Hormone concentrations of dominant follicles in the TALES randomized controlled trial comparing letrozole with tamoxifen.

BACKGROUND: In this secondary analysis of the TAmoxifen or Letrozole in Estrogen Sensitive tumors (TALES) trial, we aimed to investigate if concurrent administration of letrozole vs. tamoxifen vs. no added treatment affects hormonal composition and size of stimulated ovarian follicles. METHODS: TALES is a randomized controlled trial of IVF stimulation for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer patients stimulated with gonadotropins and administered concurrent tamoxifen 20 mg or letrozole 5 mg. We analyzed estradiol (E2), testosterone (T), progesterone (P4), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH). We used ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis, logistic, and linear regression models to examine differences in follicular hormone levels, size, and mature oocyte yield between trial arm. RESULTS: We included data from total 246 follicles (94 letrozole, 82 tamoxifen, and 70 control) from 123 unique participants. E2 was lower (letrozole 187.4, tamoxifen 1026.0, control 821.5 ng/mL, p < 0.01) and T was higher (letrozole 2489, tamoxifen 571, and control 504 ng/mL, p < 0.03) in the letrozole group compared to tamoxifen and control groups, while other hormone levels and follicle size were similar across groups. There were no significant differences in hormone concentrations within the follicle between tamoxifen and control arms. On multivariate logistic regression, there was no significant association of mature oocyte yield by follicle size, hormone levels, or trial arm. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent administration of letrozole with gonadotropins affects follicular E2 and T concentrations compared to tamoxifen/control. Tamoxifen was not associated with any differences in hormone concentrations within the follicle. Mature oocyte yield was similar across groups.

Triggering with 1,500 IU of human chorionic gonadotropin plus follicle-stimulating hormone compared to a standard human chorionic gonadotropin trigger dose for oocyte competence in in vitro fertilization cycles: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled noninferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if triggering with 1,500 IU of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) with 450 IU of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) induces noninferior oocyte competence to a standard dose of hCG trigger used in in vitro fertilization (IVF). The alternative trigger will be considered noninferior if it is at least 80% effective in promoting oocyte competence. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blinded, controlled noninferiority trial. SETTING: Academic infertility practice. PATIENTS: Women aged 18-41 undergoing IVF with antral follicle count ≥8, body mass index ≤30 kg/m2, and no history of ≥2 IVF cycles canceled for poor response were enrolled. Participants with a serum estradiol >5,000 pg/mL on the day of trigger were excluded because of high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive an alternative trigger of 1,500 IU of hCG plus 450 IU of FSH or a standard trigger dose of hCG (5,000 or 10,000 IU) for final oocyte maturation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total competent proportion, defined as the probability of 2 pronuclei from an oocyte retrieved. The alternative trigger will be considered noninferior to the standard trigger if a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the relative risk (RR) is not <0.8. Secondary outcomes included oocyte recovery and maturity, intracytoplasmic sperm injection fertilization, embryo quality, pregnancy rates, as well as serum and follicular hormones. Secondary outcomes were compared using a 2-sided superiority test. Outcomes were analyzed by intention-to-treat and per-protocol. RESULTS: A total of 105 women undergoing IVF were randomized from May 2015 to June 2018. The probability of the primary outcome was 0.59 with the alternative trigger and 0.65 with the standard trigger, with a RR of 0.91 and a 1-sided 95% CI of 0.83. Noninferiority of the alternative trigger was demonstrated. Live birthrate from all fresh transfers in the alternative trigger group vs. standard trigger was 46.9 vs. 46.4% (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.62), respectively. Live birthrate per randomized participant was 48.1% in the alternative trigger group vs. 62.7% with the standard trigger (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.11). No participants had a failed retrieval. CONCLUSION: Triggering with 1,500 IU of hCG plus 450 IU of FSH promoted noninferior oocyte competence compared to a standard hCG trigger dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02310919.

Microfluidic preparation of spermatozoa for ICSI produces similar embryo quality to density-gradient centrifugation: a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does processing of spermatozoa for IVF with ICSI by a microfluidic sperm separation device improve embryo quality compared with density-gradient centrifugation? SUMMARY ANSWER: Patients randomized to microfluidic sperm preparation had similar cleavage- and blastocyst-stage embryo quality and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates to those who underwent standard sperm processing for IVF with ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Microfluidic sperm preparation can isolate spermatozoa for clinical use with minimal DNA fragmentation but with unclear impact on clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective randomized controlled trial of 386 patients planning IVF from June 2017 through September 2021 was carried out. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: One hundred and ninety-two patients were allocated to sperm processing with a microfluidic sperm separation device for ICSI, while 194 patients were allocated to clinical standard density-gradient centrifugation (control) at an academic medical centre. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In an intention to treat analysis, there were no differences in high-quality cleavage-stage embryo fraction [66.0 (25.8)% control versus 68.0 (30.3) microfluidic sperm preparation, P = 0.541, absolute difference -2.0, 95% CI (-8.5, 4.5)], or high-quality blastocyst fraction [37.4 (25.4) control versus 37.4 (26.2) microfluidic sperm preparation, P = 0.985, absolute difference -0.6 95% CI (-6, 5.9)] between groups. There were no differences in the clinical pregnancy or ongoing pregnancy rates between groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The population studied was inclusive and did not attempt to isolate male factor infertility cases or patients with a history of elevated sperm DNA fragmentation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Microfluidic sperm separation performs similarly to density-gradient centrifugation in sperm preparation for IVF in an unselected population. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding to declare. M.P.R. is a member of the Clinical Advisory Board for ZyMot® Fertility, Inc. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03085433. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 21 March 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 16 June 2017.

