PPOS Protocol Effectively Improves the IVF Outcome Without Increasing the Recurrence Rate in Early Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer and Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia Patients After Fertility Preserving Treatment

Analysis of assisted reproductive outcomes for gynecologic cancer survivors: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the reproductive outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in gynecologic cancer patients and to assess maternal and neonatal complications.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with gynecologic cancer who underwent their first in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatment between 2013 and 2021 at Shanghai Ji Ai Genetics and IVF Institute were included in this study. Infertile women without any history of cancer were matched to the cancer group. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate. Baseline and follow-up data were compared between groups using Student's t-tests for normally distributed variables and with Chi-square test for categorical variables. A propensity score-based patient-matching approach was adopted to ensure comparability between individuals with and without specific cancer type.

RESULTS

A total of 136 patients with a history of gynecologic cancer and 241 healthy infertile controls were included in this study. Endometrial cancer constituted 50.70% of the cases and cervical cancer constituted 34.60% of the cases. The cancer group exhibited significantly shorter duration of stimulation, lower levels of estradiol, lower number of retrieved oocytes, day-3 embryos, and blastocysts compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The cumulative live birth rate of the gynecologic cancer group was significantly lower than that of the control group (36.10% vs. 60.50%, P < 0.001). Maternal and neonatal complications did not significantly differ between the groups (P > 0.05). The endometrial cancer and cervical cancer groups showed significantly lower cumulative live birth rates than their matched controls (38.60% vs. 64.50%, P = 0.011 and 24.20% vs. 68.60%, P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the decreased occurrence of pregnancy and live birth in female gynecologic cancer patients undergoing ART, particularly in endometrial cancers and cervical cancers. These findings have important implications for counseling and managing gynecologic cancer patients undergoing ART.

Current research of Assisted Reproductive Technology for women with early endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia after conservative treatment

As the incidence of endometrial cancer (EC) and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) has been increasing, and has shown young trend. It is crucial to study the fertility-preserving treatment of endometrial lesions and fertility-promoting protocols. Age, obesity, and irregular ovulation are not only high-risk factors for endometrial lesions but also key factors affecting female fertility. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) can significantly improve pregnancy outcomes in patients with AEH and EC after conservative treatment. Based on the existing studies, this article reviews the progress of research on pregnancy outcomes of ART and its influencing factors in such patients. It helps physicians in providing optimal fertility guidance.

Pregnancy outcomes in infertile patients with endometrial hyperplasia with or without atypia undergoing in vitro fertilization: the early-follicular long protocol is superior to midluteal long protocol

Background

Although in vitro fertilization (IVF) in infertile patients with endometrial hyperplasia is common after drug treatment, the pregnancy outcomes are often unsatisfactory. Till date, no studies have reported the outcome of patients with endometrial hyperplasia treated using early-follicular long (EL) protocol and midluteal long (ML) protocol.

Objective

To evaluate the pregnancy outcomes and disease prognosis of patients with endometrial hyperplasia with or without atypia undergoing IVF treatment with EL protocol or ML protocol.

Methods

This was a retrospective study in university-affiliated reproductive medical center. A total of 138 patients with endometrial hyperplasia undergoing IVF treatment were included to compare the pregnancy outcomes and disease prognosis between EL and ML protocols. We further matched 276 patients with normal endometrium to compare the pregnancy outcomes between patients with endometrial hyperplasia and patients with normal endometrium under different controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol.

Results

In patients with endometrial hyperplasia, the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) were significantly higher in EL protocol than in ML protocol (61.8% vs. 43.5%, P=0.032; 50.0% vs. 30.6%, P= 0.022). In the ML protocol, patients with endometrial hyperplasia had significantly lower CPR and LBR than those with normal endometrium (43.5% vs. 59.7%, P=0.037; 30.6% vs. 49.2%, P=0.016). While in the EL protocol, they achieved similar CPR and LBR as patients with normal endometrium (61.8% vs. 69.7%, P=0.232; 50.0% vs. 59.9%, P=0.156). In patients with endometrial hyperplasia, COS protocol was an independent factor affecting clinical pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.479; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.154-5.327) and live birth (adjusted OR 2.730; 95% CI 1.249-5.966). After 1-10 years of follow-up, no significant difference was found in the recurrence rate of endometrial lesions between both treatment groups.

Conclusions

For patients with endometrial hyperplasia undergoing IVF treatment, the EL protocol is superior to ML protocol, and in the EL protocol, they can achieve similar pregnancy outcomes as patients with normal endometrium.

