A randomised, multi-center, open trial comparing a semi-automated closed vitrification system with a manual open system in women undergoing IVF.

STUDY QUESTION: What are outcome and procedural differences when using the semi-automated closed Gavi® device versus the manual open Cryotop® method for vitrification of pronuclear (2PN) stage oocytes within an IVF program? SUMMARY ANSWER: A semi-automated closed vitrification method gives similar clinical results as compared to an exclusively manual, open system but higher procedure duration and less staff convenience. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A semi-automated closed vitrification device has been introduced to the market, however, little evaluation of its performance in a clinical setting has been conducted so far. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective, randomised, open non-inferiority trial was conducted at three German IVF centers (10/2017-12/2018). Randomization was performed on day of fertilization check, stratified by center and by indication for vitrification (surplus 2PN oocytes in the context of a fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycle or 'freeze-all' of 2PN oocytes). PARTICIPANT/MATERIAL, SETTING, METHODS: The study population included subfertile women, aged 18-40 years, undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment after ovarian stimulation, with 2PN oocytes available for vitrification. The primary outcome was survival rate of 2PN oocytes at first warming procedure in a subsequent cycle and non-inferiority of 2PN survival was to be declared if the lower bound 95% CI of the mean difference in survival rate excluded a difference larger than 9.5%; secondary, descriptive outcomes included embryo development, pregnancy and live birth rate, procedure time and staff convenience. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The randomised patient population consisted of 149 patients, and the per-protocol population (patients with warming of 2PN oocytes for culture and planned ET) was 118 patients. The survival rate was 94.0% (±13.5) and 96.7% (±9.7) in the Gavi® and the Cryotop® group (weighted mean difference -1.6%, 95% CI -4.7 to 1.4, P = 0.28), respectively, indicating non-inferiority of the Gavi® vitrification/warming method for the primary outcome. Embryo development and the proportion of top-quality embryos was similar in the two groups, as were the pregnancy and live birth rate. Mean total procedure duration (vitrification and warming) was higher in the Gavi® group (81 ± 39 min vs 47 ± 15 min, mean difference 34 min, 95% CI 19 to 48). Staff convenience assessed by eight operators in a questionnaire was lower for the Gavi® system. The majority of respondents preferred the Cryotop® method because of practicality issues. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: The study was performed in centers with long experience of manual vitrification, and the relative performance of the Gavi® system as well as the staff convenience may be higher in settings with less experience in the manual procedure. Financial costs of the two procedures were not measured along the trial. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: With increasing requirements for standardization of procedures and tissue safety, a semi-automated closed vitrification method may constitute a suitable alternative technology to the established manual open vitrification method given the equivalent clinical outcomes demonstrated herein. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The trial received no direct financial funding. The Gavi® instrument, Gavi® consumables and staff training were provided for free by the distributor (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) during the study period. The manufacturer of the Gavi® instrument had no influence on study protocol, study conduct, data analysis, data interpretation or manuscript writing. J.H. has received honoraria and/or non-financial support from Ferring, Merck and Origio. G.G. has received honoraria and/or non-financial support from Abbott, Ferring, Finox, Gedeon Richter, Guerbet, Merck, MSD, ObsEva, PregLem, ReprodWissen GmbH and Theramex. The remaining authors have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03287479. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 September 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 October 2017.

Fertility Preservation in Female Patients with Breast Cancer - a Current Overview.

Many premenopausal patients who develop breast cancer have not yet completed their family planning, so measures of fertility protection to preserve their fertile potential would be beneficial. Polychemotherapy causes irreversible damage to the ovarian follicles - irrespective of whether in a neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting - and this can sometimes result in permanent infertility. Depending on which cytostatic agents are used and on the age-related ovarian reserve of the woman, gonadotoxic risk must be classified as low, moderate or high. Options of fertility preservation include: a) cryopreservation of fertilised or unfertilised oocytes. After ovarian hyperstimulation, mature oocytes are retrieved by transvaginal follicle aspiration, after which they are cryopreserved, either unfertilised or on completion of IVF or ICSI treatment. During b) cryopreservation of ovarian tissue, about 50% of the ovarian cortex of one ovary is resected with the aid of a laparoscopic procedure and cryopreserved. The application of c) GnRH agonists as a medicinal therapy option is an attempt at endocrine ovarian suppression in order to protect oocytes, granulosa cells and theca cells from the cytotoxic effect of chemotherapy.

Ovarian response to 150 µg corifollitropin alfa in a GnRH-antagonist multiple-dose protocol: a prospective cohort study.

