-
Fertility and Sterility Jun 2023Over the last decade, frozen embryo transfer (FET) has been increasingly used in contemporary fertility units. Despite the rapid increase in FET, there is still... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Over the last decade, frozen embryo transfer (FET) has been increasingly used in contemporary fertility units. Despite the rapid increase in FET, there is still insufficient evidence to recommend an optimized protocol for endometrial preparation especially in patients with lower progesterone (P4) levels. Previous studies have concluded that P4 levels <10 ng/mL are associated with poorer pregnancy outcomes than those reported with high levels of circulating P4.
OBJECTIVE
To identify whether rescue P4 dosing in patients with low P4 can salvage adverse outcomes associated with low P4 levels, resulting in outcomes comparable to patients with adequate progesterone.
DATA SOURCES
The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and prospectively registered under the PROSPERO database (CRD42022357125). Six databases (Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, Global Health, HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, and Google Scholar) and 2 additional sources were searched from inception to August 29, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS
Prospective and retrospective cohort studies, reporting the association between rescue progesterone and one or more pregnancy outcomes, were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), while the quality of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Summative and subgroup data as well as heterogeneity were generated by the Cochrane platform RevMan (V. 5.4).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
To compare ongoing pregnancy rate as primary outcome and clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate as secondary outcomes between patients with low (<10 ng/mL) receiving rescue progesterone vs. those with adequate levels of P4 (≥10 ng/mL).
RESULT(S)
Overall, 7 observational studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 5927 patients of median age 34 (interquartile range [IQR]: 31.55, 37.13). Overall, patient group comparison, namely those with low P4 that received a rescue dose and those with adequate P4 levels, did not yield significant differences for either the primary or secondary outcomes. For ongoing clinical pregnancy, patients with low P4 receiving the rescue dose vs. those with adequate P4 levels was odds ratio (OR) 0.98 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.24; P = .86, I: 41%), whereas for miscarriage events, OR was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.17; P = .80, I: 0). Equally, for clinical pregnancy, OR was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.06; P = .24; I: 33%), and for live birth, OR was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.77, 1.09; P = .33; I: 43%). Subgroup analysis on the basis or rescue administration route successfully explained summative heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION(S)
Rescue P4 dosing in patients with low P4 results in ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were comparable to those of patients with adequate P4 levels. However, robust randomized controlled trials assessing rescue treatment in women with low P4 are needed to confirm these findings. Rescue P4 in patients with low circulating P4 around embryo transfer day may result in reproductive outcomes comparable to those with adequate P4 levels.
STUDY REGISTRATION
CRD42022357125 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Adult; Progesterone; Abortion, Spontaneous; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Embryo Transfer; Pregnancy Rate; Live Birth
PubMed: 36781098
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.02.007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Contraceptive implants are one of the most effective contraceptive methods, providing a long duration of pregnancy protection and a high safety profile. Hence this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Contraceptive implants are one of the most effective contraceptive methods, providing a long duration of pregnancy protection and a high safety profile. Hence this method is suitable for optimizing the interpregnancy interval, especially for women undergoing abortion. Women who have had abortions are at high risk of rapid repeat pregnancies. Provision of effective contraception at the time of an abortion visit can be a key strategy to increase access and uptake of contraception. A review of the evidence was needed to evaluate progestin-releasing implants for immediate use at the time of abortion, including whether immediate placement impacts the effectiveness of medical abortion, which relies on antiprogestogens.
OBJECTIVES
To compare contraceptive implant initiation rates, contraceptive effectiveness, and adverse outcomes associated with immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implants following abortion.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status up to September 2019, with an update search in March 2021. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health (Ovid), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We examined the reference lists of pertinent articles to identify other studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implant for contraception following abortion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard procedures recommended by Cochrane. To identify potentially relevant studies, two review authors (JS, LS) independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the search results, assessed trials for risk of bias, and extracted data. We computed the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous variables.
