Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation before gonadotoxic treatments: Principles of safe ovarian stimulation, a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Review the safety of fertility preservation through ovarian stimulation with oocyte or embryo cryopreservation, including cycle and medication options. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A systematic review of peer-reviewed sources revealed 2 applicable randomized control trials and 60 cohort studies as well as 20 additional expert opinions or reviews. RESULTS: The capacity for future family building is important for the majority of reproductive age people, despite life-altering medical or oncologic diagnosis. Modern fertility preservation generates a high rate of oocyte yield while utilizing protocols that can be started at multiple points in the menstrual cycle and suppressing supra-physiologic levels of estrogen. Finally, more than one quarter of fertility preservation patients will return to later utilize fertility services. CONCLUSION: For most patients, fertility preservation can safely be pursued and completed within 2 weeks without affecting disease severity or long-term survival.

An evidence-based approach to assessing surgical versus clinical diagnosis of symptomatic endometriosis.

Challenges intrinsic to the accurate diagnosis of endometriosis contribute to an extended delay between the onset of symptoms and clinical confirmation. Intraoperative visualization, preferably with histologic verification, is considered by many professional organizations to be the gold standard by which endometriosis is diagnosed. Clinical diagnosis of symptomatic endometriosis via patient history, physical examination, and noninvasive tests, though more easily executed, is generally viewed as less accurate than surgical diagnosis. Technological advances and increased understanding of the pathophysiology of endometriosis warrant continuing reevaluation of the standard method for diagnosing symptomatic disease. A review of the published literature was therefore performed with the goal of comparing the accuracy of clinical diagnostic measures with that of surgical diagnosis. The current body of evidence suggests that clinical diagnosis of symptomatic endometriosis is more reliable than previously recognized and that surgical diagnosis has limitations that could be underappreciated. Regardless of the methodology used, women with suspected symptomatic endometriosis would be well served by a diagnostic paradigm that is reliable, conveys minimal risk of under- or over-diagnosis, lessens the time from symptom development to diagnosis, and guides the appropriate use of medical and surgical management strategies.

World Endometriosis Society consensus on the classification of endometriosis.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the global consensus on the classification of endometriosis that considers the views of women with endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: We have produced an international consensus statement on the classification of endometriosis through systematic appraisal of evidence and a consensus process that included representatives of national and international, medical and non-medical societies, patient organizations, and companies with an interest in endometriosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Classification systems of endometriosis, developed by several professional organizations, traditionally have been based on lesion appearance, pelvic adhesions, and anatomic location of disease. One system predicts fertility outcome and none predicts pelvic pain, response to medications, disease recurrence, risks for associated disorders, quality of life measures, and other endpoints important to women and health care providers for guiding appropriate therapeutic options and prognosis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A consensus meeting, in conjunction with pre- and post-meeting processes, was undertaken. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A consensus meeting was held on 30 April 2014 in conjunction with the World Endometriosis Society's 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. Rigorous pre- and post-meeting processes, involving 55 representatives of 29 national and international, medical and non-medical organizations from a range of disciplines, led to this consensus statement. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 28 consensus statements were made. Of all, 10 statements had unanimous consensus, however none of the statements was made without expression of a caveat about the strength of the statement or the statement itself. Two statements did not achieve majority consensus. The statements covered women's priorities, aspects of classification, impact of low resources, as well as all the major classification systems for endometriosis. Until better classification systems are developed, we propose a classification toolbox (that includes the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine and, where appropriate, the Enzian and Endometriosis Fertility Index staging systems), that may be used by all surgeons in each case of surgery undertaken for women with endometriosis. We also propose wider use of the World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project surgical and clinical data collection tools for research to improve classification of endometriosis in the future, of particular relevance when surgery is not undertaken. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This consensus process differed from that of formal guideline development, although based on the same available evidence. A different group of international experts from those participating in this process may have yielded subtly different consensus statements. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first time that a large, global, consortium-representing 29 major stake-holding organizations, from 19 countries - has convened to systematically evaluate the best available evidence on the classification of endometriosis and reach consensus. In addition to 21 international medical organizations and companies, representatives from eight national endometriosis organizations were involved, including lay support groups, thus generating and including input from women who suffer from endometriosis in an endeavour to keep uppermost the goal of optimizing quality of life for women with endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The World Endometriosis Society convened and hosted the consensus meeting. Financial support for participants to attend the meeting was provided by the organizations that they represented. There was no other specific funding for this consensus process. Mauricio Abrao is an advisor to Bayer Pharma, and a consultant to AbbVie and AstraZeneca; G David Adamson is the Owner of Advanced Reproductive Care Inc and Ziva and a consultant to Bayer Pharma, Ferring, and AbbVie; Deborah Bush has received travel grants from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare and Bayer Pharmaceuticals; Linda Giudice is a consultant to AbbVie, Juniper Pharmaceutical, and NextGen Jane, holds research grant from the NIH, is site PI on a clinical trial sponsored by Bayer, and is a shareholder in Merck and Pfizer; Lone Hummelshoj is an unpaid consultant to AbbVie; Neil Johnson has received conference expenses from Bayer Pharma, Merck-Serono, and MSD, research funding from AbbVie, and is a consultant to Vifor Pharma and Guerbet; Jörg Keckstein has received a travel grant from AbbVie; Ludwig Kiesel is a consultant to Bayer Pharma, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gedeon Richter, and Shionogi, and holds a research grant from Bayer Pharma; Luk Rombauts is an advisor to MSD, Merck Serono, and Ferring, and a shareholder in Monash IVF. The following have declared that they have nothing to disclose: Kathy Sharpe Timms; Rulla Tamimi; Hugh Taylor. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

