Effects of various controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and surgery on pregnancy outcomes in women with endometriosis

endometriosis is a common gynecological condition in women of childbearing age that causes symptoms such as menstrual changes and dysmenorrhea, and is also a major cause of infertility. t herefore, women with endometriosis usually need to use assisted reproductive technology (AR t ), such as in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, to increase their chances of conceiving. Numerous clinical observations and studies have indicated that endometriosis can affect the success of AR t, such that women with endometriosis who use AR t have a lower live-birth rate than those without endometriosis who use AR t. t herefore, this article reviews the impact of various controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and surgery on the pregnancy outcomes of women with endometriosis using AR t to explore the selection of individualized treatment.

Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent disease characterized by the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterine cavity [ 1]. It is a major cause of infertility, with studies indicating that approximately 30–50% of women with endometriosis experience infertility and 20–50% of women with infertility also have endo - metriosis [ 2]. There are various treatments for infertility related to endometriosis, with the most effective being assisted reproduc - tive technology (ART), such as in vitro fertilization – embryo transfer (IVF–ET) [ 3]. Nonetheless, women with endometriosis have a lower live-birth rate than those with infertility due to other causes, and this difference increases as the severity of endo - metriosis increases [ 4]. Adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with endometriosis may be related to impaired sperm function, poor ovarian reserve, a decreased number of retrieved oocytes, low-quality oocytes and embryos, decreased uterine receptivity, and an inflammatory pelvic environment, especially in advanced stages of the disease [ 5, 6]. Therefore, a determination of the abil - ity of various controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and surgery to improve pregnancy outcomes in women with endome - triosis would not only assist clinicians to treat infertile women with endometriosis but also assist such women to achieve fertility. Mechanism by which endometriosis affects the outcome of IVF–ET The effect of endometriosis on the fertility of women has been extensively examined in several references. Moreover, the rela - tionship between endometriosis and infertility is multifaceted, as it involves the disruption of the normal anatomical structures of the fallopian tubes and ovaries; a decrease in oocyte and embryo quality due to inflammation and oxidative stress; and changes in the receptivity of the endometrium [ 7, 8]. Effect of endometriosis on the quality of oocytes and embryos The quality of oocytes and embryos is an important factor that affects the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, the impact of endometriosis on the quality of oocytes and embryo development remains debated. Current research indicates that endometriosis decreases the quality of oocytes and the potential for embryo development via several pathological mechanisms, such as by increasing the production of reactive oxygen species and other free radicals, inducing immune-system imbalance, and impairing extracellular matrix remodeling [ 9]. In addition, cell biology research has shown that the general morphology, matu - ration ability, and organelles of oocytes from women with infer - tility due to endometriosis differ from those of oocytes from women with infertility caused by other factors. For example, Goud et  al. evaluated immature oocytes from infertile women with endometriosis and infertile women with other conditions. They observed that compared with the latter group, the former group showed a greater loss of cortical granules and a harder zona pellucida, which may interfere with fertilization, zona pel - lucida dissolution, embryo hatching, and implantation. Additionally, they tested the ability of immature oocytes to undergo in vitro maturation (IVM) to the metaphase II (MII) stage. They found that the number of germinal vesicles and oocytes reaching the MII stage was significantly lower in the endometriosis group than in the control group, and during IVM, © 2024 The a uthor(s). Published by i nforma UK limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group CONTACT yanbin Wang [email protected] r eproductive Medical c enter, d epartment of obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, 100044, china https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2024.2381504 This is an o pen a ccess article distributed under the terms of the c reative c ommons a ttribution license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distri - bution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the a ccepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY r eceived 3 March 2024 r evised 7 May 2024 a ccepted 12 July 2024 Published online 17 July 2024

