Day 2 Transfer in Clinical ART

Barry Behr; Sohyun McElroy

doi:10.1055/s-0032-1311524

Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, Table of Contents

Semin Reprod Med 2012; 30(03): 222-229
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1311524

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Day 2 Transfer in Clinical ART

Barry Behr

¹Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

,

Sohyun McElroy

²Stem Cell Biology Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, numerous techniques have enhanced assisted reproductive technology outcomes to help couples have >60,000 infants in the United States in 2008. Several different days for embryo transfers have been studied, but debate for the best timing of embryo transfer is still ongoing. With growing concern about multiple gestations and neonatal outcomes, early cleavage stage embryo transfer with novel embryo selection tools may be attractive to some patients and in vitro fertilization programs. In this review, we summarize clinical and basic studies relating to the timing of embryo transfer and highlight the possibilities of safe embryo transfer by combining advanced embryo screening tools with potentially high efficiency and low adverse effects on clinical outcome.

Keywords

day 2 embryo transfer - assisted reproductive technology - time-lapse imaging - embryo selection

Full Text

References

References
1 Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978; 2 (8085) 366
2 Quinn P, Stone BA, Marrs RP. Suboptimal laboratory conditions can affect pregnancy outcome after embryo transfer on day 1 or 2 after insemination in vitro. Fertil Steril 1990; 53 (1) 168-170
3 Mahadevan MM, Miller MM, Moutos DM. Improved human zygote development in a modified Ham's F10 medium in vitro. J Assist Reprod Genet 1996; 13 (9) 722-725
4 Vijayakumar R, Simoni J, Ndubisi B, DeLeon F, Heine W. Mouse embryo growth in different culture media: selection of a medium for quality control cross-testing of human in vitro fertilization conditions. Arch Androl 1987; 19 (2) 149-158
5 Quinn P, Kerin JF, Warnes GM. Improved pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization with the use of a medium based on the composition of human tubal fluid. Fertil Steril 1985; 44 (4) 493-498
6 Lane M, Gardner DK. Nonessential amino acids and glutamine decrease the time of the first three cleavage divisions and increase compaction of mouse zygotes in vitro. J Assist Reprod Genet 1997; 14 (7) 398-403
7 Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF?. Hum Reprod Update 1997; 3 (4) 367-382
8 Lane M, Gardner DK. Amino acids and vitamins prevent culture-induced metabolic perturbations and associated loss of viability of mouse blastocysts. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (4) 991-997
9 Jun SH, Choi B, Shahine L , et al. Defining human embryo phenotypes by cohort-specific prognostic factors. PLoS ONE 2008; 3 (7) e2562
10 Dragisic KG, Davis OK, Fasouliotis SJ, Rosenwaks Z. Use of a luteal estradiol patch and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist suppression protocol before gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (4) 1023-1026
11 Liu HC, Cohen J, Alikani M, Noyes N, Rosenwaks Z. Assisted hatching facilitates earlier implantation. Fertil Steril 1993; 60 (5) 871-875
12 De Vos A, Staessen C, De Rycke M , et al. Impact of cleavage-stage embryo biopsy in view of PGD on human blastocyst implantation: a prospective cohort of single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (12) 2988-2996
13 Chow JF, Yeung WS, Lau EY , et al. Singleton birth after preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Huntington disease using whole genome amplification. Fertil Steril 2009; 92 (2) 828 , e7–e10
14 Fehilly CB, Cohen J, Simons RF, Fishel SB, Edwards RG. Cryopreservation of cleaving embryos and expanded blastocysts in the human: a comparative study. Fertil Steril 1985; 44 (5) 638-644
15 Lathi RB, Behr B. Pregnancy after trophectoderm biopsy of frozen-thawed blastocyst. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (5) 1938-1940
16 Macháty Z, Day BN, Prather RS. Development of early porcine embryos in vitro and in vivo. Biol Reprod 1998; 59 (2) 451-455
17 Farin PW, Slenning BD, Britt JH. Estimates of pregnancy outcomes based on selection of bovine embryos produced in vivo or in vitro. Theriogenology 1999; 52 (4) 659-670
18 Richter KS. The importance of growth factors for preimplantation embryo development and in-vitro culture. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008; 20 (3) 292-304
19 Bazer FW, Spencer TE, Johnson GA, Burghardt RC. Uterine receptivity to implantation of blastocysts in mammals. Front Biosci (Schol Ed) 2011; 3: 745-767 (Schol Ed)

