The step-up protocol increases clinical pregnancy rates compared with the step-down in patients with unexplained infertility. A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Unexplained infertility is a relevant indication for controlled ovarian stimulation associated to intrauterine insemination. The "step-up" and "step-down" gonadotropin-based protocols were designed to reduce multiple pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in polycystic ovary syndrome patients, but there is no related evidence in normoovulatory women undergoing intrauterine insemination. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of both protocols with intrauterine insemination in unexplained infertility patients. METHODS: Randomized clinical trial including 145 women with unexplained infertility randomly following the step-up (n=73) or step-down (n=72) protocol. In the step-up group, patients started on day 3 of a spontaneous cycle administrating recombinant FSH 75IU sc/day, increasing it to 150IU if no response after 7 days. In the step-down, patients started administrating 150IU sc/day, constantly decreasing it to 75IU after 5 days. Recombinant hCG was administered when a follicle reached ≥18mm diameter. RESULTS: Clinical pregnancy rate was higher in the step-up group than in the step-down (20.5% vs . 8.3%; p =0.037). Significant differences between step-up and step-down protocols were found regarding days of rFSH administration (8.83±4.01% vs . 7.42±2.18%; p =0.001) and cancellation rate due to hyper response (8.21% vs . 25%; p =0.05). No differences were detected in miscarriage rates, multiple pregnancy rates/cycle and hyper stimulation syndrome incidence. CONCLUSIONS: The step-up protocol is longer-lasting but more effective obtaining pregnancies than the step-down in patients with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination. This effect could be explained by lower cancellation rates due to ovarian hyper response than the step-down protocol, with no differences in ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome incidence.

Radical parametrectomy after 'cut-through' hysterectomy in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer: Time to consider this procedure obsolete.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to identify predictive factors in patients with a diagnosis of early-stage cervical cancer after simple hysterectomy in order to avoid a radical parametrectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent radical parametrectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy at MD Anderson Cancer Center and at the Instituto de Cancerologia Las Americas in Medellin, Colombia from December 1999 to September 2017. We sought to determine the outcomes in patients diagnosed with low-risk factors (squamous, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous lesions<2cm in size, and invading<10mm) undergoing radical parametrectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were included in the study. The median age was 40.4years (range; 26-60) and median body mass index (BMI) was 26.4kg/m2 (range; 17.7-40.0). A total 22 patients had tumors<1cm and 8 had tumors between 1 and 2cm. A total of 6 (33%) of 18 patients had evidence of lymph-vascular invasion (LVSI). No radical parametrectomy specimen had residual tumor, involvement of the parametrium, vaginal margin positivity, or lymph node metastasis. None of the patients received adjuvant therapy. After a median follow-up of 99months (range; 6-160) only one patient recurred. CONCLUSION: Radical parametrectomy may be avoided in patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer detected after a simple hysterectomy. Rates of residual disease (parametrial or vaginal) and the need for adjuvant treatments or recurrences are very low.