About
The Journal "Obstetrics and Gynecology"Journal HistoryAims and ScopePolicies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed ConsentEditorial ProcessData sharing statementAdvertising PolicyThe Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of ConcernEditorial BoardEditorial CounsilInformation for ProfessionalsNewsContacts
ArchiveEthical StandardsSubscription
For authors
InstructionsInformed consent policyContract offerEASE GuidelinesICJME CriteriaWAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications
Reviewing
Procedure for reviewingReviewers 2023-2024
About
The Journal "Obstetrics and Gynecology"Journal HistoryAims and ScopePolicies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed ConsentEditorial ProcessData sharing statementAdvertising PolicyThe Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of ConcernEditorial BoardEditorial CounsilInformation for ProfessionalsNewsContacts
ArchiveEthical StandardsSubscription
For authors
InstructionsInformed consent policyContract offerEASE GuidelinesICJME CriteriaWAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications
Reviewing
Procedure for reviewingReviewers 2023-2024
Logout
Obstetrics and Gynegology2020№11
Current trends in the search...

Current trends in the search for endometrial receptivity markers: from individual parameters to a comprehensive approach

DOI
https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.11.26-32

Dovgan A.A., Ziganshina M.M., Dolgushina N.V.

Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia
Implantation, a process that reflects the blastocyst-endometrium interaction, is a key step to achieve desired pregnancy. Many studies of endometrial receptivity have been conducted in recent decades; however, a universal marker that is able to predict successful implantation has not yet been established. Analysis of the data available in the literature may lead to the conclusion that none of the existing ultrasound-based approaches, including the assessment of the endometrial thickness, pattern, and volume, and the features of endometrial vascularization, provides any opportunity to fully assess the receptive ability of the endometrium. Molecular studies of endometrial receptivity also cannot be recognized to be highly effective at the moment. In this connection, it can be noted that it is important to avoid searching for a single receptivity marker, preferring to develop the diagnostic panels that combine the most effective markers, the complex analysis of which will have a higher diagnostic value. The review includes data from the foreign and Russian articles published in the SCOPUS, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Global Health, CyberLeninka, and PubMed databases over the past 10 years
Conclusion. Considering a set of indicators that take into account thickness, volume, echo structure, blood flow, morphological features, and molecular markers that characterize these parameters in the endometrium, it seems possible to approximate to the understanding of complex, multicomponent processes in the receptive endometrium.

Keywords

infertility
assisted reproductive technologies (ART)
embryo implantation
endometrial receptivity
ERA
glycans
Full text (in Russian)