endometriosis; pregnancy outcome; ar T; controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; surgery 2 H. ZeNG AND Y. wANG a higher proportion of abnormal spindle fibers were observed in oocytes from women with endometriosis than in oocytes from women using ART as a treatment for male factor infertility (66.7% vs 16%, p < 0.05) [ 10]. Moreover, Xu et  al. employed transmission electron microscopy to investigate 50 MII stage oocytes from women diagnosed with stage I–II endometriosis and tubal or male factor infertility. They found that compared with oocytes from the control group, those from the endometri - osis group had a higher proportion of abnormal mitochondria, such as small or swollen and blurry vesicles, and fewer mito - chondria. In addition, real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction detected lower copy numbers of mitochondrial DNA in the endometriosis group than in the control group [ 11]. However, although the above-mentioned results of basic experiments suggest that endometriosis affects the quality of oocytes and embryos, the results of clinical assisted reproductive treatments do not all support this. For example, an early study on oocyte donation found that women with and without endo - metriosis had the same implantation and pregnancy rates after they had received oocytes from healthy donors, with these rates decreasing after they had received oocytes from donors with endometriosis [ 12]. However, this study had a small sample size. In 2022, Kamath et  al. published a study reporting the live birth rates of 758 women with endometriosis who had undergone cycles of IVF with donated oocytes and those of 12,856 women with endometriosis who had undergone cycles of autologous IVF . After adjusting for confounding factors, they found that the live birth rates of the women who had received donated oocytes for fresh and frozen embryo transfers were not significantly different from those of the women who had undergone autologous IVF . Therefore, they concluded that oocyte quality may have a limited effect on IVF outcomes in women with endometriosis [ 13]. However, they did not report the severity of the women’s endo - metriosis or the number of oocytes that had been retrieved. It is also unclear whether the donors had been screened for endome - triosis or if some women with endometriosis had coexisting ade - nomyosis, both of which might have affected the results. A retrospective study published in the same year found that com - pared with infertile women without endometriosis, infertile women with endometriosis had a significantly reduced ovarian reserve and response to stimulation but did not have signifi - cantly worse oocyte quality or clinical outcomes, such as the clinical pregnancy rate and cumulative live birth rate [ 14]. However, a retrospective study by Wu et  al. published in 2021 suggested that endometriosis does have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of oocytes but not on overall pregnancy outcomes [ 15]. In addition, a retrospective analysis by Sanchez et  al. found that endometriosis does not affect the fertilization rate, quality of cleavage-stage embryos, number of blastocysts, and blastocyst rate, but does decrease ongoing pregnancy rates [16]. The differences between the results of the above-described studies demonstrate that further clinical research is needed to clarify how endometriosis affects oocyte and embryo quality. Effect of endometriosis on endometrial receptivity Embryo implantation requires both high-quality embryos and a well-prepared uterine lining [ 17]. Endometriosis can affect the receptivity of the uterine lining and is primarily associated with imbalances in steroid-hormone signaling (such as upregulation of estrogen function and resistance to progesterone), differential gene expression in the uterine lining, immune abnormalities, and abnormal expression of cell adhesion molecules [ 17–19]. Moreover, compared with women without endometriosis, those with endometriosis have lower levels of expression of uterine endometrial hormone receptors and, in the mid-secretory phase of the endometrium, higher levels of expression of estrogen receptor 1 [ 20]. Additionally, a