A randomized, controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of aqueous subcutaneous progesterone with vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support of in vitro fertilization.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the ongoing pregnancy rate with a new aqueous formulation of subcutaneous progesterone (Prolutex(®)) non-inferior to vaginal progesterone (Endometrin(®)) when used for luteal phase support of in vitro fertilization? SUMMARY ANSWER: In the per-protocol (PP) population, the ongoing pregnancy rates per oocyte retrieval at 12 weeks of gestation were comparable between Prolutex and Endometrin (41.6 versus 44.4%), with a difference between groups of -2.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) -9.7, 4.2), consistent with the non-inferiority of subcutaneous progesterone for luteal phase support. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Luteal phase support has been clearly demonstrated to improve pregnancy rates in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Because of the increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome associated with the use of hCG, progesterone has become the treatment of choice for luteal phase support. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, two-arm, non-inferiority study was performed at eight fertility clinics. A total of 800 women, aged 18-42 years, with a BMI of ≤ 30 kg/m(2), with <3 prior completed assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles, exhibiting baseline (Days 2-3) FSH of ≤ 15 IU/L and undergoing IVF at 8 centres (seven private, one academic) in the USA, were enrolled from January 2009 through June 2011. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In total, 800 women undergoing IVF were randomized after retrieval of at least three oocytes to an aqueous preparation of progesterone administered subcutaneously (25 mg daily) or vaginal progesterone (100 mg bid daily). Randomization was performed to enrol 100 patients at each site using a randomization list that was generated with Statistical Analysis Software (SAS(®)). If a viable pregnancy occurred, progesterone treatment was continued up to 12 weeks of gestation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Using a PP analysis, which included all patients who received an embryo transfer (Prolutex = 392; Endometrin = 390), the ongoing pregnancy rate per retrieval for subcutaneous versus vaginal progesterone was 41.6 versus 44.4%, with a difference between groups of -2.8% (95% CI -9.7, 4.2), consistent with the non-inferiority of subcutaneous progesterone for luteal phase support. In addition, rates of initial positive ß-hCG (56.4% subcutaneous versus 59.0% vaginal; 95% CI -9.5, 4.3), clinical intrauterine pregnancy with fetal cardiac activity (42.6 versus 46.4%; 95% CI -10.8, 3.2), implantation defined as number of gestational sacs divided by number of embryos transferred (33.2 versus 35.1%; 95% CI -7.6, 4.0), live birth (41.1 versus 43.1%; 95% CI -8.9, 4.9) and take-home baby (41.1 versus 42.6%; 95% CI -8.4, 5.4) were comparable. Both formulations were well-tolerated, with no difference in serious adverse events. Analysis with the intention-to-treat population also demonstrated no difference for any outcomes between the treatment groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The conclusions are limited to the progesterone dosing regimen studied and duration of treatment for the patient population examined in this study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Subcutaneous progesterone represents a novel option for luteal phase support in women undergoing IVF who for personal reasons prefer not to use a vaginal preparation or who wish to avoid the side effects of vaginal or i.m. routes of administration. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was funded by Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA). CAJ, BC, ST and CJ are employees of IBSA. FH currently consults for IBSA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00828191.