References

  1. Российская Ассоциация Репродукции Человека. Регистр ВРТ. Отчет за 2018 год. 2020. [Russian Association of Human Reproduction. ART register. Report for 2018. 2020 (in Russian)].
  2. Zhao J., Zhang Q., Wang Y., Li Y. Endometrial pattern, thickness and growth in predicting pregnancy outcome following 3319 IVF cycle. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2014; 29(3): 291-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.05.011.
  3. Shaodi Z., Qiuyuan L., Yisha Y., Cuilian Z. Analysis of endometrial thickness threshold and optimal thickness interval in cleavage embryo hormone replacement freeze-thawed embryo transfer (HRT-FET). Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2020; 36(11): 1-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1742686.
  4. Arce H., Velilla E., López-Teijón M. Association between endometrial thickness in oocyte donation cycles and pregnancy success rates. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2016; 28(9): 1288-94. https://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RD14459.
  5. Nishihara S., Fukuda J., Ezoe K., Endo M., Nakagawa Y., Yamadera R. et al. Does the endometrial thickness on the day of the trigger affect the pregnancy outcomes after fresh cleaved embryo transfer in the clomiphene citrate-based minimal stimulation cycle? Reprod. Med. Biol. 2020; 19(2): 151-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12315.
  6. Richter K.S., Bugge K.R., Bromer J.G., Levy M.J. Relationship between endometrial thickness and embryo implantation, based on 1,294 cycles of in vitro fertilization with transfer of two blastocyst-stage embryos. Fertil. Steril. 2007; 87(1): 53-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.064.
  7. Chan J.M., Sukumar A.I., Ramalingam M., Ranbir Singh S.S., Abdullah M.F. The impact of endometrial thickness (EMT) on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration on pregnancy outcomes: a 5-year retrospective cohort analysis in Malaysia. Fertil. Res. Pract. 2018; 4(1): 1-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40738-018-0050-8.
  8. Pan Y., Hao G., Wang Q., Liu H., Wang Z., Jiang Q. et al. Major factors affecting the live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer among young women. Front. Med. 2020; 7: 94. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.00094.
  9. Gallos I.D., Khairy M., Chu J., Rajkhowa M., Tobias A., Campbell A. et al. Optimal endometrial thickness to maximize live births and minimize pregnancy losses: analysis of 25,767 fresh embryo transfers. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2018; 37(5): 542-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.08.025.
  10. Liu K.E., Hartman M., Hartman A., Luo Z.C., Mahutte N. The impact of a thin endometrial lining on fresh and frozen-thaw IVF outcomes: an analysis of over 40 000 embryo transfers. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33(10): 1883-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey281.
  11. Haas J., Smith R., Zilberberg E., Nayot D., Meriano J., Barzilay E. et al. Endometrial compaction (decreased thickness) in response to progesterone results in optimal pregnancy outcome in frozen-thawed embryo transfers. Fertil. Steril. 2019; 112(3): 503-9. e1. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.05.001.
  12. Casper R.F. Frozen embryo transfer: evidence-based markers for successful endometrial preparation. Fertil. Steril. 2020; 113(2): 248-51. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.12.008.
  13. Craciunas L., Gallos I., Chu J., Bourne T., Quenby S., Brosens J.J. et al. Conventional and modern markers of endometrial receptivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2019; 25(2): 202-23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmy044.
  14. Zhao J., Zhang Q., Li Y. The effect of endometrial thickness and pattern measured by ultrasonography on pregnancy outcomes during IVF-ET cycles. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2012; 10: 100. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-100.
  15. Yang W., Zhang T., Li Z., Ren X., Huang B., Zhu G. et al. Combined analysis of endometrial thickness and pattern in predicting clinical outcomes of frozen embryo transfer cycles with morphological good-quality blastocyst. Medicine (United States). 2018; 97(2): e9577. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009577.
  16. Elsokkary M., Eldin A.B., Abdelhafez M., Rateb A., Samy M., Eldorf A. et al. The reproducibility of the novel utilization of five-dimensional ultrasound and power Doppler in the prediction of endometrial receptivity in intracytoplasmic sperm-injected women: a pilot prospective clinical study. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2019; 299(2): 551-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-5001-4.
  17. Zhang T., He Y., Wang Y., Zhu Q., Yang J., Xiaoming X. et al. The role of three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound parameters measured on hCG day in the prediction of pregnancy during in vitro fertilization treatment. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 203: 66-71. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.05.016.
  18. Mayer R.B., Ebner T., Weiss C., Allerstorfer C., Altmann R., Oppelt P. et al. The role of endometrial volume and endometrial and subendometrial vascularization parameters in a frozen embryo transfer cycle. Reprod. Sci. 2019; 26(7): 1013-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1933719118804421.