Segmented in vitro fertilization and frozen embryo transfer in levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device treated patients with endometrial cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in patients with early-stage endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC).

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on patients with stage IA1 EEC who achieved complete response after fertility-sparing treatment from December 2018 to December 2021, with all the women who underwent COS having LNG-IUDs inserted in their uterine cavity.

RESULTS

16 patients were enrolled who underwent 26 COS cycles and average age was 33.19 ± 4.04 years. 12 patients had 19 subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles. Among the other four patients, no embryos were obtained in 1 patient, 1 patient got pregnancy spontaneously with term delivery after COS, 1 patient relapsed before FET, and 1 patient did not receive embryo transfer for personal reason. Among 19 FET cycles, the clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in each ET cycle were 36.84% (7/19) and 26.32% (5/19), respectively. 7 clinical pregnancies resulted in 2 miscarriages (28.6%), and 5 live births (71.4%). Totally 6 patients achieved 7 live births, and the cumulative live birth rate was 37.5% (6/16). Three (18.75%) out of 16 patients relapsed after COS during the follow-up period (31.31 ± 15.89 months) and two of them were initially diagnosed with moderately differentiated EEC. Time interval from COS to relapse was 6.63,11.67 and 16.23 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The combination of LNG-IUD treatment and segmented IVF may be a viable treatment strategy to improve oncological and reproductive outcomes for patients with early-stage EEC.

Successful delivery after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in a woman with metachronous primary cancer of ovary and endometrium: a case report

BACKGROUND

The appearance of malignancies at various times in the same individual, excluding metastases of the initial primary cancer, is termed multiple primary cancers. Double primary gynecological cancers cause inevitable damage to female reproductive function, and the preservation of fertility in such patients remains a challenging issue as relatively few cases have been reported. This case report provides management options for dual primary ovarian and endometrial cancers, including the choice of ovulation induction protocols, considerations during pregnancy and parturition, with the aim of providing assistance to clinicians.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report a case of a 39-year-old woman with primary infertility and a medical history of right-sided ovarian mucinous borderline tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma, left-sided ovarian mucinous cystadenoma and endometrial cancer, who successfully conceived with in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) after three different ovulation induction protocols. During her pregnancy, she was complicated by central placenta praevia with placental implantation and eventually delivered a healthy female infant by caesarean section at 33 gestational weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with double primary gynecological cancers who have an intense desire for fertility, the most appropriate oncological treatment should be applied according to the patient's individual situation, and fertility preservation should be performed promptly. Ovulation induction protocol should be individualized and deliberate, with the aim of ensuring that the patient's hormone levels do not precipitate a recurrence of the primary disease during induction of ovulation and maximizing fertility outcomes. In addition, the risk of postpartum hemorrhage due to placental factors cannot be neglected in such patients.

Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol for Patients With Endometrioma

Objective

To evaluate the pregnancy outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol for patients with endometrioma underwent in vitro fertilization/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection embryo transfer (IVF/ICSI-ET).

Design

Observational retrospective cohort study.

Setting

University affiliated reproductive center.

Study Participants

605 infertile patients with endometrioma underwent IVF/ICSI-ET from January 2016 to March 2021 were included in this study.

Methods

Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the independent effect of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols on reproductive outcomes of first embryo transfer (ET) cycles. The live birth was primary outcome, the implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy were secondary outcomes.

Results

Compared to PPOS protocol, the probability of implantation showed no significant difference with ultra-long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) protocol and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRHant) protocol (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.1, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-2.1, respectively). The PPOS protocol was correlated with a significantly lower biochemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy than ultra-long GnRHa protocol in the multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.9, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.3, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in terms of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy between PPOS and GnRHant protocol (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.7-2.7, OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7-2.4, OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.3, respectively). In addition, compared to PPOS protocol, ultra-long GnRHa protocol and GnRHant protocol demonstrated no statistical difference in ongoing pregnancy (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.9-4.5, OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.3, respectively). Notably, the ultra-long GnRHa protocol was associated with a significant higher probability of live birth than PPOS protocol both in crude analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.1, OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.7, respectively). Nevertheless, no statistical difference was found in live birth between PPOS and GnRHant protocol either in crude analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.3, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.5, respectively).

Conclusions

Based on the reproductive outcomes of the first ET cycles in patients with endometrioma, PPOS protocol may associated with inferior reproductive outcomes in terms of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and live birth than ultra-long GnRHa protocol. However, there was no significant difference in implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy and live birth between PPOS and GnRHant protocol.