kingsland C, Troup S. Examining the efficacy of six published time-lapse imaging embryo selection algorithms to predict implantation to demonstrate the need for the development of specific, in-house morphokinetic selection algorithms. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:613–21.CrossRef Barrie A, Homburg R, McDowell G, Brown J, Kingsland C, Troup S. Examining the efficacy of six published time-lapse imaging embryo selection algorithms to predict implantation to demonstrate the need for the development of specific, in-house morphokinetic selection algorithms. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:613–21.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Ciray HN, Campbell A, Agerholm IE, Aguilar J, Chamayou S, Esbert M, et al. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2650–60.CrossRef Ciray HN, Campbell A, Agerholm IE, Aguilar J, Chamayou S, Esbert M, et al. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2650–60.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Zaninovic N, Irani M, Meseguer M. Assessment of embryo morphology and developmental dynamics by time-lapse microscopy: is there a relation to implantation and ploidy? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:722–9.CrossRef Zaninovic N, Irani M, Meseguer M. Assessment of embryo morphology and developmental dynamics by time-lapse microscopy: is there a relation to implantation and ploidy? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:722–9.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Liu Y, Feenan K, Chapple V, Matson P. Assessing efficacy of day 3 embryo time-lapse algorithms retrospectively: impacts of dataset type and confounding factors. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2019;22:182–90.CrossRef Liu Y, Feenan K, Chapple V, Matson P. Assessing efficacy of day 3 embryo time-lapse algorithms retrospectively: impacts of dataset type and confounding factors. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2019;22:182–90.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Storr A, Venetis C, Cooke S, Kilani S, Ledger W. Time-lapse algorithms and morphological selection of day-5 embryos for transfer: a preclinical validation study. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:276–83.CrossRef Storr A, Venetis C, Cooke S, Kilani S, Ledger W. Time-lapse algorithms and morphological selection of day-5 embryos for transfer: a preclinical validation study. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:276–83.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Effect of oxygen concentration on human embryo development evaluated by time-lapse monitoring. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:738–44.CrossRef Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Effect of oxygen concentration on human embryo development evaluated by time-lapse monitoring. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:738–44.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Wale PL, Gardner DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22:2–22.CrossRef Wale PL, Gardner DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22:2–22.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Liu Y, Chapple V, Feenan K, Roberts P, Matson P. Time-lapse videography of human embryos: using pronuclear fading rather than insemination in ivf and icsi cycles removes inconsistencies in time to reach early cleavage milestones. Reprod Biol. 2015;15:122–5.CrossRef Liu Y, Chapple V, Feenan K, Roberts P, Matson P. Time-lapse videography of human embryos: using pronuclear fading rather than insemination in ivf and icsi cycles removes inconsistencies in time to reach early cleavage milestones. Reprod Biol. 2015;15:122–5.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Lammers J, Reignier A, Splingart C, Catteau A, David L, Barriere P, et al. Does sperm origin affect embryo morphokinetic parameters? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1325–32.CrossRef Lammers J, Reignier A, Splingart C, Catteau A, David L, Barriere P, et al. Does sperm origin affect embryo morphokinetic parameters? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1325–32.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Kirkegaard K, Sundvall L, Erlandsen M, Hindkjær JJ, Knudsen UB, Ingerslev HJ. Timing of human preimplantation embryonic development is confounded by embryo origin. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:324–31.PubMed Kirkegaard K, Sundvall L, Erlandsen M, Hindkjær JJ, Knudsen UB, Ingerslev HJ. Timing of human preimplantation embryonic development is confounded by embryo origin. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:324–31.PubMed
36.
go back to reference Blank C, Wildeboer RR, DeCroo I, Tilleman K, Weyers B, de Sutter P, et al. Prediction of implantation after blastocyst transfer in in vitro fertilization: a machine-learning perspective. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:318–26.CrossRef Blank C, Wildeboer RR, DeCroo I, Tilleman K, Weyers B, de Sutter P, et al. Prediction of implantation after blastocyst transfer in in vitro fertilization: a machine-learning perspective. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:318–26.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Tran D, Cooke S, Illingworth PJ, Gardner DK. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1011–8.CrossRef Tran D, Cooke S, Illingworth PJ, Gardner DK. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1011–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Performance of Day 5 KIDScore™ morphokinetic prediction models of implantation and live birth after single blastocyst transfer
Authors
Arnaud Reignier
Jean-Maxime Girard
Jenna Lammers
Sana Chtourou
Tiphaine Lefebvre
Paul Barriere
Thomas Freour
Publication date
01-11-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Keyword
ICSI
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 11/2019
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01567-x

Other articles of this Issue 11/2019

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 11/2019 Go to the issue