Search

STUDY QUESTION Is IVF indicated for couples with age-related infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER IVF may be of doubtful utility for age-related infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A diagnosis of unexplained infertility is drawn when the diagnostic work-up fails to identify any patent cause. Although typically managed uniformly, unexplained infertility is likely to comprise a wide range of conditions, including age-related infertility (at least in older women). Unfortunately, no validated tests for the identification of age-related infertility exist and these women are typically treated as unexplained cases. However, homologous ART may be less effective for these women because these techniques may be unable to treat the detrimental effects of ageing on oocyte competence. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Women aged 18–42 years who underwent IVF procedures between January 2014 and December 2021 were selected retrospectively. In the first part of the study, we aimed to assess whether the proportion of women with unexplained infertility (i.e. without patent causes of infertility) increased with age. In the second part of the study, women with unexplained infertility were matched 1:1 by age, study period, and duration of infertility, to those with a patent cause of infertility. If our hypothesis is valid, the first part of the study should highlight an increase in the proportion of unexplained infertility with age. Moreover, in the second part of the study, one should observe a sharper decrease in the rate of IVF success of the procedure with age in women with an unremarkable work-up compared to those with a definite cause of infertility. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women were included if: they had been trying to conceive for more than 2 years, they had retrieved more than three oocytes, and had not undergone previous IVF attempts. We exclude couples with severe male factor (criptozoospermia), chronic anovulation, untreated hydrosalpinx, or intracavitary diseases. The first part of the study aimed at investigating the relative proportion of unexplained infertility with age. The outcome of the second part was the distribution of the live births between unexplained versus explained infertility, in women younger or older than 35 years. Only the results of the first IVF cycle were considered (including both fresh and frozen cycles). The live birth rate corresponded to the cumulative chance of a live birth per oocyte retrieval. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE One thousand five hundred and thirty-five women were selected for the first part of the study; 742 of them had unexplained infertility (48%). The frequency of this diagnosis was lower among women aged <35 years (40%) compared to those ≥35 years (52%) (P  < 0.001). A clear gradient emerged when considering smaller intervals of age (P  < 0.001). A total of 1134 women (567 unexplained cases and 567 explained cases) were selected for the second part of the study. Baseline variables were comparable between women with unexplained and explained infertility. Among women younger than 35 years (n = 229 unexplained cases and 229 explained cases), 108 live births were observed in women with unexplained infertility (47%) and 88 in those with explained infertility (38%). In comparison, among women older than 35 years, the live births occurred in 90 (27%) and 114 (34%) couples, respectively (P  = 0.03). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for a live birth in older women with unexplained infertility was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.43–0.94). In other words, the effectiveness of IVF in older women with unexplained infertility is reduced by an additional 37% when compared to women of similar age with a patent cause of infertility. Moreover, when considering smaller intervals of age, a gradient of the adverse effect of age on the distribution of live births between unexplained and explained infertility emerged (P  = 0.003). Overall, these results support the hypothesis that IVF may be of modest benefit in women with age-related infertility. The decline in IVF success is sharper in women with unexplained infertility compared to those with explained infertility, indirectly suggesting that IVF cannot effectively treat age-related infertility. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We postulated that the greater decline in IVF success with age in the unexplained group could be related to the concomitant increase in the proportion of women with age-related infertility. However, even if this is theoretically logical, the unavailability of validated tools to diagnose age-related infertility makes our inference speculative. We cannot exclude that the prevalence of other unknown causes of infertility that cannot also be effectively overcome with IVF could increase with age. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our findings suggest that IVF may be of modest utility for treating age-related infertility. Offering this procedure to older women with an unremarkable infertility work-up may be questioned. However, the diagnosis of age-related infertility remains challenging and identifying a biomarker that could reliably diagnose age-related infertility is a priority. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health—current research IRCCS and by a specific grant supported by Ferring. ES declares receiving honoraria for lectures at meetings from IBSA and Gedeon-Richter and he also handles private grants of research from Ferring, IBSA, Theramex, and Gedeon-Richter. All the other authors do not have any conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Peritoneal infiltrating and fibrotic endometriosis, also known as deep endometriosis, is the most severe manifestation of the disease that can cause severe complications including bowel and ureteral stenosis. The natural history of these lesions and the possible effect of hormonal treatments on their progression are undefined. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to investigate whether and how frequently deep endometriosis progresses over time without or with ovarian suppression. This could inform management decisions in asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients. Material and Methods: For this pre‐registered systematic review (CRD42023463518), the PubMed and Embase databases were screened, and studies published between 2000 and 2023 that serially evaluated the size of deep endometriotic lesions without or with hormonal treatment were selected. Data on the progression, stability, or regression of deep endometriotic lesions were recorded as absolute frequencies or mean volume variations. Estimates of the overall percentage of progression and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random‐effect model. When studies reported lesion progression as pre‐ and post‐treatment volume means, the delta of the two‐volume means was calculated and analyzed using the inverse variance method. Results: A total of 29 studies were identified, of which 19 studies with 285 untreated and 730 treated patients were ultimately selected for meta‐analysis. The overall estimate of the percentage of