Installing oncofertility programs for common cancers in limited resource settings (Repro-Can-OPEN Study): An extrapolation during the global crisis of Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

PURPOSE: The state of limited resource settings that Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has created globally should be taken seriously into account especially in healthcare sector. In oncofertility, patients should receive their fertility preservation treatments urgently even in limited resource settings before initiation of anticancer therapy. Therefore, it is very crucial to learn more about oncofertility practice in limited resource settings such as in developing countries that suffer often from shortage of healthcare services provided to young patients with cancer. METHODS: As an extrapolation during the global crisis of COVID-19 pandemic, we surveyed oncofertility centers from 14 developing countries (Egypt, Tunisia, Brazil, Peru, Panama, Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Nigeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and India). Survey questionnaire included questions on the availability and degree of utilization of fertility preservation options in case of childhood cancer, breast cancer, and blood cancer. RESULTS: All surveyed centers responded to all questions. Responses and their calculated oncofertility scores showed different domestic standards for oncofertility practice in case of childhood cancer, breast cancer, and blood cancer in the developing countries under limited resource settings. CONCLUSIONS: Medical practice in limited resource settings has become a critical topic especially after the global crisis of COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the resources necessary to provide oncofertility treatments is important until the current COVID-19 pandemic resolves. Lessons learned will be valuable to future potential worldwide disruptions due to infectious diseases or other global crises.

Day 5 versus day 3 embryo transfer: a controlled randomized trial.

Blastocyst transfer has been suggested to improve implantation rate without affecting pregnancy rate. The aim of this study was to compare the pregnancy and implantation rates of day 3 and 5 transfers in a prospective randomized manner. Patients with four or more zygotes were randomly allocated on day 1 to either day 3 or 5 transfers. Fertilization was achieved through regular IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Zygotes were kept in Medicult IVF medium for day 3 transfers and transferred into G1.2 and G2.2 on day 1 and 3 respectively for day 5 transfers. The morphologically best two or three embryos or blastocysts were chosen for transfer in both groups. Overall pregnancy rates per embryo transfer were the same (39%) in day 3 and 5 transfers. Implantation rates were 21 and 24% for day 3 and 5 transfers respectively. The pregnancy and implantation rates for day 5 transfers were significantly affected by the availability of at least one blastocyst to transfer and the number of zygotes. The number of good quality embryos on day 3 also significantly affected pregnancy and implantation rates on day 5 transfers. Multiple gestation rate, number of abortions and ongoing pregnancies were similar in both groups. In conclusion, day 3 and 5 transfer had similar pregnancy, implantation and twinning rates. Currently, day 5 transfers have no advantages over day 3 transfers.

Antibiotic treatment based on seminal cultures from asymptomatic male partners in in-vitro fertilization is unnecessary and may be detrimental.

We questioned the policy of routine microbiological culture of semen prior to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) with a view to prescribing antibiotics to reduce the risk of introducing seminal infection into the embryo culture system. An initial retrospective study examined serum microbiology reports of 449 couples undergoing IVF or gamete intra-Fallopian transfer (GIFT). In semen samples taking >/=1 days to reach the microbiology laboratory compared with same-day delivery there was increased frequency of significant culture of enterococci (27 versus 15%, P < 0.01). In samples taking >/=2 days there was increased frequency of significant culture of Gram-negative bacilli (31 versus 12%, P < 0.01) and of overall culture of other potentially pathogenic organisms (26 versus 14%, P < 0.01). We questioned diagnostic accuracy and relevance. Therefore, in a prospective study, semen and high vaginal swabs obtained on the day of oocyte collection were cultured from 100 couples having IVF or GIFT, of whom 52 male partners had been treated with antibiotics following positive pre-IVF semen culture. The presence of bacteria in semen samples used only for IVF (n = 90) did not reduce fertilization rates nor lead to infection of the embryo culture system. However, there was an increased incidence of significant culture of vaginal Gram-negative bacilli in patients with treated partners compared with untreated partners [15/52 (29%) versus 5/48 (10%), P < 0.05]. Thus antibiotic therapy in the male partner may increase the likelihood of inoculation of antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria from the vagina into the embryo culture system during vaginal oocyte collection. In asymptomatic patients, microbiological screening of semen samples prior to IVF treatment and subsequent treatment with antibiotic therapy in those with positive cultures appears to be unnecessary and may be detrimental to IVF outcome.