  19. Mishra V.V., Agarwal R., Sharma U., Aggarwal R., Choudhary S., Bandwal P. Endometrial and subendometrial vascularity by three-dimensional (3D) power Doppler and its correlation with pregnancy outcome in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. J. Obstet. Gynecol. India. 2016; 66(Suppl. 1): 521-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13224-016-0871-5.
  20. Mercé L.T., Barco M.J., Bau S., Troyano J. Are endometrial parameters by three-dimensional ultrasound and power Doppler angiography related to in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer outcome? Fertil. Steril. 2008; 89(1): 111-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.029.
  21. Kim A., Jung H., Choi W.J., Hong S.N., Kim H.Y. Detection of endometrial and subendometrial vasculature on the day of embryo transfer and prediction of pregnancy during fresh invitro fertilization cycles. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 53(3): 360-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2013.05.007.
  22. Raine-Fenning N.J., Campbell B.K., Kendall N.R., Clewes J.S., Jonhson I.R. Quantifying the changes in endometrial vascularity throughout the normal menstrual cycle with three-dimensional power Doppler angiography. Hum. Reprod. 2004; 19(2): 330-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh056.
  23. Wang L., Lv S., Mao W., Pei M., Yang X. Assessment of endometrial receptivity during implantation window in women with unexplained infertility. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2020; 36(10): 971-21. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1727433.
  24. Piriyev E., Mellin W., Römer T. Comparison of aspirating pipettes and hysteroscopy with curettage. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2020; 301(6): 1485-92. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05551-0.
  25. Utida G.M., Kulak J. Jr. Hysteroscopic and aspiration biopsies in the histologic evaluation of the endometrium, a comparative study. Medicine (United States). 2019; 98(40): e17183. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000017183.
  26. Noyes R.W., Hertig A.T., Rock J. Dating the endometrial biopsy. Fertil. Steril. 2019; 112(4): e93-115. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.08.079.
  27. Murray M.J., Meyer W.R., Zaino R.J., Lessey B.A., Novotny D.B., 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(5): 1333-43. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.030.
  28. Coutifaris C., Myers E.R., Guzick D.S., Diamond M.P., Carson S.A., Legro R.S. et al. Histological dating of timed endometrial biopsy tissue is not related to fertility status. Fertil. Steril. 2004; 82(5): 1264-72. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.03.069.
  29. Lopata A., Bentin-ley U., Enders A. "Pinopodes" and implantation. Rev. Endocr. Metab. Disord. 2002; 3(2): 77-86. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1023/a:1015455709833.
  30. Quinn C., Ryan E., Claessens E.A., Greenblatt E., Hawrylyshyn P., Cruickshank B. et al. The presence of pinopodes in the human endometrium does not delineate the implantation window. Fertil. Steril. 2007; 87(5): 1015-21. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.08.101.
  31. Liu S., Hua T., Xin X., Shi R., Chi S., Wang H. Altered expression of hormone receptor, integrin β3 and pinopode in the endometrium of luteal phase defect women. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2017; 33(4): 315-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2016.1259405.
  32. Kabir-Salmani M., Nikzad H., Shiokawa S., Akimoto Y., Iwashita M. Secretory role for human uterodomes (pinopods): secretion of LIF. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2005; 11(8): 553-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gah218.
  33. Nejatbakhsh R., Kabir-Salmani M., Dimitriadis E., Hosseini A., Taheripanah R., Sadeghi Y. et al. Subcellular localization of L-selectin ligand in the endometrium implies a novel function for pinopodes in endometrial receptivity. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2012; 10: 46. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-46.
  34. Jin X.Y., Zhao L.J., Luo D.H., Liu L., Dai Y.D., Hu X.X. et al. Pinopode score around the time of implantation is predictive of successful implantation following frozen embryo transfer in hormone replacement cycles. Hum. Reprod. 2017; 32(12): 2394-403. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex312.
  35. Aunapuu M., Kibur P., Järveots T., Arend A. Changes in morphology and presence of pinopodes in endometrial cells during the luteal phase in women with infertility problems: a pilot study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2018; 54(5): 69. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina54050069.
  36. Matson B.C., Pierce S.L., Espenschied S.T., Holle E., Sweatt I.H., Davis E.S. et al. Adrenomedullin improves fertility and promotes pinopodes and cell junctions in the peri-implantation endometrium. Biol. Reprod. 2017; 97(3): 466-77. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biolre/iox101.
  37. Patel B., Elguero S., Thakore S., Dahoud W., Bedaiwy M., Mesiano S. Role of nuclear progesterone receptor isoforms in uterine pathophysiology. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2015; 21(2): 155-73. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu056.
  38. Salker M., Teklenburg G., Molokhia M., Lavery S., Trew G., Aojanepong T. et al. Natural selection of human embryos: impaired decidualization of endometrium disables embryo-maternal interactions and causes recurrent pregnancy loss. PLoS One. 2010; 5(4): e10287. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010287.