lesion progression in untreated individuals was 21.4% (95% CI, 6.8–40.8%; I2 = 90.5%), whereas it was 12.4% during various hormonal treatments (95% CI, 9.0–16.1%; I2 = 0%). Based on the overall meta‐analysis estimates, the odds ratio of progression in treated vs untreated patients was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.41–0.66). During hormonal suppression, the mean volume of deep endometriotic lesions decreased significantly by 0.87 cm3 (95% CI, 0.19–1.56 cm3; I2 = 0%), representing −28.5% of the baseline volume. Conclusions: Untreated deep endometriotic lesions progressed in about one in five patients. Medical therapy reduced but did not eliminate this risk. Given the organ function failure potentially caused by these lesions, the decision whether to use hormonal treatments in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic women should always be shared, carefully weighing the potential benefits and harms of the two alternatives after extensive counseling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Does endometriosis prevalence differ in patients with obstructive Müllerian anomalies (OMA) versus those with nonobstructive Müllerian anomalies (NOMA), and in patients with NOMA versus those without Müllerian anomalies? SUMMARY ANSWER The quantitative synthesis of published data demonstrates a substantially increased prevalence of endometriosis in patients with OMA compared with those with NOMA, and a similar prevalence in patients with NOMA and those without Müllerian anomalies. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The pathogenesis of endometriosis has not been definitively clarified yet. A higher prevalence of endometriosis in patients with OMA than in those with NOMA would support the retrograde menstruation (RM)/implantation theory, whereas a higher prevalence of endometriosis in the NOMA group than in the group without Müllerian anomalies would support the embryonic remnants/celomic metaplasia hypothesis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This systematic review with meta-analysis was restricted to full-length, English-language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 1980 and 2023. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched using the keyword 'endometriosis' in combination with 'Müllerian anomalies', 'obstructive Müllerian anomalies', 'female genital malformations', 'retrograde menstruation', 'infertility', 'pelvic pain', and 'classification'. References from relevant publications were screened, and PubMed's 'similar articles' and 'cited by' functions were used. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Studies were selected if they reported the prevalence of surgically confirmed endometriosis in either individuals with OMA compared to those with NOMA, or patients with NOMA compared to those without Müllerian anomalies. Cohort and case-control studies and case series were deemed eligible for inclusion. Noncomparative studies, studies not reporting both the number of individuals with endometriosis and the total number of those with Müllerian anomalies or with other gynecological conditions, those including exclusively data on patients with absent or uncertain menstrual function (e.g. complete Müllerian agenesis category), or with imperforate hymen were excluded. Two reviewers independently abstracted data. The risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposures tool. The overall certainty of the evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Seven retrospective studies were included. The overall mean estimate of endometriosis prevalence was 47% (95% CI, 36–58%) in patients with OMA, and 19% (95% CI, 15–24%) in patients with NOMA, with a common odds ratio (OR) of 4.72 (95% CI, 2.54–8.77). The overall mean estimate of endometriosis prevalence in patients with NOMA was 23% (95% CI, 20–27%), and that in patients without Müllerian anomalies was 21% (95% CI, 20–22%), with a common OR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.57–1.58). The overall certainty of the evidence according to GRADE guidelines was judged as low for both comparisons. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION Some NOMA subtypes may create a partial obstacle to menstrual efflux and/or generate dysfunctional myometrial contractions that favor transtubal reflux, thus increasing the risk of endometriosis and limiting the difference between OMA and NOMA. As infertility and pelvic pain are strongly associated with endometriosis, women with these symptoms are inappropriate controls. Confounding by indication could explain the lack of difference in endometriosis prevalence between patients with NOMA and those without Müllerian anomalies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The results of this meta-analysis support the validity of the RM theory but do not definitively rule out alternative hypotheses. Thus, RM may be considered the initiator for the development of endometriotic lesions, while not excluding the contribution of both inheritable and tissue-specific genetic and epigenetic modifications as disease-promoting factors. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No funding was received for this review. P.Ve. is a member of the Editorial Board of Human Reproduction Open , the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada , and the International Editorial Board of Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica ; has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer for chapters on endometriosis management in the clinical decision support resource UpToDate; and maintains both a public and private gynecological practice. E.S. discloses payments from Ferring for research grants and honoraria from Merck-Serono for lectures. All other authors declare they have no conflict of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence (AI) is experiencing advances and integration in all medical specializations, and this creates excitement but also concerns. This narrative review aims to critically assess the state of the art of AI in the field of endometriosis and adenomyosis. By enabling automation, AI may speed up some routine tasks, decreasing gynecologists' risk of burnout, as well as enabling them to spend more time interacting with their patients, increasing their efficiency and patients' perception of being taken care of. Surgery may also benefit from AI, especially through its integration with robotic surgery systems. This may improve the detection of anatomical structures and enhance surgical outcomes by combining intra-operative findings with pre-operative imaging. Not only that, but AI promises to improve the quality of care by facilitating clinical research. Through the introduction of decision-support tools, it can enhance diagnostic assessment; it can also predict treatment effectiveness and side effects, as well as reproductive prognosis and cancer risk. However, concerns exist regarding the fact that good quality data used in tool development and compliance with data sharing guidelines are crucial. Also, professionals are worried AI may render certain specialists obsolete. This said, AI is more likely to become a well-liked team member rather than a usurper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]