comparative transcriptomic anal - ysis of eutopic and ectopic endometria between women with and without endometriosis revealed that women with endometriosis exhibit dysregulation of selected genes related to implantation, with decreased expression of homeobox A10 ( HOXA10) and HOXA11 in the luteal phase. This decreases the level of tran - scription of empty spiracles homeobox 2 and directly affects the proliferation and function of endometrial cells before and after implantation, resulting in abnormal implantation [ 6]. The impact of the immune system on the endometrial micro - environment and implantation window is currently unclear. Compared with women without endometriosis, those with endo - metriosis have significantly higher concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin [IL]-1α, IL-1β, and IL-6) in their endometrial microenvironment. In addition, unlike the former group, the latter group has activated class I macrophages (which secrete pro-inflammatory factors) as the main cell popu - lation in the endometrium throughout the menstrual cycle. This dominance of a pro-inflammatory phenotype may affect embryo implantation [7, 19]. However, the extent to which the above-described genetic and immunological factors affect the clinical outcomes of assisted reproduction in women with endometriosis remains debated. In one example, it was reported that endometriosis negatively affects endometrial receptivity, leading to a decrease in implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates [ 21]. Moreover, considering that hor - mone concentrations greater than normal physiological concen - trations during conventional stimulation may impair endometrial receptivity, regulated thawed embryo transfer is often employed to restore optimal receptivity in women with endometriosis and thus improve pregnancy rates. A large retrospective study found that in women with advanced endometriosis, implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates, and live birth rates were significantly higher after frozen embryo transfer than after fresh embryo transfer [ 22]. A retrospective matched-cohort study of 135 women with endometriosis who had undergone either fresh or frozen embryo transfer revealed that the cumulative clinical pregnancy rates and cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were significantly higher in the frozen embryo transfer group than in the fresh embryo transfer group [ 23]. In contrast, another retro - spective matched cohort study found that compared with women with tubal factor infertility, women with endometriosis had lower clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates ( p = 0.028 and p = 0.008, respectively) in frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles, leading to a decrease in cumulative live birth rates ( p = 0.001) [24]. Similarly, a retrospective analysis conducted by Peking Union Medical College Hospital found no significant differences in clinical pregnancy, implantation, live birth, miscarriage, or multiple pregnancy rates between women with endometriosis who had received high-quality embryo transfer and women with tubal factor infertility who had received the same treatment, sug - gesting that endometriosis does not alter endometrial receptivity [25]. Moreover, Pirtea et  al. posited that reduced endometrial receptivity may play a minimal or no role in ART failures [ 26]. Therefore, although the above-described studies have confirmed that there are differences between the endometrial characteristics of women with endometriosis and those of women without endometriosis, there remains a need for more clinical data to validate the impact of changes in endometrial receptivity on pregnancy outcomes. GYNecoloGic Al eNDocRiNoloGY 3 Effect of various controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols on the outcomes of IVF in women with endometriosis The inflammatory reaction caused by endometriosis within the pelvic cavity can disrupt the interaction between sperm and oocytes, reducing the chances of fertilization. However, this inflammatory reaction does not affect IVF , which means that IVF is an excellent option for women with endometriosis-related infertility [ 27]. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation is imple - mented in an IVF cycle to obtain a sufficient number of oocytes to increase the cultivation and quality of embryos and thus opti - mize the chance of pregnancy [ 28]. Commonly used ovulation hyperstimulation protocols include ultralong, long, short, antago - nist, and progesterone protocols. Which of these protocols is best for women with endometriosis-related infertility remains to be determined, as there is insufficient clinical research in this area. The results of recent research are summarized in Table 1. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocols Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH-a) significantly reduce secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) by blocking the production of the LH-β subunit, and maintain responsiveness to exogenous GnRH injections by increasing the production of the LH-α subunit. Furthermore, GnRH-a can prevent premature luteinization of follicles, alleviate inflammation, and improve the microenvironment of the pelvic cavity, thereby aiding the growth and development of follicles [ 29]. Consequently, GnRH-a are used to downregulate production of LH in women with endometriosis-related infertility and are typically employed in ultralong, long, or short ovulation hyperstimulation protocols. A 2021 meta-analysis by Shuai Liu et  al. [ 30] examined the effect of ultralong protocols versus long protocols on the out - comes of IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection – embryo trans - fer (IVF/ICSI-ET) in women with endometriosis-related infertility. This meta-analysis included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a total of 943 participants and found that com - pared with a long protocol, an ultralong protocol with a 3-month suppression period increased the clinical pregnancy rate and ongoing pregnancy rate (relative risk RR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.39– 2.61, p < 0.0001) in infertile women with endometriosis. However, there was no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate between the ultralong and long protocols for women with various sub - types of endometriosis, nor between a 6-month suppression period and a 3-month suppression period. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the ultralong and long protocols in terms of other reproductive outcomes (implantation rate, miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, live birth rate) and ovulation hyperstimulation outcomes (duration of ovarian stimulation, dosage of gonadotropins, num - ber of retrieved mature oocytes, fertilization rate, number of obtained embryos, and number of transferred embryos). However, this meta-analysis did not compare the protocols’ respective effects on the cumulative pregnancy rate and cumulative live birth rate. Another meta-analysis [ 31] that compared RCT studies and non-RCT studies found that in non-RCT studies, ultralong pro - tocols typically improved implantation rates, while in RCT stud - ies, the clinical pregnancy rate of women with stage III–IV endometriosis in ultralong protocol groups was significantly higher than that of such women in long protocol groups. However, the RCT studies found that the ultralong and long protocols resulted in no significant differences in the implanta - tion rate, fertilization rate, oocytes quantity, and clinical preg - nancy rate in women with stage I–II endometriosis. These findings differ from the findings of the meta-analysis by Shuai Liu et  al. [ 30], i.e. there was no difference in efficacy between ultralong and long protocols in women with different subtypes of endometriosis. This suggests that the use of an ultralong protocol in women with stage III–IV endometriosis is of unclear utility, perhaps as most published RCTs or non-RCT studies have been conducted in a small number of women. Therefore, more clinical research is needed to confirm the effectiveness of ultralong pro - tocols in women with different stages of endometriosis, and a systematic analysis of RCTs is needed to obtain reliable results. Nevertheless, it appears that compared with long protocols, ultralong protocols result in higher pregnancy rates. This meta-analysis [ 31] also compared the effectiveness of ultralong and short protocols in treating endometriosis-related IVF-ET and included non-RCTs. The results showed that the fer - tilization rate, duration of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), and number of oocytes retrieved were significantly higher in an ultralong protocol group than in a short protocol group. However, there were no significant differences between the ultralong and short protocol groups in terms of the implan - tation rate, clinical pregnancy rates in women with different sub - types of endometriosis, baseline follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) concentrations, and dosage of gonadotropins. Additionally, this meta-analysis did not compare the ultralong and short pro - tocols in terms of their effects on cumulative pregnancy rates and cumulative live birth rates. GnRH-a and GnRH-antagonist protocols GnRH antagonists competitively bind