Presence of Endometrioma Does Not Impair Embryo Quality and Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Cycle Outcome in Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR) Patients

This study aims to assess the impact of endometrioma on embryo quality and cycle outcome in patients who undergo assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment due to diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). Retrospective case–control study was conducted in women ≤ 40 years of age who underwent ART treatment caused by DOR, defined according to POSEIDON criteria, at a university-based infertility clinic between January 2015 and December 2020. Three groups of patients were selected: group A included patients with an idiopathic DOR, group B included patients with endometrioma(s) who underwent ovarian cystectomy, and group C included patients with endometrioma(s) without surgical treatment. A total of 351 women with DOR were included in the final analysis. Demographic characteristics, including age and AMH, were similar between the groups. Significant differences were observed among groups on mean number of MII oocytes retrieved (1.88 ± 1.59 vs. 2.84 ± 2.89 vs. 2.78 ± 2.41, respectively; p < 0.001) and mean number of embryos (1.04 ± 1.18 vs. 1.87 ± 2.01 vs. 1.66 ± 1.81, respectively; p < 0.001). However, the mean number of top-quality embryos, cycle cancellation, and live birth rates were similar between the groups. Clinical pregnancy (35 (26.5%) vs. 8 (18.2%) vs. 18 (42.9%), respectively; p = 0.038) and miscarriage rates (12 (9.1%) vs. 0 vs. 8 (19.0%), respectively; p = 0.009) were higher in endometrioma group without surgery. Women with DOR appear to have similar ART cycle outcomes regardless of the etiology, in terms of live birth rates. Infertility of endometrioma patients might be related to altered endometrium rather than to decreased oocyte quality. Cystectomy for endometrioma before IVF did not seem to affect the LBR. Similar content being viewed by others

Penzias A, Azziz R, Bendikson K, et al. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:1151–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.134. Broekmans FJ, Soules MR, Fauser BC. Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Endocr Rev. 2009;30:465–93. Silberstein T, MacLaughlin DT, Shai I, et al. Müllerian inhibiting substance levels at the time of HCG administration in IVF cycles predict both ovarian reserve and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:159–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei270. Haadsma ML, Mooij TM, Groen H, et al. A reduced size of the ovarian follicle pool is associated with an increased risk of a trisomic pregnancy in IVF-treated women. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:552–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep404. Jaswa EG, McCulloch CE, Simbulan R, et al. Diminished ovarian reserve is associated with reduced euploid rates via preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy independently from age: evidence for concomitant reduction in oocyte quality with quantity. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:966–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.10.051. Tarasconi B, Tadros T, Ayoubi JM, et al. Serum antimüllerian hormone levels are independently related to miscarriage rates after in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:518–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.001. Riggs R, Kimble T, Oehninger S, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone serum levels predict response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation but not embryo quality or pregnancy outcome in oocyte donation. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:410–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2010.07.1042. Thum MY, Abdalla HI, Taylor D. Relationship between women’s age and basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels with aneuploidy risk in in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:315–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.063. Morin SJ, Patounakis G, Juneau CR, et al. Diminished ovarian reserve and poor response to stimulation in patients <38 years old: a quantitative but not qualitative reduction in performance. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1489–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey238. Becker CM, Bokor A, Heikinheimo O, et al. ESHRE guideline: endometriosis. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac009. Uncu G, Kasapoglu I, Ozerkan K, et al. Prospective assessment of the impact of endometriomas and their removal on ovarian reserve and determinants of the rate of decline in ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2140–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det123. Sanchez AM, Vanni VS, Bartiromo L, et al. Is the oocyte quality affected by endometriosis? A review of the literature. J Ovarian Res. 2017;10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13048-017-0341-4/TABLES/1. Xu B, Guo N, Zhang XM, et al. Oocyte quality is decreased in women with minimal or mild endometriosis. Sci Rep. 2015;5:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10779. Saito H, Seino T, Kaneko T, et al. Endometriosis and oocyte quality. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2002;53(Suppl 1):46–51. Rakhimberdievich Orazov M, Yevseyevich Radzinsky V, Isaakovich Ivanov I, et al. Oocyte quality in women with infertility associated endometriosis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35:24–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2019.1632088. Wu Y, Yang R, Lan J, et al. Ovarian endometrioma negatively impacts oocyte quality and quantity but not pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment: a retrospective cohort study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2021;12: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.739228 Filippi F, Benaglia L, Paffoni A, et al. Ovarian endometriomas and oocyte quality: insights from in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:988-993.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.01.008. Roustan A, Perrin J, Debals-Gonthier M, et al. Surgical diminished ovarian reserve after endometrioma cystectomy versus idiopathic DOR: comparison of in vitro fertilization outcome. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:840–7. Esteves SC, Alviggi C, Humaidan P, et al. The POSEIDON criteria and its measure of success through the eyes of clinicians and embryologists. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:814. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00814. Gardner DK, Lane M, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:9–23. Balaban B, Brison D, Calderón G, et al. Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22:632–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.02.001. Assidi M, Dufort I, Ali A, et al. Identification of potential markers of oocyte competence expressed in bovine cumulus cells matured with follicle-stimulating hormone and/or phorbol myristate acetate in vitro. Biol Reprod. 2008;79:209–22. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.108.067686. Gupta S, Agarwal A, Agarwal R, Loret de Mola JR. Impact of ovarian endometrioma on assisted reproduction outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:349–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61439-3. Yang C, Geng Y, Li Y, et al. Impact of ovarian endometrioma on ovarian responsiveness and IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:9–19. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests. Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Rights and permissions Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. About this article Cite this article Osmanlıoğlu, Ş., Berker, B., Aslan, B. et al. Presence of Endometrioma Does Not Impair Embryo Quality and Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Cycle Outcome in Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR) Patients. Reprod. Sci. 30, 1540–1547 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-022-01111-w Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-022-01111-w