20 Kolibianakis EM, Devroey P. The luteal phase after ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5 (3, Suppl 1) 26-35
21 Nikas G, Develioglu OH, Toner JP, Jones Jr HW. Endometrial pinopodes indicate a shift in the window of receptivity in IVF cycles. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (3) 787-792
22 Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers in high responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (2) 516-518
23 Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (2) 344-348
24 Schultz RM. The molecular foundations of the maternal to zygotic transition in the preimplantation embryo. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8 (4) 323-331
25 Braude P, Bolton V, Moore S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 1988; 332 (6163) 459-461
26 Dobson AT, Raja R, Abeyta MJ , et al. The unique transcriptome through day 3 of human preimplantation development. Hum Mol Genet 2004; 13 (14) 1461-1470
27 Latham KE, Garrels JI, Chang C, Solter D. Analysis of embryonic mouse development: construction of a high-resolution, two-dimensional gel protein database. Appl Theor Electrophor 1992; 2 (6) 163-170
28 Vassena R, Boué S, González-Roca E , et al. Waves of early transcriptional activation and pluripotency program initiation during human preimplantation development. Development 2011; 138 (17) 3699-3709
29 Li E. Chromatin modification and epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Nat Rev Genet 2002; 3 (9) 662-673
30 Berger F, Chaudhury A. Parental memories shape seeds. Trends Plant Sci 2009; 14 (10) 550-556
31 Corry GN, Tanasijevic B, Barry ER, Krueger W, Rasmussen TP. Epigenetic regulatory mechanisms during preimplantation development. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 2009; 87 (4) 297-313
32 Santos F, Peters AH, Otte AP, Reik W, Dean W. Dynamic chromatin modifications characterise the first cell cycle in mouse embryos. Dev Biol 2005; 280 (1) 225-236
33 Liu H, Kim JM, Aoki F. Regulation of histone H3 lysine 9 methylation in oocytes and early pre-implantation embryos. Development 2004; 131 (10) 2269-2280
34 Lepikhov K, Walter J. Differential dynamics of histone H3 methylation at positions K4 and K9 in the mouse zygote. BMC Dev Biol 2004; 4: 12
35 Erhardt S, Su IH, Schneider R , et al. Consequences of the depletion of zygotic and embryonic enhancer of zeste 2 during preimplantation mouse development. Development 2003; 130 (18) 4235-4248
36 Howlett SK, Reik W. Methylation levels of maternal and paternal genomes during preimplantation development. Development 1991; 113 (1) 119-127
37 Reik W, Dean W, Walter J. Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Science 2001; 293 (5532) 1089-1093
38 Jaenisch R, Bird A. Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nat Genet 2003; 33 (Suppl) 245-254
39 Clayton-Smith J, Laan L. Angelman syndrome: a review of the clinical and genetic aspects. J Med Genet 2003; 40 (2) 87-95
40 Sutcliffe AG, Peters CJ, Bowdin S , et al. Assisted reproductive therapies and imprinting disorders—a preliminary British survey. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (4) 1009-1011
41 Doornbos ME, Maas SM, McDonnell J, Vermeiden JP, Hennekam RC. Infertility, assisted reproduction technologies and imprinting disturbances: a Dutch study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (9) 2476-2480
42 Weksberg R, Shuman C, Smith AC. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2005; 137C (1) 12-23
43 Katari S, Turan N, Bibikova M , et al. DNA methylation and gene expression differences in children conceived in vitro or in vivo. Hum Mol Genet 2009; 18 (20) 3769-3778
44 Gomes MV, Huber J, Ferriani RA, Amaral Neto AM, Ramos ES. Abnormal methylation at the KvDMR1 imprinting control region in clinically normal children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. Mol Hum Reprod 2009; 15 (8) 471-477
45 Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 74 (4) 599-609
46 Horsthemke B, Ludwig M. Assisted reproduction: the epigenetic perspective. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11 (5) 473-482
47 Manipalviratn S, DeCherney A, Segars J. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (2) 305-315
48 Lonergan P, Pedersen HG, Rizos D , et al. Effect of the post-fertilization culture environment on the incidence of chromosome aberrations in bovine blastocysts. Biol Reprod 2004; 71 (4) 1096-1100
49 Wrenzycki C, Niemann H. Epigenetic reprogramming in early embryonic development: effects of in-vitro production and somatic nuclear transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 7 (6) 649-656
50 McElroy SL, Kim JH, Kim S , et al. Effects of culture conditions and nuclear transfer protocols on blastocyst formation and mRNA expression in pre-implantation porcine embryos. Theriogenology 2008; 69 (4) 416-425
51 Doherty AS, Mann MR, Tremblay KD, Bartolomei MS, Schultz RM. Differential effects of culture on imprinted H19 expression in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Biol Reprod 2000; 62 (6) 1526-1535
52 Fernández-Gonzalez R, Moreira P, Bilbao A , et al. Long-term effect of in vitro culture of mouse embryos with serum on mRNA expression of imprinting genes, development, and behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004; 101 (16) 5880-5885
53 Li T, Vu TH, Ulaner GA , et al. IVF results in de novo DNA methylation and histone methylation at an Igf2-H19 imprinting epigenetic switch. Mol Hum Reprod 2005; 11 (9) 631-640