to pituitary GnRH recep - tors and thus immediately suppress the secretion of gonado - tropins and prevent early peaks in LH concentrations during ovarian stimulation [ 32]. In 2007, Pabuccu et  al. [ 33] reported a comparison of the effects of GnRH antagonists and GnRH-a in COH followed by ICSI cycles in women with mild-to-moderate endometriosis and ovarian endometrioma. The women were divided into groups comprising women with confirmed stage I– II endometriosis by laparoscopic examination, women with a his - tory of ovarian surgery and ovarian endometrioma, and women with unilateral or bilateral ovarian endometrioma without a his - tory of ovarian surgery. They were randomly assigned to receive either a GnRH-a long protocol or a GnRH-antagonist protocol, and the resulting embryos were transferred in fresh cycles. The

showed that the GnRH-a and GnRH-antagonist protocols led to similar pregnancy outcomes in women with stage I–II endometriosis, with no statistically significant differences in implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. In women with a his - tory of ovarian surgery for endometrioma, the GnRH-antagonist protocol resulted in a decrease in the number of MII stage oocytes, number of available embryos, and fertilization rate com - pared with the GnRH-a protocol. However, there was no statis - tically significant difference between the implantation rates and clinical pregnancy rates resulting from the two protocols. In women with no history of surgery for endometrioma, the use of a GnRH-antagonist protocol significantly reduced human chori - onic gonadotropin-day estradiol concentrations, the number of follicles larger than 17 mm, the total number of retrieved oocytes, and the number of MII stage oocytes compared with the use of a GnRH-a protocol. However, there was no statistically signifi - cant difference between the implantation and clinical pregnancy 4 H. ZeNG AND Y. wANG Table 1. e ffect of various controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols on the outcomes of iVF in women with endometriosis. a rticle Type Subgroup experimental group c ontrol group r etrieved oocytes Fertilization rate implantation rate clinical pregnancy rate live birth rate liu et  al. [30] Meta-analysis / Ultralong protocol l ong protocol Md = 0.70,95%ci: (-0.67– 2.07), p = 0.31 rr = 0.97,95%ci: [0.93, 1.01], p = 0.19 rr = 1.37,95%ci:(0.78– 2.38), p = 0.27 rr = 1.33,95%ci:(1.13– 1.56), p = 0.002 rr = 2.07,95%ci:[1.00,4.27], p = 0.05 c ao et  al. [31] Meta-analysis rc Ts Ultralong protocol l ong protocol Md=-0.2,95%ci:(−0.50–0.10), p > 0.05 rr = 0.97,95%ci:(0.93– 1.01), p > 0.05 rr = 1.37,95%ci:(0.78– 2.38), p > 0.05 rr = 1.44,95%ci:(1.21– 1.72), p 0.05 stages iii–iV rr = 2.04,95%ci:(1.37–3.04), p 0.05 rr = 1.02,95%ci:(0.85– 1.22), p > 0.05 rr = 1.18,95%ci:(0.78– 2.38), p > 0.05 rr = 1.05,95%ci:(0.93– 1.20), p > 0.05 stages i–iirr= 1.05,95%ci:(0.80–1.37), p > 0.05 stages iii–iVrr= 1.16,95%ci:(0.93–1.44), p > 0.05 / non-rc Ts Ultralong protocol Short protocol Md = 0.50,95%ci:(0.27–0.74), p < 0.05 rr = 1.19,95%ci:(1.01– 1.40), p 0.05 rr = 1.78,95%ci:(1.07– 2.97), p 0.05 stages iii–iV rr = 2.28,95%ci:(0.88–5.91), p > 0.05 / Pabuccu [ 33] rc T Stages of i–ii endometriosis GnrH antagonist l ong protocol / / 15.4% vs 18.2%, p = 0.90 30% vs 31.2%, p = 1.00 / History of ovarian surgery for endometrioma GnrH antagonist long protocol 4.3 ± 2.6 vs. 8.8 ± 4.6, p = 0.0001 / 15.9% vs 22.6%, p = 0.60 27.5% vs 39%, p = 0.38 / endometrioma and no history of ovarian surgery GnrH antagonist l ong protocol 6.7 ± 2.6 vs 8.2 ± 5.5, p = 0.002 / 12.5% vs 14.8%, p = 0.70 20.5% vs 24.2%, p = 0.90 / Kolanska et  al. [ 34] r etrospective analysis Fresh e T GnrH-a GnrH antagonist / / / 25% vs 13%, p = 0.02 18% vs 8%, p = 0.04 FeT GnrH-a GnrH antagonist / / / 5% vs 7%, p = 0.70 2% vs 7%, p = 0.09 Fresh e T+FeT GnrH-a GnrH antagonist / / / 29% vs 18%, p = 0.06 21% vs 14%, p = 0.2, drakopoulos et  al. [ 36] r etrospective cohort study endometriosis stages i–ii GnrH-a GnrH antagonist Median(iQr) 9 (6–13) vs 7 (5–12), p = 0.09 / / 50% vs 36%; p = 0.14 42.8% vs 26.7%, p = 0.07 endometriosis stages iii–iV GnrH-a GnrH antagonist Median(iQr) 8 (5–11) vs 7 (5–11), p = 0.33 / / 34.3% vs 32.5%; p = 0.70 27.3% vs 23.8%, p = 0.50 Guo et  al. [41] rc T / MPa + HMG Ultralong protocol Mean ± Sd:9.30 ± 5.73 vs 9.33 ± 5.36 p = 0.959 65.23% (910/1395) vs 65.35% (915/1400), p = 0.945 MPa + HMG-FeT vs ultralong-eT vs ultralong-FeT: 34.27% (98/286) vs 33.85% (65/192) vs 39.67% (48/121), p = 0.517 MPa + HMG-FeT vs ultralong-eT vs ultralong-FeT: 50.31% (79/157) vs 55 %(55/100) vs 48.53% (33/68), p = 0.67 MPa + HMG-FeT vs ultralong-eT vs ultralong-FeT:43.95 %(69/157) vs 49.00 %(49/100) vs39.71% (27/68), p = 0.48 (Continued) GYNecoloGic Al eNDocRiNoloGY 5 rates resulting from the two protocols. In summary, in women with stage I–II endometriosis, the outcomes of IVF using GnRH-a and GnRH-antagonist protocols are similar. However, in women with endometrioma, a GnRH-a protocol can yield more MII oocytes and viable embryos than a GnRH-antagonist proto - col, and thus, the cumulative pregnancy rate subsequent to a GnRH-a protocol may be higher than that subsequent to a GnRH-antagonist protocol. A recent retrospective analysis by Kolanska et  al. [ 34] com - pared the pregnancy outcomes of infertile women with endome - triosis who used a GnRH-a protocol and those whose used a GnRH-antagonist protocol for COH. The results showed that subsequent to fresh embryo transfer, the GnRH-a group had higher pregnancy rates and live birth rates than the GnRH antagonist group. However, subsequent to frozen embryo transfer using the same artificial cycle protocol, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates. This finding was similar to that of Chen et  al. [ 35] who retrospectively analyzed 639 infertile women with endometriosis, some of whom were treated with a GnRH-a protocol and others were treated with a GnRH-antagonist protocol for ovulation hyperstimulation. They found that the clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, and live birth rate were significantly lower in the GnRH-antagonist group than in the GnRH-a group (all p < 0.05) in fresh cycles, but that there was no significant between-group difference in pregnancy outcomes in subsequent frozen cycles with the same number of retrieved oocytes. Moreover, the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (42.71% vs 55.2%, p = 0.083) and cumulative live birth rate (36.46% vs 47.92%, p = 0.108) were similar between the GnRH antagonist and GnRH-a protocols. These results may be attributable to the fact that GnRH-a reduce the synthesis and release of nitric oxide in the endometrium, restore the normal expression of integrin in the endometrium, and improve the receptivity of the endome - trium. In contrast, GnRH antagonists alter the level of expression of HOXA10 protein in the endometrial stromal cells during ovarian stimulation treatment, thereby affecting the receptivity of the endometrium. In 2018, Drakopoulos et  al. [ 36] reported a retrospective cohort analysis that compared the effect of a long GnRH-a pro - tocol and an antagonist protocol on the live birth rate of women with endometriosis undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment with fresh or frozen embryo transfer. The results showed that in women with stage I and stage II endometriosis, the use of GnRH-a was asso - ciated an increase in live birth rates and the quantity of frozen embryos, but this increase was not statistically significant. In 2020, Zhao et  al. [ 37] reported a retrospective analysis of 342 women whose ovarian reserve function had declined after lapa - roscopic excision of endometriomas. The women were divided into three groups: an ultralong GnRH-a protocol group ( n = 113), an GnRH-antagonist protocol group ( n = 121), and a long GnRH-a protocol group ( n = 108), and no statistically significant between-group differences were found in pregnancy, live birth, and abortion rates. Progestin protocols Progestin protocols are used to suppress pelvic inflammation and thus alleviate pelvic pain associated with endometriosis, as pro - gestins create a low-estrogen-concentration environment that slows the growth of endometrial tissue outside the uterus. Progestins protocols are also effective for preventing early LH surges in women undergoing ovulation hyperstimulation [ 38, 39]. a rticle Type Subgroup experimental group c ontrol group r etrieved oocytes Fertilization rate implantation rate clinical pregnancy rate live birth rate Guo et  al. [40] rc T / / / Mean ± Sd:MPa + hMG vs dihydrogesterone + hMG vs progesterone + hMG :9.30 ± 5.7 vs 8.00 ± 4.5 vs 7.60 ± 5.2, p = 0.021 / MPa + hMG vs dihydrogesterone + hMG vs progesterone + hMG :33.8% vs 34.2% vs 38.9%, p > 0.05 MPa + hMG vs dihydrogesterone + hMG vs progesterone + hMG :49.6% vs 57.9% vs 56.2%, p > 0.05 / Zhao et  al. [37] r etrospective study / / / / / Ultralong protocol vs GnrH antagonist vs long protocol :25.16% vs 18.01% vs 17.16% p > 0.05 Ultralong protocol vs GnrH antagonist vs long protocol :45.24% vs 33.33% vs 28.99% p > 0.05 Ultralong protocol vs GnrH antagonist vs long protocol :32.14% vs 19.54% vs 24.64% p > 0.05 chen et  al. [35] r etrospective study Fresh e T GnrH antagonist GnrH-a Mean ± Sd:6.17 ± 4.49 vs 6.99 ± 4.86 p = 0.213 77.87% (461/592) vs 81.22% (545/671) p = 0.140 