Concomitant tamoxifen or letrozole for optimal oocyte yield during fertility preservation for breast cancer: the TAmoxifen or Letrozole in Estrogen Sensitive tumors (TALES) randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether concomitant tamoxifen 20 mg with gonadotropins (tamoxifen-gonadotropin) versus letrozole 5 mg with gonadotropins (letrozole-gonadotropin) affects mature oocyte yield. METHODS: Open-label, single-institution, randomized trial. Inclusion criteria included the following: females, ages 18-44 years old, with new diagnosis of non-metastatic breast cancer, who were undergoing fertility preservation with either oocyte or embryo cryopreservation. Those with estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer were randomized to tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin. Another group with estrogen-receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer was recruited, as a prospectively collected comparison arm who took neither letrozole nor tamoxifen (gonadotropin only). The primary outcome was the number of mature oocytes obtained from the cycle. The randomized groups were powered to detect a difference of three or more mature oocytes. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were randomized to tamoxifen-gonadotropin and fifty-one to letrozole-gonadotropin. Thirty-eight patients completed gonadotropin only. Age, antral follicle count, and body mass index were similar between the randomized groups. Our primary outcome of mature oocyte yield was similar between the tamoxifen-gonadotropin and letrozole-gonadotropin groups (12±8.6 vs. 11.6±7.5, p=0.81, 95%CI of difference =-2.9 to 3.7). In a pre-specified secondary comparison, mature oocyte yield was also similar with tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin versus gonadotropin only (12±8.6 vs. 11.6±7.5 vs. 12.4±7.2). There were no serious adverse events in any of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tamoxifen-gonadotropin and letrozole-gonadotropin produced a similar number of mature oocytes. Women who received either tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin had a similar number of oocytes to the gonadotropin-only group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03011684 (retrospectively registered 1/5/2017, after 9% enrolled).

Fertility preservation before breast cancer treatment appears unlikely to affect disease-free survival at a median follow-up of 43 months after fertility-preservation consultation.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine whether fertility preservation (FP) with oocyte/embryo cryopreservation is associated with differences in disease-free survival (DFS). METHODS: This retrospective study included patients aged 18 to 45 who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2017 and were seen for FP consultation at a university fertility center before cancer treatment. The primary endpoint, DFS, was defined as the time from FP consultation until patients developed a locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, a contralateral breast tumor, or a new primary malignancy. DFS was compared for FP versus no FP using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis. RESULTS: The study included 329 women, with 207 (63%) in the FP group and 122 (37%) in the no FP group. Patients who underwent FP had more aggressive initial disease profiles than those in the no FP group. In addition, they were younger (35 vs 37 years; P = .009), more often had stage II or III disease (67% vs 55%; P = .03), and had higher rates of requiring chemotherapy (77% vs 65%; P = .01). Over a median follow-up of 43 months, the rates of DFS were similar among patients in the FP group and the no FP group (93% vs 94%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3-1.7). Positive ER status (79% vs 83%; P = .38), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (41% vs 48%; P = .32), ER-positive DFS (HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-1.6), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy DFS (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.2-9.1) were similar in the FP and no FP groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At a median follow-up of 43 months, FP appears unlikely to affect DFS, even in the setting of tumors with positive ER status or treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (in which the tumor remains in situ during FP).

Decision-making surrounding the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy reveals misunderstanding regarding its benefit.

PURPOSE: We aimed to explore how patients make decisions regarding use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for in vitro fertilization (IVF). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey at an academic medical center. Three hundred subjects initiating an IVF cycle over 8 weeks were asked to complete a validated survey to determine how they decided whether or not to pursue PGT-A. All patients were previously counseled that the primary goal of PGT-A is to maximize pregnancy rates per embryo transfer. Survey responses were compared between those who elected PGT-A and those who did not with a chi-squared or t test. RESULTS: Of 191 subjects who completed the survey, 117 (61%) planned PGT-A, while 74 (39%) did not. Among those who decided to undergo PGT-A, 56% stated their primary reason was to have a healthy baby, while 18% chose PGT-A to reduce the incidence of birth defects, and 16% aimed to decrease the risk of miscarriage. Patients who decided not to pursue PGT-A stated they prioritized avoiding the scenario in which they might have no embryos to transfer (36%) or reducing cost (31%). Both groups rated physicians as the single most important source of information in their decision-making (56% vs 68%, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who chose to undergo PGT-A have different priorities from those who do not. Many patients planning PGT-A do so for reasons that are not evidence-based. While patients cite physicians as their primary source of information in the decision-making process, rationales for selecting PGT-A are inconsistent with physician counseling.