54 Scott L. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6 (2) 201-214
55 Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (4) 1003-1013
56 Montag M, van der Ven H. ; German Pronuclear Morphology Study Group. Evaluation of pronuclear morphology as the only selection criterion for further embryo culture and transfer: results of a prospective multicentre study. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (11) 2384-2389
57 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 (5) 1318-1323
58 Wittemer C, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Ohl J, Rongières C, Nisand I, Gerlinger P. Zygote evaluation: an efficient tool for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (12) 2591-2597
59 Senn A, Vozzi C, Chanson A, De Grandi P, Germond M. Prospective randomized study of two cryopreservation policies avoiding embryo selection: the pronucleate stage leads to a higher cumulative delivery rate than the early cleavage stage. Fertil Steril 2000; 74 (5) 946-952
60 Ahuja KK, Smith W, Tucker M, Craft I. Successful pregnancies from the transfer of pronucleate embryos in an outpatient in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1985; 44 (2) 181-184
61 Dale B, Fiorentino A, de Simone ML , et al. Zygote versus embryo transfer: a prospective randomized multicenter trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002; 19 (10) 456-461
62 Jaroudi K, Al-Hassan S, Sieck U, Al-Sufyan H, Al-Kabra M, Coskun S. Zygote transfer on day 1 versus cleavage stage embryo transfer on day 3: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (3) 645-648
63 Margreiter M, Weghofer A, Kogosowski A, Mahmoud KZ, Feichtinger W. A prospective randomized multicenter study to evaluate the best day for embryo transfer: does the outcome justify prolonged embryo culture?. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003; 20 (2) 91-94
64 Yoon HG, Yoon SH, Son WY, Kim JG, Im KS, Lim JH. Alternative embryo transfer on day 3 or day 5 for reducing the risk of multiple gestations. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001; 18 (5) 262-267
65 de los Santos MJ, Mercader A, Galán A, Albert C, Romero JL, Pellicer A. Implantation rates after two, three, or five days of embryo culture. Placenta 2003; 24 (Suppl B) S13-S19
66 Laverge H, De Sutter P, Van der Elst J, Dhont M. A prospective, randomized study comparing day 2 and day 3 embryo transfer in human IVF. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (3) 476-480
67 Shen S, Rosen MP, Dobson AT, Fujimoto VY, McCulloch CE, Cedars MI. Day 2 transfer improves pregnancy outcome in in vitro fertilization cycles with few available embryos. Fertil Steril 2006; 86 (1) 44-50
68 Bahceci M, Ulug U, Turan E, Akman MA. Comparisons of follicular levels of sex steroids, gonadotropins and insulin like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) in poor responder and normoresponder patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 130 (1) 93-98
69 Shahine LK, Milki AA, Westphal LM, Baker VL, Behr B, Lathi RB. Day 2 versus day 3 embryo transfer in poor responders: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (1) 330-332
70 Dawson KJ, Conaghan J, Ostera GR, Winston RM, Hardy K. Delaying transfer to the third day post-insemination, to select non-arrested embryos, increases development to the fetal heart stage. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (1) 177-182
71 Carrillo AJ, Lane B, Pridman DD , et al. Improved clinical outcomes for in vitro fertilization with delay of embryo transfer from 48 to 72 hours after oocyte retrieval: use of glucose- and phosphate-free media. Fertil Steril 1998; 69 (2) 329-334
72 Oatway C, Gunby J, Daya S. Day three versus day two embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (2) CD004378
73 Aboulghar MM, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Amin YM, Abou-Setta AM. Pregnancy rate is not improved by delaying embryo transfer from days 2 to 3. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 107 (2) 176-179
74 Ertzeid G, Dale PO, Tanbo T, Storeng R, Kjekshus E, Abyholm T. Clinical outcome of day 2 versus day 3 embryo transfer using serum-free culture media: a prospective randomized study. J Assist Reprod Genet 1999; 16 (10) 529-534
75 van Os HC, Alberda AT, Janssen-Caspers HA, Leerentveld RA, Scholtes MC, Zeilmaker GH. The influence of the interval between in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer and some other variables on treatment outcome. Fertil Steril 1989; 51 (2) 360-362
76 Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Blastocyst culture and transfer increases the efficiency of oocyte donation. Fertil Steril 2000; 74 (3) 482-486
77 Racowsky C, Jackson KV, Cekleniak NA, Fox JH, Hornstein MD, Ginsburg ES. The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 73 (3) 558-564
78 Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Van de Meerssche M, Valkenburg M. Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (10) 2581-2587
79 Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D , et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (9) 2345-2349
80 Dokras A, Sargent IL, Ross C, Gardner RL, Barlow DH. The human blastocyst: morphology and human chorionic gonadotrophin secretion in vitro. Hum Reprod 1991; 6 (8) 1143-1151
81 Rubio C, Simón C, Mercader A, Garcia-Velasco J, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Clinical experience employing co-culture of human embryos with autologous human endometrial epithelial cells. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (Suppl. 06) 31-38
82 Behr B. Blastocyst culture and transfer. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (1) 5-6
83 Milki AA, Hinckley MD, Fisch JD, Dasig D, Behr B. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with day 3 embryo transfer in similar patient populations. Fertil Steril 2000; 73 (1) 126-129
84 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 (12) 3434-3440
85 Karaki RZ, Samarraie SS, Younis NA, Lahloub TM, Ibrahim MH. Blastocyst culture and transfer: a step toward improved in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2002; 77 (1) 114-118
86 Blake D, Proctor M, Johnson N, Olive D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; (2) CD002118
87 Blake DA, Proctor M, Johnson NP. The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (9) 2174
88 Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture of viable human blastocysts in defined sequential serum-free media. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (Suppl. 03) 148-159 ; discussion 160
89 Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK. Blastocyst versus day 2 or 3 transfer. Semin Reprod Med 2001; 19 (3) 259-268
90 Marek D, Langley M, Gardner DK, Confer N, Doody KM, Doody KJ. Introduction of blastocyst culture and transfer for all patients in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1999; 72 (6) 1035-1040
91 Balaban B, Urman B, Alatas C, Mercan R, Aksoy S, Isiklar A. Blastocyst-stage transfer of poor-quality cleavage-stage embryos results in higher implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2001; 75 (3) 514-518
92 Frattarelli JL, Leondires MP, McKeeby JL, Miller BT, Segars JH. Blastocyst transfer decreases multiple pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2003; 79 (1) 228-230
93 Pantos K, Makrakis E, Stavrou D, Karantzis P, Vaxevanoglou T, Tzigounis V. Comparison of embryo transfer on day 2, day 3, and day 6: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2004; 81 (2) 454-455
94 Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome?. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (5) 1680-1683
95 Guerif F, Lemseffer M, Bidault R , et al. Single day 2 embryo versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (5) 1051-1058
96 Schwärzler P, Zech H, Auer M , et al. Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst transfer as compared to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (9) 2097-2102
97 Fleming TP, Kwong WY, Porter R , et al. The embryo and its future. Biol Reprod 2004; 71 (4) 1046-1054
98 Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Jeng G, Wilcox LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2002; 346 (10) 731-737
99 Maher ER, Brueton LA, Bowdin SC , et al. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and assisted reproduction technology (ART). J Med Genet 2003; 40 (1) 62-64
100 Ørstavik KH. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection and congenital syndromes because of imprinting defects. [in Norwegian]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2003; 123 (2) 177
101 Salumets A, Hydén-Granskog C, Suikkari AM, Tiitinen A, Tuuri T. The predictive value of pronuclear morphology of zygotes in the assessment of human embryo quality. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (10) 2177-2181
102 Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF, Matthews CD. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocytes using time-lapse video cinematography. Hum Reprod 1997; 12 (3) 532-541
103 Gianaroli L, Cristina Magli M, Ferraretti AP , et al. Reducing the time of sperm-oocyte interaction in human in-vitro fertilization improves the implantation rate. Hum Reprod 1996; 11 (1) 166-171
104 Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P , et al. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (9) 2427-2431
105 Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Laureys I, Ryckaert G, Gerris J. Calculating the implantation potential of day 3 embryos in women younger than 38 years of age: a new model. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (2) 326-332
106 Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M , et al. Multinucleation in cleavage stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (5) 1062-1069
107 Hardarson T, Hanson C, Sjögren A, Lundin K. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (2) 313-318
108 Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K , et al. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (2) 548-557
109 Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL , et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28 (10) 1115-1121
110 Geber S, Winston RM, Handyside AH. Proliferation of blastomeres from biopsied cleavage stage human embryos in vitro: an alternative to blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation diagnosis. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (6) 1492-1496
111 Senat MV, Ancel PY, Bouvier-Colle MH, Bréart G. How does multiple pregnancy affect maternal mortality and morbidity?. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1998; 41 (1) 78-83
112 Land JA, Evers JL. Risks and complications in assisted reproduction techniques: Report of an ESHRE consensus meeting. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (2) 455-457
113 Bosch E, Ezcurra D. Individualised controlled ovarian stimulation (iCOS): maximising success rates for assisted reproductive technology patients. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2011; 9: 82