18.87% (20/106) vs 35.90% (56/156) p = 0.003 28.57% (18/63) vs 50.57% (44/87) p = 0.007 19.05%(12/63) vs 41.38%(36/87) p = 0.004 FeT GnrH antagonist GnrH-a Mean ± Sd:6.17 ± 4.49 vs 6.99 ± 4.86 p = 0.213 77.87% (461/592) vs 81.22% (545/671) p = 0.140 33.75% (27/80) vs 28.57% (14/49) p = 0.540 47.27% (26/55) vs 37.5% (12/32) p = 0.375 41.82%(23/55)vs 34.38% (11/32) p = 0.493 Note. MPa = medroxyprogesterone acetate; hMG = human menopausal gonadotropin; GnrH-a = gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist; Fe T = frozen–thawed embryo transfer; e T = embryo transfer. Md = mean difference; ci = confidence interval; rr = risk ratio; iQr = interquartile range; Sd = standard deviation. Table 1. c ontinued. 6 H. ZeNG AND Y. wANG However, there has been little research on whether progestin protocols can effectively improve oocyte quality, embryo quality, and pregnancy outcomes. It also remains unknown whether pro - gestin protocols can be used as an alternative protocol for women with severe endometriosis who wish to receive IVF/ICSI treat - ment. In 2020, Guo et  al. [ 40] reported the results of an RCT of three progestin protocols in 450 women with severe endometri - osis who were undergoing IVF/ICSI and had normal ovarian function. The women were divided into three groups: a medroxy - progesterone acetate + human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) group, a dydrogesterone + hMG group, and a progesterone + hMG group. The embryos obtained were thawed and transferred. No significant between-group differences were found in fertilization and pregnancy outcomes, which suggests that these three proges - tin protocols achieve the same pregnancy outcomes in women with late-stage endometriosis. However, this finding applies only to women with severe endometriosis and normal ovarian func - tion; further research is needed to determine if it can be gener - alized to women with decreased ovarian reserve. Additionally, the RCT did not compare the effectiveness of GnRH-a with that of GnRH antagonists. In 2022, Guo et  al. reported the results of an RCT [ 41] that investigated the effectiveness and safety of an MPA + hMG proto- col vs a GnRH-a ultralong protocol during IVF in women with severe endometriosis and normal ovarian reserve. They enrolled 300 women with late-stage endometriosis and who were under - going IVF and divided them into two groups: an MPA + HMG group and an ultralong protocol group. The MPA + HMG group underwent frozen embryo transfer, while the ultralong protocol group had fresh embryo transfer as the preferred option. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the numbers of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes, high-quality embryos, and viable embryos. However, there were a larger num - ber of follicles with a diameter greater than 10 mm or 14 mm in the ultralong protocol group than in the MPA + HMG group, and the fertilization rate with ICSI was higher in the MPA + HMG group than in the ultralong protocol group. Nevertheless, both groups had similar implantation rates in terms of pregnancy out - comes, as well as similar clinical pregnancy miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, cumulative pregnancy, and live birth rates. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of pregnancy com - plications, postpartum complications, and the birth defect rate. Therefore, in women with late-stage endometriosis undergoing IVF/ICSI, the administration of MPA during COH may result in a similar number of oocytes and pregnancy and live birth out - comes as the administration of an ultralong protocol. This sug - gests that the use of MPA in COH could be a new alternative to the standard protocol for women with endometriosis. Effect of surgery on the outcomes of IVF in women with endometriosis Surgical treatment is another way to treat endometriosis, the benefit of surgery on pain and quality of life is well known, but the benefit on fertility remains controversial [ 42]. A few studies show that surgery can improve the fertility rate in DIE patients for both spontaneous pregnancy and IVF , but there are studies have also confirmed that surgery can damage ovarian tissue, reduce ovarian reserve, and thus lower pregnancy rates [ 43, 44]. Current researches on the effect of surgery on endometriosis mostly relies on retrospective studies with low levels of evidence, with only a few ongoing RCT studies being identified [ 45]. Some studies suggest that surgery for endometriosis can be beneficial for reproductive outcomes. For example, a retrospective review by Ekine et  al. in 2020 [ 46] examined the fertility performance of women after combined hysterolaparoscopic surgical manage - ment of