A Study on the Prediction of Reproductive Outcomes in Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycles by Calculating the Volume of Uterine Junctional Zone with Three-Dimensional Ultrasound

Abstract

Purpose To prospectively study the influence of the volume of the uterine junctional zone (JZ) as a novel predictor of reproductive outcomes in frozen embryo transfer cycles.

Methods Among the first 30 patients, intra- and interobserver repeatability was evaluated and expressed as a coefficient of repeatability. The same classification system was used to evaluate the JZ of 142 infertility patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Ultrasonography was performed on the day before transplantation. The three-dimensional (3D) volume images were then analyzed to obtain the volume of the endometrium (EV), the average thickness of the JZ on the coronal plane, and the volume of the JZ (JZV). The JZV was then divided by the EV. These parameters were compared with the outcomes of clinical pregnancy.

Results The 3D image showed that the JZ achieved a good intra- and interobserver consistency (k = 0.862, k = 0.694). The total pregnancy rate was 47%. There was a highly significant difference between pregnant and non-pregnant women with respect to age (p < 0.001), JZV (p = 0.003), and JZV/EV (p < 0.001) on the day before transplantation. Age and JZV/EV were independent factors for predicting the success of IVF transplantation (p = 0.010, p = 0.016). The area under the ROC curve of JZV/EV in predicting clinical pregnancy was 0.688, the cut-off value was 0.54, the sensitivity was 83.8%, and the specificity was 50.0%.

Conclusion Age and JZV/EV are independent factors for predicting the success of frozen embryo transfer cycles in IVF. A smaller JZV/EV was more beneficial for clinical pregnancy.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Prospektive Untersuchung des Einflusses des Volumens der Junktionalzone (JZ) des Myometriums als neuartiger Prädiktor für den reproduktiven Outcome nach Transfer im Kryozyklus (Frozen-Embryo-Transfer, FET).

Methoden Bei den ersten 30 Patientinnen wurde die Intra- und Interobserver-Reproduzierbarkeit bewertet und die Wiederholbarkeit als „Coefficient of Repeatability“ ausgedrückt. Dasselbe Klassifizierungssystem wurde zur Bewertung der JZ von 142 Patientinnen mit Infertilität verwendet, die sich einer In-vitro-Fertilisation (IVF) unterzogen. Die Ultraschalluntersuchung wurde am Tag vor dem Transfer durchgeführt. Die 3-dimensionalen (3D) Volumenbilder wurden anschließend analysiert, um das Endometriumvolumen (EV), die durchschnittliche Dicke der JZ in der koronalen Ebene und das JZ-Volumen (JZV) zu ermitteln. Die Ratio JZV/EV wurde berechnet. Diese Parameter wurden mit dem Ausgang der klinischen Schwangerschaft verglichen.

Ergebnisse Die 3D-Aufnahme zeigte, dass die JZ eine gute Intra- und Interobserver-Konsistenz erreichte (k=0,862; k=0,694). Die Schwangerschaftsrate betrug insgesamt 47%. Es gab einen hochsignifikanten Unterschied zwischen schwangeren und nicht schwangeren Frauen in Bezug auf Alter (p < 0,001), JZV (p = 0,003) und JZV/EV (p < 0,001) am Tag vor dem Transfer. Alter und JZV/EV waren unabhängige Faktoren für die Vorhersage des Erfolgs bei IVF-Transfer (p=0,010; p = 0,016). Die Fläche unter der ROC-Kurve von JZV/EV zur Vorhersage einer klinischen Schwangerschaft betrug 0,688, der Cut-off-Wert lag bei 0,54. Die Sensitivität betrug 83,8 % und die Spezifität 50,0%.

Schlussfolgerung Alter und JZV/EV sind unabhängige Faktoren für die Vorhersage eines erfolgreichen Transfers kryokonservierter Embryonen bei IVF. Eine geringere JZV/EV-Ratio war für eine klinische Schwangerschaft günstiger.

Keywords

three-dimensional ultrasound - endometrial volume - in vitro fertilization - clinical pregnancy - uterine junctional zone