MAIN RESULTS
We found three RCTs including a total of 1162 women. Our GRADE assessment of the overall certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Utilization rate at six months may be slightly higher for immediate compared with delayed insertion (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 3 RCTs; 1103 women; I = 62%; low certainty evidence). Unintended pregnancy within six months after abortion was probably lower with immediate insertion compared with delayed insertion (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77; 3 RCTs; 1029 women; I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Immediate insertion of contraceptive implants probably improves the initiation rate compared to delayed insertion following medical abortion (RR 1.26 for medical abortion, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.32; 2 RCTs; 1014 women; I = 89%; moderate certainty evidence) and may also improve initiation following surgical abortion (RR 2.32 for surgical abortion, 95% CI 1.79 to 3.01; 1 RCT; 148 women; I = not applicable; low certainty evidence). We did not pool results for the implant initiation outcome over both abortion types because of very high statistical heterogeneity. For medical termination of pregnancy, we found there is probably little or no difference between immediate and delayed insertion in overall failure of medical abortion (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.40; 2 RCTs; 1001 women; I = 68%;moderate certainty evidence). There may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion on rates of abnormal bleeding at one month after abortion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.14; 1 RCT; 462 women; I = not applicable; low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Provision of progestin-releasing implants concurrently with abortifacient agents likely has little or no negative impact on overall failure rate of medical abortion. Immediate insertion probably improves the initiation rate of contraceptive implant, as well as unintended pregnancy rate within six months after abortion, compared to delayed insertion. There may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion approaches in bleeding adverse effects at one month after abortion.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents; Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Contraceptive Agents; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progestins
PubMed: 35583092
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013565.pub2 -
Cureus Sep 2023Higher mammographic breast density in premenopausal and postmenopausal women is related to a higher breast cancer risk. In this review, we analyze the correlation... (Review)
Review
Higher mammographic breast density in premenopausal and postmenopausal women is related to a higher breast cancer risk. In this review, we analyze the correlation between estrogen, progesterone, and mammographic density in postmenopausal women and clarify whether these findings are consistent across different types of mammographic breast density. We extracted data concerning mammographic density increases in the populations treated with estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy and those treated with estrogen and progestin hormone replacement therapy. Postmenopausal women treated with estrogen and progesterone regimens had a statistically significant lesser mammographic density increase than estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy regimens.
PubMed: 37868563
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45597 -
Life Sciences Apr 2022Plastic particles (PP) pollution is a global environmental concern. Although the reproductive toxicity of PP is primarily understood for invertebrates, the evidence for... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Plastic particles (PP) pollution is a global environmental concern. Although the reproductive toxicity of PP is primarily understood for invertebrates, the evidence for mammals is still fragmented. We used a systematic review framework to investigate the reproductive impact of microplastics and nanoplastics (MNP) on mammals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research records were screened from Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science. Twelve original papers were identified and reviewed. Immunological, oxidative and morphofunctional outcomes, and the risk of bias in all studies reviewed were analyzed.
KEY FINDINGS
These studies indicated that PP can accumulate in the gonads, triggering seminiferous degeneration, Sertoli cells death, blood-testis barrier disruption, sperm degeneration, malformation, reduced number and mobility, ovarian cysts, reduced follicular growth and granulosa cells death. Gonadal damage was associated with upregulation of prooxidant mediators (oxygen reactive species, lipid and DNA oxidation), cell death, proinflammatory molecular pathways and cytokines, as well as inhibition of enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant defense mechanisms. Spermatogenesis, folliculogenesis, testosterone, progesterone and estrogen levels were also impaired in PP-treated animals, which were potentially associated with down-regulation of molecules involved in germ cells microstructural organization (occludin, N-cadherin, β-catenin and connexin 43) and steroidogenesis, such as hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases, steroidogenic acute regulatory proteins, follicle stimulating and luteinizing hormones. Selection, performance and detection bias were the main limitations identified.
SIGNIFICANCE
Current evidence indicates that PP can induce dose-dependent microstructural and functional gonadal damage, which is orchestrated by pro-oxidant and pro-inflammatory mechanisms that disrupt genes, molecular effectors, and hormones that control spermatogenesis and folliculogenesis.