The incidence of low (<6 oocytes) and high (>18 oocytes) ovarian response to 150 µg corifollitropin alfa in relation to anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and other biomarkers was studied in a multi-centre (n = 5), multi-national, prospective, investigator-initiated, observational cohort study. Infertile women (n = 212), body weight >60 kg, underwent controlled ovarian stimulation in a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone-antagonist multiple-dose protocol. Demographic, sonographic and endocrine parameters were prospectively assessed on cycle day 2 or 3 of a spontaneous menstruation before the administration of 150 µg corifollitropin alfa. Serum AMH showed the best correlation with the number of oocytes obtained among all predictor variables. In receiver-operating characteristic analysis, AMH at a threshold of 0.91 ng/ml showed a sensitivity of 82.4%, specificity of 82.4%, positive predictive value 52.9%and negative predictive value 95.1% for predicting low response (area under the curve [AUC], 95% CI; P-value: 0.853, 0.769-0.936; <0.0001). For predicting high response, the optimal threshold for AMH was 2.58 ng/ml, relating to a sensitivity of 80.0%, specificity 82.1%, positive predictive value 42.5% and negative predictive value 96.1% (AUC, 95% CI; P-value: 0.871, 0.787-0.955; <0.0001). In conclusion, patients with serum AMH concentrations between approximately 0.9 and 2.6 ng/ml were unlikely to show extremes of response.

Cut-Off Levels of Anti-Mullerian Hormone for The Prediction of Ovarian Response, In Vitro Fertilization Outcome and Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) cut-off levels in as- sisted reproductive technology (ART) as predictive factor for individualization of stimulation protocols and to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, 177 infertile patients were as- sessed for AMH in serum and follicular fluid (FF) on the day of follicular puncture (FP), between 2012 and 2013 in Kiel, Germany. AMH levels and pregnancy rates were compared between low, moderate and high responders and cut-off levels of low and high responders. AMH cut-off levels in pathological cases were evaluated in analysis 1 (OHSS) and in analysis 2 [polycystic ovarian syndrome, (PCOS)] and compared in analysis 3 to normal endocrinological parameters. RESULTS: AMH levels in FF were higher than in serum (P<0.001). AMH levels in serum and FF increased from low through moderate to high responders (P<0.001). Pregnancy rates were 14.7, 23.3 and 44.9% (P=0.009), respectively. AMH cut-off level for poor responders was 0.61 ng/ml in serum with a pregnancy rate of 13.8 and 37.1% for below and above of this level, respectively. For FF, it was 1.43 ng/ml. AMH levels in analysis 1 and 2 were significantly higher than in analysis 3 (P=0.001). AMH cut-off level for OHSS was 1.5 ng/ml in serum with OHSS rates of 80.8 and 19.2 % for above and below of the level, respectively. For FF, it was 2.7 ng/ml. PCOS patients had an AMH cut-off level of 3.9 ng/ml in serum and 6.8 ng/ml in FF, resulting in a PCOS rate of 100% above this level. CONCLUSION: AMH levels can help to assess ovarian response potential and guide ovarian stimulation while avoiding OHSS.

Vascular endothelial growth factor response to exogenous chorionic gonadotropic hormone in the luteal phase of women with a history of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a severe complication of ovarian stimulation. No reliable test exists to predict the syndrome. The objective of the present prospective observational study was to examine vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) secretion after human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration in the luteal phase of a spontaneous cycle of women with a history of severe OHSS. Five women with a history of severe OHSS were administered 250 mug recombinant hCG intravenously on day 21 of a spontaneous menstrual cycle. Plasma samples were collected at regular intervals from 15 min before hCG to 6 h thereafter and the free VEGF plasma concentrations were determined. Plasma levels of free VEGF remained at the lower detection limit of the assay throughout the observational period. Women with previous severe OHSS do not show a significant short-time response of VEGF secretion upon hCG administration. No evidence was found to support the notion that women inclined to develop a severe form of the syndrome after ovarian stimulation could possibly be identified by the VEGF short-time secretory response to exogenous hCG in the luteal phase of a spontaneous cycle.

New developments in the use of peptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists versus agonists.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) stimulates the pituitary secretion of both luteinising hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and thus controls the hormonal and reproductive functions of the gonads. The blockade of the effects of GnRH may be sought for a variety of reasons; for example, to control premature LH surges and to reduce the cancellation rate with the aim of improving the pregnancy rate per treatment cycle or in the treatment of sex hormone-dependent disorders. Selective blockade of LH/FSH secretion and subsequent chemical castration have previously been achieved by desensitising the pituitary to continuously administered GnRH or by giving long-acting GnRH agonists. GnRH analogues are indicated for clinical situations in which the suppression of endogenous gonadotropins (precocious puberty, contraception and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation) or sexual steroids (endometriosis, prostate hyperplasia, cancer and uterine fibroids) is desired. The immediate suppression of the pituitary that is achieved by GnRH antagonists without an initial stimulatory effect is the main advantage of these compounds over the agonists. GnRH antagonists have been developed for clinical use with acceptable pharmacokinetic, safety and commercial profiles. In assisted reproduction, these compounds seem to be as effective as established therapy, but with shorter treatment times, less use of gonadotropic hormones, improved patient acceptance, and fewer follicles and oocytes. All of the current indications for GnRH agonist desensitisation may prove to be indications for a GnRH antagonist, including endometriosis, leiomyoma and breast cancer in women, benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostatic carcinoma in men, and central precocious puberty in children. However, the best clinical evidence has been in assisted reproduction and prostate cancer.