Can endometrial thickness at baseline or maximum stimulated levels during IVF predict the presence of endometrial polyps in women with two failed embryo transfers?

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether different measurements of endometrial thickness pre-IVF cycle and during the IVF cycles as measured by transvaginal ultrasound are associated with the absence or presence of endometrial polyps. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a university-affiliated fertility center. Patients were women who underwent two embryo transfer cycles and failed to conceive. INTERVENTIONS: hysteroscopic evaluation and resection of any masses. RESULTS: There was no difference on comparing the groups with and without polyps in the mean endometrial thicknesses at baseline scans pre-treatment or during IVF cycle. For women who failed two embryo transfer cycles, at any given endometrial thickness the probability of the presence of a polyp was 30-40%. ROC curves failed to detect an actionable relationship with different endometrial thicknesses and the relationship with an endometrial polyp, with most areas under the curve being just above 0.5. However, once the maximum stimulated endometrial thickness was ≥ 13 mm, there was a 70% chance of a polyp being noted at hysteroscopy. This was a statistical difference in the probability of a polyp being present as compared to the lesser thicknesses (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Baseline or maximum stimulated endometrial thickness at IVF fails to predict with accuracy the presence of a polyp. However, if the maximum stimulated thickness was at least 13 mm, there was a higher probability of a uterine polyp being present. Such a cutoff would nevertheless miss most polyps. At any baseline thickness on CD 2-5, a polyp has a 30-40% probability of being present in women who failed two embryo transfers. ROC curves suggest that at baseline, or maximum stimulated endometrial thickness, the ability to predict a polyp is no better than flipping a coin. As such, endometrial cavity evaluation for polyps is legitimate in women with two embryo transfers irrelevant of the baseline or stimulated thickness.

Effect of Malignancy on Semen Parameters.

Purpose: We aimed to examine how various types of cancer, classified histologically, affect semen quality. Methods: The study group included 313 patients who were diagnosed with cancer and reached for a sperm cryopreservation before a gonadotoxic treatment (PG-Tx group). Their semen parameters were compared to those of two control groups: (a) individuals who attended a fertility investigation and were found to be above the limit of the lower reference value of the WHO 2010 manual (ARL group), and (b) fertile men, whose semen parameters were obtained from the dataset of the WHO 2020 manual. Results: Semen quality was significantly poorer in the PG-Tx group than in the ARL group. Differences included a 65.6% decrease in concentration, a 12.1% decrease in volume, a 72.7% decrease in total count, and a 33.0%, 22.2%, and 24.7% decrease in total motility, rapid motility, and progressive motility, respectively. Linear regression models comparing the PG-Tx and ARL groups revealed that the maximum reduction in total motility and concentration was in men with germ-cell tumors, whereas the minimum reduction was in hematological tumors. Similarly, all sperm quality parameters were significantly lower in the PG-Tx group than in the fertile-men group (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: While the effect of malignancy on semen parameters is debatable, we found that all examined types of cancer significantly impaired sperm quality parameters. Although the median of most semen parameters of patients with cancer were still in the normal WHO range, their fifth percentile, represents men with a delayed time to pregnancy.

Impact of Protocol Adjustments Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic on Infertility Treatment Outcomes.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, our centre made adjustments that reduced the number of patient visits, ultrasound scans, laboratory investigations, and face-to face instructions. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether these changes had any effect on the pregnancy rate for patients undergoing infertility treatment. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rates from intrauterine insemination and frozen embryo transfer. Clinical pregnancy rates were not statistically different between patients who underwent either procedure before and after the protocols were put in place. It is reassuring to know our pandemic protocol adjustments did not have a negative impact on infertility treatment outcomes.