| Literature DB >> 26769300 |
Osamu Inoue1, Toshio Hamatani2, Nobuyuki Susumu3, Wataru Yamagami4, Seiji Ogawa5, Takashi Takemoto6, Akira Hirasawa7, Kouji Banno8, Naoaki Kuji9, Mamoru Tanaka10, Daisuke Aoki11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients hoping to preserve their fertility receive conservative treatment with high-dose medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) for well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma (EC) or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) . Such treatment generally involves frequent intrauterine operations, including dilation and curettage (D&C) and endometrial biopsy (EMB), which could result in endometritis, endometrial thinning, or intrauterine adhesion. In turn, any of these outcomes could adversely affect implantation and pregnancy development. The current study thus aimed to identify factors that might affect pregnancy following conservative treatment by MPA.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26769300 PMCID: PMC4714532 DOI: 10.1186/s12958-015-0136-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol ISSN: 1477-7827 Impact factor: 5.211
Patient characteristics
| Total | Pregnancy | Non-pregnancy |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients (n) | 98 | 45 | 53 | - |
| Age of initial treatment (years) | 33.8 ± 4.4 | 32.8 ± 4.6 | 34.6 ± 4.1 | 0.051a |
| Pregnancy age (years) | - | 34.8 ± 3.9 | - | - |
| Nulliparity (%) | 87 (88.8) | 42 (83.3) | 52 (92.9) | 0.088a |
| Histological type/grade | 0.408b | |||
| AEH | 37 | 15 | 22 | |
| G1/G2 | 61 | 30 | 31 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.9 ± 4.7 | 21.5 ± 4.9 | 22.3 ± 4.5 | 0.264a |
| PCO on ultrasonography (%) | 29 (29.6) | 16 (35.6) | 13 (24.5) | 0.233a |
| Irregular menstrual cycle (%) | 54 (55.1) | 24 (53.3) | 30 (56.6) | 0.116a |
| Use of ovarian stimulation (%) | 58 (59.2) | 30 (66.7) | 28 (52.8) | 0.165a |
Note : Values listed as mean ± standard deviation
aPregnancy versus Non-pregnancy (Mann–Whitney U test)
bPregnancy versus Non-pregnancy (Chi-squared test)
Infertility treatment rates in the pregnancy and the non-pregnancy groups
| Pregnancy | Non-pregnancy | |
|---|---|---|
| Natural insemination (%) | 41 (71.9) | 28 (52.8) |
| No infertility treatment (%) | 18 (31.6) | 8 (15.1) |
| Timing treatment (%) | 8 (14.0) | 8 (15.1) |
| Clomifene Citrate-timing treatment (%) | 8 (14.0) | 6 (11.3) |
| HMG-timing treatment (%) | 7 (12.3) | 6 (11.3) |
| IUI (%) | 3 (5.3) | 5 (9.5) |
| IVF/ICSI (%) | 13 (22.8) | 20 (37.7) |
| Total | 57 (100) | 53 (100) |
Matters relating to conservative treatment
| Total | Pregnancy | Non-pregnancy |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of pregnancy permission | 35.0 ± 4.7 | 33.9 ± 4.4 | 36.0 ± 4.8 | 0.023 |
| Number of D&C (times) | 4.98 ± 3.27 | 4.18 ± 2.34 | 5.66 ± 3.77 | 0.049 |
| Endometrial thickness during ovulation (mm) | 7.50 ± 2.08 | 8.56 ± 1.87 | 6.70 ± 1.87 | <0.001 |
| Duration of MPA administration (days) | 357.7 ± 285.4 | 277.5 ± 167.0 | 431.5 ± 342.5 | 0.010 |
| Periods of disappearance of lesions (days) | 164.0 ± 143.1 | 136.2 ± 133.8 | 187.0 ± 147.7 | 0.042 |
| Periods from the last MPA administration to menstruation or starting date of the pregnancy (days) | 314.0 ± 392.8 | ー | ー | |
| Infertile period after conservative treatment (days) | 1146 ± 1024 | 1206 ± 887 | 1096 ± 1131 | 0.116 |
| Follow up (days) | 2032 ± 1266 | 2027 ± 1115 | 2037 ± 1389 | 0.592 |
| Recurrence (%) | 61 (62.2) | 23 (51.1) | 38 (71.7) | 0.036 |
| Intrauterine adhesion (%) | 20/81 (24.7) | 5/29 (17.2) | 15/52 (28.8) | 0.191 |
Note : Values listed as mean ± standard deviation
*Pregnancy versus Non-pregnancy (Mann–Whitney U test)
Logistic regression analysis
|
| Odd ratio | 95 % CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endometrial thickness | 0.001 | 1.677 | 1.251–2.248 |
| Recurrence | 0.015 | 0.283 | 0.102–0.785 |
| Age of pregnancy permission | 0.046 | 0.889 | 0.792–0.998 |
| Duration of MPA administration | 0.065 | ||
| Number of D&C | 0.407 | ||
| Periods of disappearance of lesions | 0.358 |
Fig. 1Regression analysis of the correlation between ultrasonographically measured endometrial thickness during 365 ovulation cycles (included the same person) and the number of D&C procedures (1–10) for all the subjects yielded an absolute value of 0.4, indicating a correlation. The regression equation was significant (P < 0.01) according to an analysis of variance (ANOVA) table, as was the regression coefficient (P < 0.01). Curvilinear regression demonstrated that endometrial thickness during ovulation decreases as the number of D&C procedures increase