Topics: Animals; Estrogens; Female; Genitalia; Germ Cells; Granulosa Cells; Inflammation; Intestinal Mucosa; Luteinizing Hormone; Male; Mammals; Microplastics; Ovarian Follicle; Ovary; Oxidative Stress; Plastics; Progesterone; Reproduction; Sertoli Cells; Spermatogenesis; Testis; Testosterone
PubMed: 35176278
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2022.120404 -
Progestogens for endometrial protection in combined menopausal hormone therapy: A systematic review.Best Practice & Research. Clinical... Jan 2024Menopausal women with an intact uterus choosing estrogens for menopausal symptom relief require a progestogen for endometrial protection. The aim of this systematic... (Review)
Review
Menopausal women with an intact uterus choosing estrogens for menopausal symptom relief require a progestogen for endometrial protection. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the risks of endometrial hyperplasia resp. malignancy with different progestogens used in combined MHT. Overall, 84 RCTs were included. We found that 1) most studies were done with NETA, followed by MPA, MP and DYD and LNG, 2) most progestogens were only available as oral formulations, 3) the most frequently studied progestogens (oral MP, DYD, MPA, oral and transdermal NETA, transdermal LNG) were assessed in continuously as well as in sequentially combined MHT regimens, 4) FDA endometrial safety criteria were only fulfilled for some progestogen formulations, 5) most studies demonstrated endometrial protection for the progestogen dose and time period examined. However, 6) study quality varied which should be taken into account, when choosing a combined MHT, especially if off-label-use is chosen.
Topics: Female; Humans; Progestins; Endometrium; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Menopause; Estrogen Replacement Therapy
PubMed: 37634998
DOI: 10.1016/j.beem.2023.101815 -
Contraception May 2024To summarize and update information regarding drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between antiretrovirals (ARVs) and hormonal contraceptives (HCs). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To summarize and update information regarding drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between antiretrovirals (ARVs) and hormonal contraceptives (HCs).
DESIGN
Systematic review METHODS: We searched seven databases for peer-reviewed publications from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2023, including studies of women using ARVs and HCs concurrently with outcomes including therapeutic effectiveness or toxicity, pharmacokinetics (PK), or pharmacodynamics. We summarized findings and used checklists to assess evidence quality.
RESULTS
We included 49 articles, with clinical, ARV or HC PK outcomes reported by 39, 25, and 30 articles, respectively, with some articles reporting outcomes in two or more categories. Fifteen of 18 articles assessing DDIs between efavirenz and progestin implants, emergency contraception, or combined hormonal intravaginal rings found higher pregnancy rates, luteal progesterone levels suggesting ovulation, or reduced progestin PK values. Five studies documented that CYP2B6 single nucleotide polymorphisms exacerbated this DDI. One cohort detected doubled bone density loss with concomitant depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-containing ART use versus TDF alone. No other studies described DDIs impacting clinical outcomes. Few adverse events were attributed to ARV-HC use with none exceeding Grade 2. Evidence quality was generally moderate, with dis-similar treatment and control groups, identifying and controlling for confounding, and minimizing attrition bias in the study design being the most frequent limitations.
CONCLUSION
Most ARVs and HCs may be used safely and effectively together. TDF-DMPA DDIs warrant longer-term study on bone health and consideration of alternate combinations. For efavirenz-based ART, client counselling on relative risks, including both potential increase in pregnancy rate with concomitant efavirenz and implant use and lower pregnancy rates compared to other HCs even with concomitant efavirenz use, should continue to allow users comprehensive method choice.