  39. Dixit S.G., Ghatak S., Singh P., Bhattacharya S. Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and CD8+ expression in endometrium of women of unexplained infertility. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 47(10): 533-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.05.006.
  40. Шуршалина Т.В., Демура А.В. Морфофункциональные перестройки эндометрия в «окно имплантации». Акушерство и гинекология. 2011; (7-2): 9-13. [Shurshalina A.V., Demura T.A. Morphofunctional rearrangements of the endometrium during the implantation window. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2011; (7-2): 9-13. (in Russian)].
  41. Куликова Г.В., Абдурахманова Н.Ф., Файзуллина Н.М., Асатурова А.В., Щеголев А.И., Зиганшина М.М., Долгушина Н.В. Рецептивность «тонкого» эндометрия у пациенток в программах вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий. Акушерство и гинекология. 2019; 10: 100-7. [Kulikova G.V., Abdurakhmanova N.F., Fayzullina N.M., Asaturova A.V., Shchegolev A.I., Ziganshina M.M., Dolgushina N.V. Receptivity of thin endometrium in patients undergoing assisted reproduction. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019; 10: 100-7. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2019.10.100-107.
  42. Díaz-Gimeno P., Horcajadas J.A., Martínez-Conejero J.A., Esteban F.J., Alamá P., Pellicer A. et al. A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil. Steril. 2011; 95(1): 50-60. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.063.
  43. Díaz-Gimeno P., Ruiz-Alonso M., Blesa D., Gómez E., Fernández-Sánchez M., Carranza F. 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(2): 508-17. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.046.
  44. Ruiz-Alonso M., Blesa D., Díaz-Gimeno P., Gómez E., Fernández-Sánchez 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(3): 818-24. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.004.
  45. Mahajan N. Endometrial receptivity array: clinical application. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 2015; 8(3): 121-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.165153.
  46. 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(4): 683-92. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1112-2.
  47. Patel J., Patel A., Banker J., Shah S., Banker M. Personalized embryo transfer helps in improving in vitro fertilization/ICSI outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 2019; 12(1): 59. https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_74_18.
  48. Hashimoto T., Koizumi M., Doshida M., Toya M., Sagara E., Oka N. et al. Efficacy of the endometrial receptivity array for repeated implantation failure in Japan: a retrospective, two-centers study. Reprod. Med. Biol. 2017; 16(3): 290-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12041.
  49. Neves A.R., Devesa M., Martínez F., Garcia-Martinez S., Rodriguez I., Polyzos N.P. et al. What is the clinical impact of the endometrial receptivity array in PGT-A and oocyte donation cycles? J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2019; 36(9): 1901-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01535-5.
  50. Bassil R., Casper R., Samara N., Hsieh T.B., Barzilay E., Orvieto R. et al. Does the endometrial receptivity array really provide personalized embryo transfer? J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2018; 35(7): 1301-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1190-9.
  51. Зиганшина М.М., Абурахманова Н.Ф., Павлович С.В., Гвоздева А.Д., Бовин Н.В., Сухих Г.Т. Гликом эндометрия в менструальном цикле и рецептивность эндометрия. Акушерство и гинекология. 2017: 12: 17-24. [Ziganshina M.M., Abdurakhmanova N.F., Pavlovich S.V., Gvozdeva A.D., Bovin N.V. Sukhikh G.T. Endometrial glycome in the menstrual cycle and endometrial receptivity. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 12: 17-24. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2017.12.17-24.
  52. Clark G.F. A role for carbohydrate recognition in mammalian sperm-egg binding. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2014; 450(3): 1195-203. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.06.051.
  53. Horne A.W., White J.O., Lalani E.N. Adhesion molecules and the normal endometrium. BJOG. 2002; 109(6): 610-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.t01-1-01017.x.
  54. Jeschke U., Walzel H., Mylonas I., Papadopoulos P., Shabani N., Kuhn C. et al. The human endometrium expresses the glycoprotein mucin-1 and shows positive correlation for Thomsen-Friedenreich epitope expression and galectin-1 binding. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 2009; 57(9): 871-81. https://dx.doi.org/10.1369/jhc.2009.952085.
  55. Wang B., Sheng J.Z., He R.H., Qian Y.L., Jin F., Huang H.F. High expression of L-selectin ligand in secretory endometrium is associated with better endometrial receptivity and facilitates embryo implantation in human being. Am. J. Reprod. Immunol. 2008; 60(2): 127-34. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0897.2008.00604.x.
  56. Margarit L., Gonzalez D., Lewis P.D., Hopkins L., Davies C., Conlan R.S. et al. L-Selectin ligands in human endometrium: comparison of fertile and infertile subjects. Hum. Reprod. 2009; 24(11): 2767-77. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep247.
  57. Foulk R.A., Zdravkovic T., Genbacev O., Prakobphol A. Expression of L-selectin ligand MECA-79 as a predictive marker of human uterine receptivity. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2007; 24(7): 316-21. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-007-9151-8.