World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project: I. Surgical phenotype data collection in endometriosis research.

OBJECTIVE: To standardize the recording of surgical phenotypic information on endometriosis and related sample collections obtained at laparoscopy, allowing large-scale collaborative research into the condition. DESIGN: An international collaboration involving 34 clinical/academic centers and three industry collaborators from 16 countries. SETTING: Two workshops were conducted in 2013, bringing together 54 clinical, academic, and industry leaders in endometriosis research and management worldwide. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): A postsurgical scoring sheet containing general and gynecological patient and procedural information, extent of disease, the location and type of endometriotic lesion, and any other findings was developed during several rounds of review. Comments and any systematic surgical data collection tools used in the reviewers' centers were incorporated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The development of a standard recommended (SSF) and minimum required (MSF) form to collect data on the surgical phenotype of endometriosis. RESULT(S): SSF and MSF include detailed descriptions of lesions, modes of procedures and sample collection, comorbidities, and potential residual disease at the end of surgery, along with previously published instruments such as the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Endometriosis Fertility Index classification tools for comparison and validation. CONCLUSION(S): This is the first multicenter, international collaboration between academic centers and industry addressing standardization of phenotypic data collection for a specific disease. The Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project SSF and MSF are essential tools to increase our understanding of the pathogenesis of endometriosis by allowing large-scale collaborative research into the condition.

Endometriosis fertility index: the new, validated endometriosis staging system.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical tool that predicts pregnancy rates (PRs) in patients with surgically documented endometriosis who attempt non-IVF conception. DESIGN: Prospective data collection on 579 patients and comprehensive statistical analysis to derive a new staging system--the endometriosis fertility index (EFI)--from data rather than a priori assumptions, followed by testing the EFI prospectively on 222 additional patients for correlation of predicted and actual outcomes. SETTING: Private reproductive endocrinology practice. PATIENT(S): A total of 801 consecutively diagnosed and treated infertile patients with endometriosis. INTERVENTION(S): Surgical diagnosis and treatment followed by non-IVF fertility management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The EFI and life table PRs. RESULT(S): A statistically significant variable used to create the EFI was the least function score (i.e., the sum of those scores determined intraoperatively after surgical intervention that describe the function of the tube, fimbria, and ovary on both sides). Sensitivity analysis showed that the EFI varies little, even with variation in the assignment of functional scores, and predicted PRs. CONCLUSION(S): The EFI is a simple, robust, and validated clinical tool that predicts PRs after endometriosis surgical staging. Its use provides reassurance to those patients with good prognoses and avoids wasted time and treatment for those with poor prognoses.

Laparoscopy, in vitro fertilization, and endometriosis: an enigma.

Studies on the respective roles of laparoscopic surgery and IVF in infertile patients with endometriosis and endometriomas are difficult to perform. Appropriate patient management is complex and requires a sophisticated understanding of individualized evidence-based decision making, surgical judgment and technical skills for laparoscopy, and thoughtful utilization of IVF technologies.

Subfertility: causes, treatment and outcome.

Common causes of subfertility include ovulatory disorders, tubal disease, peritoneal adhesions, endometriosis, uterine abnormalities, abnormalities of sperm and advancing female age. Infertility is unexplained after thorough evaluation in about 5-10% of cases. Significant caveats must be attached to the interpretation of available data regarding infertility treatments. Successful ovulation induction in anovulatory women is possible for nearly all women except in cases of ovarian failure. Surgery is an option for some patients with tubal damage, adhesions, endometriosis and uterine abnormalities. Male factor infertility may be amenable to treatment of a specific cause, but is often empirical with the use of intra-uterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF). Egg donation is currently the most effective treatment available for age-related infertility when other treatments have not been successful. Couples with unexplained infertility may be effectively treated with ovulation induction plus IUI or IVF.