Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Protocols Alter Endometrial Histomorphology and Gene Expression Profiles.

Although it is well appreciated that ovarian stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization (IVF) alter endometrial receptivity, the precise cellular mechanisms are not known. To gain insights into potential mechanisms by which different ovarian stimulation protocols alter the endometrium, we compared histologic and gene expression profiles of endometrium from women undergoing conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF (C-IVF) with those undergoing minimal stimulation with clomiphene citrate (MS-IVF). Sixteen women undergoing MS-IVF (n = 8) or C-IVF (n = 8) were recruited for endometrial biopsy at the time of oocyte retrieval. Endometrial glands were large, tortuous, and secretory with C-IVF but small and undifferentiated with MS-IVF. Whereas RNA sequencing did not reveal changes in estrogen receptor or its co-regulators or classic proliferation associated genes in MS-IVF, together with immunohistochemistry, Wnt signaling was disrupted in endometrium from MS-IVF cycles with significant upregulation of Wnt inhibitors. Secreted frizzled-related protein 1 (sFRP1) was increased fourfold (p < 0.01), and sFRP4 was upregulated sixfold (p < 0.01) relative to C-IVF. Further these proteins were localized to subepithelial endometrial stroma. These data indicate that MS-IVF protocols with CC do not seem to impact endometrial estrogen signaling as much as would be expected from the reported antiestrogenic properties of CC. Rather, the findings of this study highlight Wnt signaling as a major factor for endometrial development during IVF cycles.

Use of Clomiphene Citrate in minimal stimulation in vitro fertilization negatively impacts endometrial thickness: an argument for a freeze-all approach.

OBJECTIVE: Minimal stimulation IVF is a treatment option that uses clomiphene citrate (CC). We sought to evaluate how CC impacts endometrial thickness during minimal stimulation IVF cycles. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 230 cycles in 119 poor ovarian response patients. The IVF cycles were studied in three groups: 130 minimal stimulation cycles, 29 mild stimulation cycles, and 30 conventional high dose gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles. Thirty-three minimal stimulation IVF patients had 41 frozen embryo transfers (FET) which allowed us to study whether the CC effects were prolonged. RESULTS: Endometrial thickness in the minimal stimulation group was significantly lower than the mild and conventional stimulation groups (7.3±2.2mm versus 11.4±3.3mm versus 12.9±3.8mm, respectively, p<0.0001). In patients who underwent minimal stimulation IVF followed by FET, significantly thicker endometrial thickness was achieved during their FET cycles as compared to their minimal stimulation cycles (7.95±2.1mm versus 10.3±1.8mm, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: We concluded that endometrial thickness is impacted during minimal stimulation IVF cycles. Since negative effects on endometrial thickness are not observed in the patients' subsequent FET cycle, a freeze-all approach is justified to mitigate adverse endometrial effects of CC in minimal stimulation IVF cycles.