Received 12.10.2020

Accepted 23.10.2020

About the Authors

Alina A. Dovgan, Postgraduate Student, Department of Assistive Technologies in Infertility Treatment, V.I. Kulakov NMRC OGP, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation. Tel.: +7(929) 910-46-00. E-mail: lina.dovgan@gmail.com. ORCID: 0000-0002-4927-3590. 4 Oparina str., 117997, Moscow, Russia.
Marina M. Ziganshina, PhD., Leading Research Associate, Laboratory of Clinical Immunology, V.I. Kulakov NMRC OGP, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation. Tel.: +7(495)438-11-83. E-mail: mmz@mail.ru. ORCID: 0000-0003-1578-8403. 4 Oparina str., 117997, Moscow, Russia.
Nataliya V. Dolgushina, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., Head of R&D Department, V.I. Kulakov NMRC OGP, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation. Tel.: +7(495) 438-49-77. E-mail: n_dolgushina@oparina4.ru. ORCID: 0000-0003-1116-138X. 4 Oparina str., 117997, Moscow, Russia.

For citation: Dovgan A.A., Ziganshina M.M., Dolgushina N.V. Current trends in the search for endometrial receptivity markers: from individual parameters to a comprehensive approach.
Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020; 11: 26-32 (in Russian).
https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.11.26-32

Similar Articles

№9 / 2024
Pogosyan M.T., Nazarenko T.A., Krylova E.I., Kovalskaya V.A., Sannikova E.S.
Genetic factors of early embryo developmental arrest in in vitro fertilization programs
№6 / 2024
Krylova E.I., Pogosyan M.T.
Missed opportunities for improving the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization programs in patients with diminished ovarian reserve
№4 / 2024
Sukhanov A.A., Dikke G.B., Mudrov V.A., Kukarskaya I.I.
Predicting the success of in vitro fertilization in patients with chronic endometritis and reproductive disorders using neural network technology (secondary analysis of the results of the TULIP-2 randomized controlled trial)
№5 / 2024
Dubinskaya E.D., Kolesnikova S.N., Gasparov A.S., Alyoshkina E.V.
Damage-associated molecular patterns in patients with intramural uterine fibroids and infertility
№7 / 2024
Milyukov V.Ye., Bartosh N.O., Brileva E.A., Zakirova D.R.
Acute appendicitis, appendectomy and female fertility: an assessment of the problem
By continuing to use our site, you consent to the processing of cookies that ensure the proper functioning of the site.