Search

Background: Although the role of staging laparoscopy (SL) in detecting radiologically occult M1 disease has been widely recognized, it is seldom used in China and its clinical value based on Chinese population has been rarely reported. The aim of this study is to identify the yield of SL for Chinese patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) and determine the proportions of patients in whom treatment plan is altered.Materials and Methods: The clinical data were retrospectively collected from 879 AGC patients who underwent SL without any definite signs of disseminated disease on imaging examination. The primary outcomes were the proportions of patients whose laparoscopy identified incurable factors (including M1 diseases and unresectable T4b diseases), and who had their treatment plan altered.Results: SL revealed incurable factors in 130 (14.8%) patients, including macroscopic peritoneal metastasis (n = 92), positive peritoneal cytology (n = 10), liver metastasis (n = 12), para-aortic lymph node metastasis (n = 1), and unresectable T4b tumor (n = 18). After SL, treatment plans were altered in 123 (14.0%) patients, among which 82 (63.1%) patients were not offered any further procedure and referred for chemotherapy. Among 749 M0 patients who immediately proceeded to radical gastrectomy after SL, new incurable factors were found at subsequent operations in 21 (2.8%) patients. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor size ≥8 cm, Borrmann type III and IV, and tumor invasion of T4a and T4b in preoperative imaging examination were the predictive factors for peritoneal metastasis.Conclusions: SL detects additional incurable factors in Chinese AGC patients with potentially resectable disease and optimizes their treatments. A systematic and painstaking inspection of the whole abdominal cavity, including routine entry into the bursa omentalis, is necessary for improving the yield of SL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The study aimed to investigate the potential influence of COVID-19 infection on embryo implantation and early development in women undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET), with a specific focus on infections occurring at different periods around FET., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on women who had undergone FET during a period marked by a significant surge in COVID-19 infection in Shanghai. All enrolled women experienced their first documented COVID-19 infection around the time of FET, ensuring that infections did not occur prior to oocyte retrieval. Participants were categorized into six groups based on the timing of infection: uninfected, ≥ 60 days, < 60 days before FET, 0-14 days, 15-28 days, and 29-70 days after FET. Clinical outcomes were compared across these groups., Results: The infection rate among the total of 709 cases was 78.28%. Infected individuals exhibited either asymptomatic or mild symptoms. The ongoing pregnancy rates for the first four groups were 40.7%, 44.4%, 40.5%, and 34.2% (P = 0.709) respectively, biochemical pregnancy rates (59.1% vs. 61.1% vs. 67.6% vs. 55.7%, P = 0.471) and clinical pregnancy rates (49.6% vs. 55.6% vs. 55.4% vs. 48.1%, P = 0.749), all showed no significant differences. Early spontaneous abortion rates across all six groups were 18.3%, 20.0%, 25.0%, 28.9%, 5.4%, and 19.0% respectively, with no significant differences (P = 0.113). Multivariable logistic analysis revealed no significant correlation between the infection and ongoing pregnancy., Conclusion: Asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infections occurring around FET do not appear to have a significant adverse impact on early pregnancy outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Study Question: Is a dual ovulation trigger with a combination of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) and hCG superior to single hCG and/or single GnRHa trigger in improving treatment outcomes in advanced-age women (aged ≥ 35 years) undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment?, Summary Answer: Co-administration of GnRHa and hCG as a dual trigger increases the number of good-quality embryos but it is not associated with a higher number of oocytes retrieved, compared with single hCG or GnRHa trigger., What Is Known Already: Many studies have demonstrated that a dual trigger has positive impact on oocyte maturation, retrieval rate and pregnancy rate without increasing the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in some groups of IVF patients, when compared with single hCG trigger. Few studies have however been conducted to compare a dual trigger with a single GnRHa trigger, and insufficient evidence exists to support which trigger can achieve the best outcomes in IVF patients aged ≥35 years., Study Design, Size, Duration: This was an open-label randomized controlled trial of 510 participants conducted at single reproductive medical center from January 2019 to December 2021. After a sample size calculation performed by retrospectively analyzing our previous clinical data, we planned to recruit 170 patients in each group and 510 patients in total for the study., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women aged ≥35 years undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment, receiving a non-pituitary down-regulation protocol, and with low risk of OHSS, were enrolled in this trial. On the trigger day, patients were randomized into three groups: hCG alone (who received 6000 IU of hCG), GnRHa alone (who received 0.2 mg of triptorelin) and dual trigger (who received 0.2 mg of triptorelin plus 2000 IU of hCG) groups. The primary outcome parameter was the number of retrieved oocytes. The secondary outcome parameters included, among others, the number and rates of mature oocytes, two pronuclei (2PN) embryos and good-quality embryos, as the rates of OHSS, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth., Main Results and the Role of Chance: There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic characteristics among the three groups. The dual trigger was associated with a higher retrieval rate (87.9% vs 84.1% in the hCG group, P = 0.031; 87.9% vs 83.6% in the GnRHa group, P = 0.014). However, the number of retrieved oocytes in the dual trigger group was comparable with those in the hCG group (4.08 ± 2.79 vs 3.60 ± 2.71, P = 0.080) and the GnRHa group (4.08 ± 2.79 vs 3.81 ± 3.38, P = 0.101); comparable data between the groups were also found when analyzing the number of 2PN embryos and the 2PN rate. In the dual trigger group, the numbers of good-quality embryos and viable embryos were both significantly higher than in the hCG group (1.74 ± 1.90 vs 1.19 ± 1.45, P = 0.016 and 2.19 ± 2.11 vs 1.56 ± 1.66, P = 0.008, respectively) and the GnRHa group (1.74 ± 1.90 vs 1.20 ± 1.67, P = 0.003 and 2.19 ± 2.11 vs 1.45 ± 1.75, P = 0.001, respectively). Pregnancy outcomes after fresh embryo transfer (ET) were comparable between the groups. The live birth rate and ongoing pregnancy rate after frozen ET in the dual trigger group were significantly higher than those in the GnRHa group (32.6% vs 14.1%, P = 0.007 and 34.8% vs 17.6%, P = 0.013, respectively), but not superior to those in the hCG group (32.6% vs 27.9%, P = 0.537 and 34.8% vs 27.9%, P = 0.358, respectively)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Women of advanced age are quite a heterogeneous population and overlap with poor ovarian responders or patients with diminished ovarian reserve. We therefore could not entirely exclude selection biases or confounding factors. This study was also not a double-blinded trial; the patients in the GnRHa and dual trigger groups could have been affected by the placebo effect., Wider Implications of the Findings: The results of this study suggest that in advanced-age women with low risk of OHSS, a dual trigger or even a single hCG trigger may be a better choice than a single GnRHa trigger., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was supported by the Shanghai Municipal Health Commission of Science and Research Fund (20184Y0289). The authors declare no conflict of interest., Trial Registration Number: This trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-1800016285)., Trial Registration Date: 24 May 2018., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: 2 January 2019., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)