Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the endometrial receptivity assay and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy in overcoming recurrent implantation failure

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical usefulness of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in patients with severe and moderate recurrent implantation failure (RIF).

Design

A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted in patients who failed to achieve implantation following transfer of 3 or more or 5 or more embryos in at least three single embryo transfers; patients were classified as moderate or severe RIF, respectively. Patients with previous RIF were compared based on the testing they received: PGT-A, ERA, or PGT-A+ERA versus a control group with no testing. Mean implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy rates per embryo transfer were considered primary outcomes. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed and adjusted ORs were calculated to control possible bias.

Results

Of the 2110 patients belonging to the moderate RIF group, those who underwent transfer of euploid embryos after PGT-A had a higher implantation rate than those who did not. Additionally, the PGT-A group had a significantly higher rate of ongoing pregnancy. The same outcomes measured for the 488 patients in the severe RIF group did not reveal any statistically significant improvements. The use of the ERA test did not appear to significantly improve outcomes in either group.

Conclusions

PGT-A may be beneficial for patients with moderate recurrent implantation failure but not for severe cases. At its current level of development, ERA does not appear to be clinically useful for patients with RIF.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zeyneloglu HB, Onalan G. Remedies for recurrent implantation failure. Semin Reprod Med. 2014;32:297–305.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coughlan C, Ledger W, Wang Q, Liu F, Demirol A, Gurgan T, et al. Recurrent implantation failure: definition and management. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28:14–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Simon A, Laufer N. Assessment and treatment of repeated implantation failure (RIF). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:1227–39.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Coughlan C. What to do when good-quality embryos repeatedly fail to implant. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;53:48–59.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nagaoka SI, Hassold TJ, Hunt PA. Human aneuploidy: mechanisms and new insights into an age-old problem. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13:493–504.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hatirnaz S, Ozer A, Hatirnaz E, Atasever M, Basaranoglu S, Kanat-Pektas M, et al. Pre-implantation genetic screening among women experiencing recurrent failure of in vitro fertilization. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;137:314–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Mir P, Mateu E, Peinado V, Milan M, et al. Use of array comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) for embryo assessment: clinical results. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1044–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sato T, Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozawa F, Yamamoto T, Kato T, Kurahashi H, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a comparison of live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss due to embryonic aneuploidy or recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:2340–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:100–7.e1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 8166-5-24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bassil R, Casper R, Samara N, Hsieh TB, Barzilay E, Orvieto R, et al. Does the endometrial receptivity array really provide personalized embryo transfer? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1301–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kliman HJ, Frankfurter D. Clinical approach to recurrent implantation failure: evidence-based evaluation of the endometrium. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:618–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Noyes RW, Hertig AT, Rock J. Dating the endometrial biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975;122:262–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Coutifaris C, Myers ER, Guzick DS, Diamond MP, Carson SA, Legro RS, et al. Histological dating of timed endometrial biopsy tissue is not related to fertility status. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:1264–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Murray MJ, Meyer WR, Zaino RJ, Lessey BA, Novotny DB, Ireland K, et al. A critical analysis of the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility of histologic endometrial dating in fertile women. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1333–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Diaz-Gimeno P, Horcajadas JA, Martinez-Conejero JA, Esteban FJ, Alama P, Pellicer A, et al. A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:50–60 60.e1-15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Diaz-Gimeno P, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Bosch N, Martinez-Conejero JA, Alama P, et al. The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:508–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Diaz-Gimeno P, Ruiz-Alonso M, Sebastian-Leon P, Pellicer A, Valbuena D, Simon C. Window of implantation transcriptomic stratification reveals different endometrial subsignatures associated with live birth and biochemical pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:703–710.e3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ruiz-Alonso M, Galindo N, Pellicer A, Simon C. What a difference two days make: “personalized” embryo transfer (pET) paradigm: a case report and pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1244–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Diaz-Gimeno P, Gomez E, Fernandez-Sanchez M, Carranza F, et al. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalized embryo transfer as a treatment for patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:818–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Koot YE, van Hooff SR, Boomsma CM, van Leenen D, Groot Koerkamp MJ, Goddijn M, et al. An endometrial gene expression signature accurately predicts recurrent implantation failure after IVF. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19411.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Macklon N. Recurrent implantation failure is a pathology with a specific transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:9–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Valdes CT, Schutt A, Simon C. Implantation failure of endometrial origin: it is not pathology, but our failure to synchronize the developing embryo with a receptive endometrium. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:15–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sebastian-Leon P, Garrido N, Remohi J, Pellicer A, Diaz-Gimeno P. Asynchronous and pathological windows of implantation: two causes of recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:626–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cutting R, Morroll D, Roberts SA, Pickering S, Rutherford A, BFS and ACE. Elective single embryo transfer: guidelines for practice British Fertility Society and Association of Clinical Embryologists. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2008;11:131–46.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pirtea P, De Ziegler D, Marin D, Sun L, Zhan Y, Ayoubi JM, et al. The rate of true recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is low: results of three successive frozen euploid single embryo transfers (SET). Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3):e438–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Garrido-Gomez T, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Diaz-Gimeno P, Vilella F, Simon C. Profiling the gene signature of endometrial receptivity: clinical results. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1078–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Blesa D, Ruiz-Alonso M, Simon C. Clinical management of endometrial receptivity. Semin Reprod Med. 2014;32:410–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Bosch E, Mercader A, Vidal C, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients with repetitive implantation failure and advanced maternal age: two randomized trials. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1400–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2020. http://www.r-project.org/index.html.

