Are sperm parameters able to predict the success of assisted reproductive technology? A retrospective analysis of over 22,000 assisted reproductive technology cycles.

BACKGROUND: An explosive increase in couples attending assisted reproductive technology has been recently observed, despite an overall success rate of about 20%-30%. Considering the assisted reproductive technology-related economic and psycho-social costs, the improvement of these percentages is extremely relevant. However, in the identification of predictive markers of assisted reproductive technology success, male parameters are largely underestimated so far. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether conventional semen parameters could predict assisted reproductive technology success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All couples attending a single third-level fertility center from 1992 to 2020 were retrospectively enrolled, collecting all semen and assisted reproductive technology parameters of fresh cycles. Fertilization rate was the primary end-point, representing a parameter immediately dependent on male contribution. Pregnancy and live birth rates were considered in relation to semen variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the parameters obtained according to the World Health Organization manual editions used for semen analysis. RESULTS: Note that, 22,013 in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles were considered. Overall, fertilization rate was significantly lower in patients with abnormal semen parameters compared to normozoospermic men, irrespective of the World Health Organization manual edition. In the in vitro fertilization setting, both progressive motility (p = 0.012) and motility after capacitation (p = 0.002) significantly predicted the fertilization rate (statistical accuracy = 71.1%). Sperm motilities also predicted pregnancy (p < 0.001) and live birth (p = 0.001) rates. In intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles, sperm morphology predicted fertilization rate (p = 0.001, statistical accuracy = 90.3%). Sperm morphology significantly predicted both pregnancy (p < 0.001) and live birth (p < 0.001) rates and a cut-off of 5.5% was identified as a threshold to predict clinical pregnancy (area under the curve = 0.811, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Interestingly, sperm motility plays a role in predicting in vitro fertilization success, while sperm morphology is the relevant parameter in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. These parameters may be considered reliable tools to measure the male role on ART outcomes, potentially impacting the clinical management of infertile couples.

How Can We Treat Vulvar Carcinoma in Pregnancy? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

According to our systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines), only 37 vulvar squamous cell carcinomas (VSCCs) were diagnosed during pregnancy (age range: 17-41 years). The tumor size range was 0.3-15 cm. The treatment was performed after (14/37, 38%), before (10/37, 27%), or before-and-after delivery (11/37, 30%). We found that 21/37 (57%) cases were stage I, 2 II (5%), 11 III (30%), and 3 IVB (8%). HPV-related features (condylomas/warts; HPV infection; high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) were reported in 11/37 (30%) cases. We also found that 9/37 (24%) patients had inflammatory conditions (lichen sclerosus/planus, psoriasis, chronic dermatitis). The time-to-recurrence/progression (12/37, 32%) ranged from 0 to 36 (mean 9) months. Eight women died of disease (22%) 2.5-48 months after diagnosis, 2 (5%) were alive with disease, and 23 (62%) were disease-free at the end of follow-up. Pregnant patients must be followed-up. Even if they are small, newly arising vulvar lesions should be biopsied, especially in women with risk factors (HPV, dermatosis, etc.). The treatment of VSCCs diagnosed in late third trimester might be delayed until postpartum. Elective cesarean section may prevent vulvar wound dehiscence. In the few reported cases, pregnancy/fetal outcomes seemed to not be affected by invasive treatments during pregnancy. However, clinicians must be careful; larger cohorts should define the best treatment. Definite guidelines are lacking, so a multidisciplinary approach and discussion with patients are mandatory.

Sphingosine-1 phosphate induces cAMP/PKA-independent phosphorylation of the cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB) in granulosa cells.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) is a lysosphingolipid present in the ovarian follicular fluid. The role of the lysosphingolipid in gonads of the female is widely unclear. At nanomolar concentrations, S1P binds and activates five specific G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), known as S1P1-5, modulating different signaling pathways. S1P1 and S1P3 are highly expressed in human primary granulosa lutein cells (hGLC), as well as in the immortalized human primary granulosa cell line hGL5. In this study, we evaluated the signaling cascade activated by S1P and its synthetic analogues in hGLC and hGL5 cells, exploring the biological relevance of S1PR-stimulation in this context. METHODS AND RESULTS: hGLC and hGL5 cells were treated with a fixed dose (0.1 µM) of S1P, or by S1P1- and S1P3-specific agonists SEW2871 and CYM5541. In granulosa cells, S1P and, at a lesser extent, SEW2871 and CYM5541, potently induced CREB phosphorylation. No cAMP production was detected and pCREB activation occurred even in the presence of the PKA inhibitor H-89. Moreover, S1P-dependent CREB phosphorylation was dampened by the mitogen-activate protein kinase (MEK) inhibitor U0126 and by the L-type Ca2+ channel blocker verapamil. The complete inhibition of CREB phosphorylation occurred by blocking either S1P2 or S1P3 with the specific receptor antagonists JTE-013 and TY52156, or under PLC/PI3K depletion. S1P-dependent CREB phosphorylation induced FOXO1 and the EGF-like epiregulin-encoding gene (EREG), confirming the exclusive role of gonadotropins and interleukins in this process, but did not affect steroidogenesis. However, S1P or agonists did not modulate granulosa cell viability and proliferation in our conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates for the first time that S1P may induce a cAMP-independent activation of pCREB in granulosa cells, although this is not sufficient to induce intracellular steroidogenic signals and progesterone synthesis. S1P-induced FOXO1 and EREG gene expression suggests that the activation of S1P-S1PR axis may cooperate with gonadotropins in modulating follicle development.