PubMed: 38762199
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110490 -
Nutrients Oct 2022Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common gynecological endocrinopathies. Evidence suggest that flavonoids have beneficial effects on endocrine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common gynecological endocrinopathies. Evidence suggest that flavonoids have beneficial effects on endocrine and metabolic diseases, including PCOS. However, high-quality clinical trials are lacking. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies to determine the flavonoids' effects in animal models of PCOS. Three electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched from their inception to March 2022. The Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation's risk of bias tool was used to assess methodological quality. The standardized mean difference was calculated with 95% confidence intervals as the overall effects. R was used for all statistical analyses. This study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022328355). A total of eighteen studies, including 300 animals, met the inclusion criteria. Our analyses demonstrated that, compared to control groups, flavonoid groups showed a significantly lower count of atretic follicles and cystic follicles and the count of corpus luteum was higher. A significant reduction in the luteinizing hormone (LH), LH/follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and free testosterone were observed in intervention groups. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the effects of flavonoids on the level of FSH, estradiol, and progesterone. Subgroup analyses indicated that the type of flavonoid, dose, duration of administration, and PCOS induction drug were relevant factors that influenced the effects of intervention. Current evidence supports the positive properties of flavonoids on ovarian histomorphology and hormonal status in animal models of PCOS. These data call for more randomized controlled trials and further experimental studies investigating the mechanism in more depth.
Topics: Animals; Estradiol; Female; Flavonoids; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Humans; Luteinizing Hormone; Models, Animal; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Progesterone; Testosterone
PubMed: 36235780
DOI: 10.3390/nu14194128 -
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Sep 2022While there are literature reporting increased incidence of hair loss in COVID-19 patients, insufficient evidence exists on the topic to date. This review aims to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
While there are literature reporting increased incidence of hair loss in COVID-19 patients, insufficient evidence exists on the topic to date. This review aims to identify the existing evidence and clinical characteristics of hair loss with COVID-19 infection.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for all peer-reviewed articles with relevant keywords including "Alopecia," "Telogen Effluvium (TE)," and "COVID-19" from their inception to November 20, 2021.
RESULTS
A total of 26 articles, with 9 observational studies and 17 case reports or series (a total of 58 cases), were included. Most studies dealt with TE. There were no clear trends between COVID-19 severity and the extent of hair loss. Analysis of the 58 cases also found similar results with most of the cases being female (82.8%), the median onset of hair loss of 2.0 months, and the median time to recovery of hair loss of 5.0 months with a resolution rate of 95%.
CONCLUSION
While this systematic review revealed uncertainty and a lack of strong evidence regarding the association of COVID-19 and hair loss, hair loss in COVID-19 may mainly include TE and be reversible in nature. Future studies are warranted to determine the detailed pathophysiology and risk factors of hair loss in COVID-19, including possible roles of estrogen, progesterone, and pro-inflammatory cytokines.
Topics: Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; COVID-19; Cytokines; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Male; Progesterone
PubMed: 35801366
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.15218 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Clomiphene; Coitus; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Insemination; Letrozole; Lipopolysaccharides; Live Birth; Luteal Phase; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone
PubMed: 36000704
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012396.pub2 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology :... Dec 2024The number of patients desiring fertility-preserving treatment for endometrial cancer rather than standard surgical management continues to increase. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The number of patients desiring fertility-preserving treatment for endometrial cancer rather than standard surgical management continues to increase.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to evaluate the efficacies of fertility-preserving treatments on the live birth rate, remission and relapse rates for women with stage 1a grade 1 endometrial carcinoma to support patient counselling.
METHODS
We performed a meta-analysis for our primary outcomes of overall remission and relapse rate, and for secondary analysis, we divided papers into treatment type: systemic progestins, intrauterine progestins or hysteroscopic resection and adjuvant hormonal treatment.
RESULTS
Thirty-five observational studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 624 patients. Overall, conservative treatment of endometrial cancer showed a remission rate of 77% (95% CI: 70-84%), a relapse rate of 20% (95% CI: 13-27%) and a live birth rate of 20% (95% CI: 15-25%) with more favourable outcomes for the hysteroscopic resection group.
CONCLUSIONS
Hysteroscopic resection and adjuvant hormonal treatment had the most favourable fertility and oncological outcomes. Further high-quality prospective multi-centre trials are warranted to determine the optimal treatment regimen and dosage and risk stratification for these patients.
Topics: Humans; Female; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Fertility Preservation; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Endometrial Neoplasms; Fertility; Recurrence; Endometrial Hyperplasia
PubMed: 38126736
DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2023.2294329