  31. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30:281–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Raziel A, Friedler S, Schachter M, Kasterstein E, Strassburger D, Ron-El R. Increased frequency of female partner chromosomal abnormalities in patients with high-order implantation failure after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:515–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stern C, Pertile M, Norris H, Hale L, Baker HW. Chromosome translocations in couples with in-vitro fertilization implantation failure. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2097–101.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Harton GL, Munne 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Munne S. Status of preimplantation genetic testing and embryo selection. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;37:393–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Verpoest W, Staessen C, Bossuyt PM, Goossens V, Altarescu G, Bonduelle M, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1767–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Munne S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:1071–1079.e7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Orvieto R, Gleicher N. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)-finally revealed. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:669–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Somigliana E, Busnelli A, Paffoni A, Vigano P, Riccaboni A, Rubio C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:1169–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Neal SA, Morin SJ, Franasiak JM, Goodman LR, Juneau CR, Forman EJ, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is cost-effective, shortens treatment time, and reduces the risk of failed embryo transfer and clinical miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:896–904.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fox C, Morin S, Jeong JW, Scott RT Jr, Lessey BA. Local and systemic factors and implantation: what is the evidence? Fertil Steril. 2016;105:873–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Tan J, Kan A, Hitkari J, Taylor B, Tallon N, Warraich G, et al. The role of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients who have failed euploid embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:683–92.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Simon C, Gomez C, Cabanillas S, Vladimirov I, Castillon G, Giles J, et al. A 5-year multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing personalized, frozen and fresh blastocyst transfer in IVF. Reprod BioMed Online. 2020;41:402–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Das M, Holzer HE. Recurrent implantation failure: gamete and embryo factors. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1021–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cozzolino M. Recurrent implantation failure might be overestimated without PGT-A. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05775-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the clinical directors of the participating IVI centers for their contribution to the data of the database analyzed. We also thank the team of Fresh Eyes Editing, LLC., especially Dr. Sheila Cherry, for their professional assistance in manuscript preparation.

Funding

This study was funded by IVIRMA global. No additional external funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVIRMA, IVI Foundation, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 - Torre A, Planta 1ª, 46026, Valencia, Spain

    Mauro Cozzolino, Patricia Diaz-Gimeno, Antonio Pellicer & Nicolas Garrido

  2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, 310 Cedar St, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

    Mauro Cozzolino

  3. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Calle Tulipán, 28933, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain

    Mauro Cozzolino

  4. IVIRMA, IVI Roma, Largo Ildebrando Pizzetti 1, 00197, Roma, Italy

    Antonio Pellicer

  5. Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Valencia, Av. Blásco Ibáñez, 15, 46010, Valencia, Spain

    Antonio Pellicer

Authors
  1. Mauro Cozzolino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patricia Diaz-Gimeno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonio Pellicer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicolas Garrido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Mauro Cozzolino: study design, data analysis, interpretation, and manuscript writing. Patricia Díaz-Gimeno: data analysis and interpretation, critical review, and final manuscript approval. Antonio Pellicer: study design, critical review and final manuscript approval. Nicolas Garrido: study design, statistical analysis, critical review, and final manuscript approval.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mauro Cozzolino.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval

The study was approved to IVI Valencia Ethic Committee on 3rd March 2019 with number 1806-FIVI-048-AP.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cozzolino, M., Diaz-Gimeno, P., Pellicer, A. et al. Evaluation of the endometrial receptivity assay and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy in overcoming recurrent implantation failure. J Assist Reprod Genet 37, 2989–2997 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01948-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01948-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation