Journal: Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
Do women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations have reduced ovarian reserve, as measured by circulating anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentration?
Ovarian insufficiency is a major long-term adverse event, following the administration of a myeloablative conditioning regimen, and occurring in >80% of children and adolescents receiving such treatment for malignant or non-malignant disease. Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is currently offered to preserve the fertility of these young patients. At least 35 live births have been reported after transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue in adult patients, but the procedure remains unproven for ovarian tissue harvested at a prepubertal or pubertal age. We report here the first live birth after autograft of cryopreserved ovarian tissue in a woman with primary ovarian failure after a myeloablative conditioning regimen as part of a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation performed for homozygous sickle-cell anemia at age 14 years. This first report of successful fertility restoration after the graft of ovarian tissue cryopreserved before menarche offers reassuring evidence for the feasibility of the procedure when performed during childhood.
What is the prevalence of infertility and of help seeking among women and men in Britain?
Is sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption associated with age at menarche?
Is post-natal growth during the first 2 years of life in IVF singletons affected by type of medium used for culturing human embryos during an IVF treatment?
STUDY QUESTION: Is thin endometrium unresponsive to standard treatments expandable by intrauterine perfusion with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)? SUMMARY ANSWER: This cohort study is supportive of the effectiveness of G-CSF in expanding chronically unresponsive endometria. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In a previous small case series, we reported the successful off-label use of G-CSF in four consecutive patients, who had previously failed to expand their endometria beyond 6.9 mm with the use of standard treatments. STUDY DESIGN, SIZEAND DURATION: In a prospective observational cohort pilot study over 18 months, we described 21 consecutive infertile women with endometria <7 mm on the day of hCG administration in their first IVF cycles at our center. All previous cycles using traditional treatments with estradiol, sildenafil citrate (Viagra™) and/or beta-blockers had been unsuccessful. G-CSF (Nupogen™) was administered per intrauterine catheter by slow infusion before noon on the day of hCG administration. If the endometrium had not reached at least a 7-mm within 48h, a second infusion was given following oocyte retrieval. Primary and secondary main outcomes were an increase in endometrial thickness and clinical pregnancy, respectively. Endometrial thickness was assessed by vaginal ultrasound at the most expanded area of the endometrial stripe. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS AND METHOD: This study was uncontrolled, each patient serving as her own control in a prospective evaluation of endometrial thickness. The mean ± SD age of the cohort was 40.5 ± 6.6 years, gravidity was 1.8 ± 2.1 (range 0-7) and parity was 0.4 ± 1.1 (range 0-4); 76.2% of women had, based on age-specific FSH and anti-Müllerian hormone, an objective diagnosis of diminished ovarian reserve and had failed 2.0 ± 2.1 prior IVF cycles elsewhere. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: With 5.2 ± 1.9 days between G-CSF perfusions and embryo transfers, endometrial thickness increased from 6.4 ± 1.4 to 9.3 ± 2.1 mm (P < 0.001). The Δ in change was 2.9 ± 2.0 mm, and did not vary between conception and non-conception cycles. A 19.1% ongoing clinical pregnancy rate was observed, excluding one ectopic pregnancy. LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: Small sample size (but a highly selected patient population) in an uncontrolled cohort study and in unselected first IVF cycles at our center. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This pilot study supports the utility of G-CSF in the treatment of chronically thin endometrium and suggests that such treatment will, in very adversely affected patients, result in low but very reasonable clinical pregnancy rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, New York, New York, USA, a not-for-profit research foundation and intramural grants from the Center for Human Reproduction (CHR)-New York. N.G. and D.H.B. are members of the board of the Foundation for Reproductive Medicine. N.G. is owner of CHR-New York, where the study was conducted. N.G. and D.H.B. have been recipients of research awards, travel grants and speaker honoraria from various pharmaceutical and medical device companies. None of these companies was, however, in any way associated with the materials and the manuscript presented here. N.G. and D.H.B. are listed as co-inventors on a number of awarded and still pending U.S. patents, none related to the materials presented here. N.G. is on the board of a medically related company, not in any way associated with the data presented here.
Two Australian government inquiries have recently called for the release of information to donor-conceived people about their gamete donors. A national inquiry, recommended ‘as a matter of priority’ that uniform legislation to be passed nationwide. A state-based inquiry argued that all donor-conceived people should have access to information and called for the enactment of retrospective legislation that would override donor anonymity. This paper responds to an opinion piece published in Human Reproduction in October 2012 by Professor Pennings in which he criticized such recommendations and questioned the motives of people that advocate for information release. I answer the arguments of Pennings, and argue that all parties affected by donor conception should be considered, and a compromise reached. The contact veto system is one such compromise. I discuss the education and support services recommended by the Victorian government and question Pennings' assertions that legislation enabling information release will lead to a decrease in gamete donation. Finally, I rebut Pennings' assertion that there is a ‘hidden agenda’ behind the call for information release. There is no such agenda in my work. If there is from others, then it is their discriminatory views that need to be addressed, not the move toward openness and honesty or the call for information by donor-conceived people.
Does unilateral volume-adjusted laparoscopic diathermy increase the chances of ovulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)?
What is the effect of estrogen on heparanase procogulant activity?