Optimizing in vitro fertilization outcomes in non-receptive endometrium using combined histological dating and endometrial receptivity array: a retrospective study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20261626Keywords:
Endometrial receptivity array, Histologic dating, Window of implantation, Endometrial receptivity, Assisted reproductive technologyAbstract
Background: Precise identification of the window of implantation (WOI) is crucial for optimizing embryo transfer and improving assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes. While the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) evaluates molecular receptivity, histological endometrial dating is a simpler, cost-effective alternative. However, comparative evidence is limited. This study assessed concordance between ERA and histological dating and evaluated whether their combined use improves outcomes in patients with non-receptive endometrium.
Methods: This retrospective study included 886 women undergoing ART between January 2021 and December 2025. Patients were categorized as ERA-receptive (n=562) or ERA non-receptive (n=324). Among non-receptive patients, outcomes were compared between those who underwent histological endometrial biopsy (EB) and those who did not. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on histological phase (proliferative versus secretory). Primary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, implantation, live birth, miscarriage, and ongoing pregnancy rates.
Results: ERA-receptive patients showed significantly higher clinical pregnancy and implantation rates compared to non-receptive patients. Within the non-receptive group, histological evaluation was associated with improved clinical pregnancy (38.38% versus 23.02%), implantation (17.99% versus 9.73%), and live birth rates (31.82% versus 15.08%). Secretory-phase endometrium demonstrated superior clinical pregnancy (44.53% versus 24.59%) and live birth rates (40.15% versus 13.11%) compared to proliferative phase.
Conclusions: Both ERA and histological dating are associated with improved ART outcomes. Histological assessment provides complementary value in ERA non-receptive patients. An integrated molecular and histological approach may enhance embryo transfer timing and improve reproductive success.
Metrics
References
Cohen AM, Ye XY, Colgan TJ, Greenblatt EM, Chan C. Comparing endometrial receptivity array to histologic dating of the endometrium in women with a history of implantation failure. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2020;66(6):347-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19396368.2020.1824032
Rubin SC, Abdulkadir M, Lewis J, Harutyunyan A, Hirani R, Grimes CL. Review of Endometrial Receptivity Array: A Personalized Approach to Embryo Transfer and Its Clinical Applications. J Pers Med. 2023;13(5):749. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13050749
Mei Y, Wang Y, Ke X, Liang X, Lin Y and Wang F. Does endometrial receptivity array improve reproductive outcomes in euploid embryo transfer cycles? a systematic review. Front Endocrinol. 2023;14:1251699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2023.1251699
Chae-Kim J, Doyle N, Jahandideh S, O Brien JE, Widra EA, Levy M, et al. Evaluating the endometrial receptivity assay: a nested diagnostic accuracy study within the Synchrony randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2023;120(6):1255-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.09.004
Riestenberg C, Kroener L, Quinn M, Ching K, Ambartsumyan G. Routine endometrial receptivity array in first embryo transfer cycles does not improve live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:1001-6.
Ma J, Gao W, Li D. Recurrent implantation failure: A comprehensive summary from etiology to treatment. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;13:1061766. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.1061766
de Ziegler D, Scott RTJr, Pirtea, P. If recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is rare, what could be the cause of repeat unsuccessful ARTs? Fertil Steril 2023;(23):2036-8.
Liu Z, Liu X, Wang M, Zhao H, He S, Lai S, et al. The Clinical Efficacy of Personalized Embryo Transfer Guided by the Endometrial Receptivity Array/Analysis on IVF/ICSI Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Physiol. 2022;13:841437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.841437
Ohara Y, Matsubayashi H, Suzuki Y, Takaya Y, Yamaguchi K, Doshida M, et al. Clinical relevance of a newly developed endometrial receptivity test for patients with recurrent implantation failure in Japan. Reprod Med Biol. 2022;21(1):e12444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12444
Riestenberg C, Kroener L, Quinn M, Ching K, Ambartsumyan G. Routine endometrial receptivity array in first embryo transfer cycles does not improve live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(4):1001-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.140
Glujovsky D, Lattes K, Miguens M, Pesce R, Ciapponi A. Personalized embryo transfer guided by endometrial receptivity analysis: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2023;38(7):1305-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead098
Xu S, Diao H, Xiong Y, Zhang C, Zhang Y, Zhang Y. The study on the clinical efficacy of endometrial receptivity analysis and influence factors of displaced window of implantation. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):7326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-91745-y
Alonso MR, Díaz-Gimeno P, Gómez E, Rincón-Bertolín A, Vladimirov Y, Garrido N. Clinical efficiency of embryo transfer performed in receptive vs non-receptive endometrium diagnosed by the endometrial receptivity array (era) test. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):pe292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.994
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;12:59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_74_18
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