Publication History

Received: 29 May 2021

Accepted after revision: 31 August 2021

Article published online:
24 November 2021

• References

• 1 Noe M, Kunz G, Herbertz M. et al. The cyclic pattern of the immunocytochemical expression of oestrogen and progesterone receptors in human myometrial and endometrial layers: characterization of the endometrial-subendometrial unit. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 190-197 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/14.1.190. (PMID: 10374119)
• 2 Wiczyk HP, Janus CL, Richards CJ. et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in evaluating follicular and endometrial development throughout the normal cycle. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 969-972 DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59946-4. (PMID: 3286292)
• 3 Mark AS, Hricak H, Heinrichs LW. et al. Adenomyosis and leiomyoma: differential diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 163: 527-529 DOI: 10.1148/radiology.163.2.3562836. (PMID: 3562836)
• 4 McCarthy S, Tauber C, Gore J. Female pelvic anatomy: MR assessment of variations during the menstrual cycle and with use of oral contraceptives. Radiology 1986; 160: 119-123 DOI: 10.1148/radiology.160.1.3715022. (PMID: 3715022)
• 5 Lesny P, Killick SR. The junctional zone of the uterus and its contractions. An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2004; 111: 1182-1189 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00350.x. (PMID: 15521862)
• 6 Silva V, Ramos FF, Brás AFM. et al. Junctional Zone in Infertile Women: A Three-dimensional Ultrasound Study. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2020; 42: 152-159 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1708089. (PMID: 32232823)
• 7 Hricak H, Alpers C, Crooks LE. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: initial experience. Am J Roentgenol 1983; 141: 1119-1128 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.141.6.1119. (PMID: 6606306)
• 8 Mitchell DG, Schonholz L, Hilpert PL. et al. Zones of the uterus: discrepancy between US and MR images. Radiology 1990; 174: 827-831
• 9 Brown HK, Stoll BS, Nicosia SV. et al. Uterine junctional zone: correlation between histologic findings and MR imaging. Radiology 1991; 179: 409-413
• 10 Tanos V, Lingwood L, Balami S. The importance of the junctional zone of the endometrium in human reproduction. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2020; 6: 1-9 DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2020.1720316. (PMID: 32024409)
• 11 Mercé LT, Barco MJ, Bau S. et al. Are endometrial parameters by three-dimensional ultrasound and power Doppler angiography related to in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer outcome?. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 111-117 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.029. (PMID: 17555754)
• 12 Tanos V, Lingwood L, Balami S. Junctional Zone Endometrium Morphological Characteristics and Functionality: Review of the Literature. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2020; 85: 107-117 DOI: 10.1159/000505650. (PMID: 31968333)
• 13 Sudderuddin S, Helbren E, Telesca M. et al. MRI appearances of benign uterine disease. Clin Radiol 2014; 69: 1095-1104 DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2014.05.108. (PMID: 25017452)
• 14 Naftalin J, Hoo W, Nunes N. et al. Inter- and intraobserver variability in three-dimensional ultrasound assessment of the endometrial-myometrial junction and factors affecting its visualization. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 587-591 DOI: 10.1002/uog.10133. (PMID: 22045594)
• 15 Rasmussen CK, Glavind J, Madsen LD. et al. Repeatability of Junctional Zone Measurements Using 3-Dimensional Transvaginal Sonography in Healthy Fertile Women. J Ultrasound Med 2016; 35: 1497-1508 DOI: 10.7863/ultra.15.06086. (PMID: 27269003)
• 16 Al Chami A, Saridogan E. Endometrial Polyps and Subfertility. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2017; 67: 9-14 DOI: 10.1007/s13224-016-0929-4. (PMID: 28242961)
• 17 Craciunas L, Gallos I, Chu J. et al. Conventional and modern markers of endometrial receptivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2019; 25: 202-223 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmy044. (PMID: 30624659)
• 18 Novellas S, Chassang M, Delotte J. et al. MRI characteristics of the uterine junctional zone: from normal to the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 1206-1213
• 19 Brosens I, Derwig I, Brosens J. et al. The enigmatic uterine junctional zone: the missing link between reproductive disorders and major obstetrical disorders?. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 569-574 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep474. (PMID: 20085913)
• 20 Maubon A, Faury A, Kapella M. et al. Uterine junctional zone at magnetic resonance imaging: a predictor of in vitro fertilization implantation failure. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2010; 36: 611-618 DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01189.x. (PMID: 20598045)
• 21 Exacoustos C, Luciano D, Corbett B. et al. The uterine junctional zone: a 3-dimensional ultrasound study of patients with endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 1-7
• 22 Barbanti C, Centini G, Lazzeri L. et al. Adenomyosis and infertility: the role of the junctional zone. Gynecol Endocrinol 2021; 15: 1-7 DOI: 10.1080/09513590.2021.1878131. (PMID: 33587014)
• 23 Maged AM, Ramzy AM, Ghar MA. et al. 3D ultrasound assessment of endometrial junctional zone anatomy as a predictor of the outcome of ICSI cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 212: 160-165 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.03.035. (PMID: 28376433)
• 24 Bazot M, Daraï E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 389-397 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.024. (PMID: 29566851)