endometriosis have shown that the combined hystero - laparoscopy treatment significantly improves reproductive performance and is even more effective when combined with ART, the pregnancy rate improved considerably after the surgery, and they have also found that the different stages of endometri - osis do not affect fertility. Another retrospective comparative cohort study by Ferrier et  al. [ 47] compared first-line surgery with first-line assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in infertile women with deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) without col - orectal involvement. Their results support that in patients with DIE without colorectal involvement, the first-line surgery offer higher pregnancy rates, cumulative pregnancy rates, live birth rates, and cumulative live birth rates, with statistical differences compared to first-line ART. This difference was observed even in women aged >35, AMH <2, and with concomitant adenomyosis, they also found that in the surgery group, 17 cases of sponta - neous pregnancy could be observed, while no spontaneous preg - nancies were found in the ART group. Certainly, the opposite conclusion also exists. A retrospec - tive analysis by Maignien et  al. [ 48] examined the impact of previous surgery for endometriosis on ART cumulative live-birth rates in DIE patients, their study suggests that in a population of DIE patients, previous surgery for any type of endometriosis may be associated with less favorable ART out - comes, patients with a history of surgical treatment for endo - metriosis have significantly lower clinical pregnancy rates, live birth rates, and cumulative live birth rates, all of which are statistically significant. While the cumulative live birth rates are satisfactory in bowel endometriosis patients undergoing first-line ART, with a low risk of complications. Study by Frangež et  al. [ 49] showed that for women with endometriosis who need to undergo ART treatment, surgery may lead to impaired ovarian reserve, reducing fertility chances. However, pregnancy rates, implantation rates, fertilization rates, and live birth rates remain unaffected. In systematic reviews and meta-analyses with higher levels of evidence, most studies demonstrate that surgical treatment for endometriosis does not improve the outcomes of IVF . A meta-analysis by Hamdan et  al. in 2015 [ 50] showed that com - pared to patients with endometrioma who did not undergo sur - gical intervention, surgical treatment for endometrioma does not alter the results of IVF/ICSI treatment. Two groups of live birth rates, clinical pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, mean number of oocytes retrieved, and cancellation rates of cycles were similar, however, patients undergoing surgical treatment for endometrioma had lower AFC, required higher doses of FSH. Daniilidis et  al. [ 51] showed that there is no evidence to suggest the surgical removal of deep endometriosis prior to ART in infertile women with endometriosis to improve reproductive outcomes. Another meta-analysis by Bourdon et  al. in 2023 [ 52] compared ongoing pregnancy rates and live birth rates in patients who underwent endometriosis surgery before ART in comparison with patients who underwent first-line ART, the study showed that no statistically significant differences in live birth rates, ongoing pregnancy rates, and early pregnancy loss rate per cycle were found when comparing patients who under - went endometriosis surgery before IVF/ICSI and those who did not. After the exclusion of the studies with high risks of bias, the live birth rates per cycle was significantly reduced in the case of surgical treatment before IVF/ICSI. Therefore, surgical GYNecoloGic Al eNDocRiNoloGY 7 management of endometriosis should not be routinely per - formed before ART.

Endometriosis is a common cause of infertility, and ART is widely used to treat infertility in women with endometriosis [ 3]. According to current research, the use of GnRH-a and GnRH-antagonist protocols for IVF treatment of infertile women with endometriosis results in similar clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. However, multiple studies have shown that the preg - nancy outcomes of ultralong protocols are better than those of other protocols, although some data did not reach statistical sig - nificance. GnRH-a protocols have been used for the longest time in the clinic because of their ability to precisely downregulate, which may help to enhance the pelvic microenvironment and endometrial receptivity. After binding to the corresponding recep - tors, GnRH-a causes desensitization of the pituitary receptors, leading to the inhibition of endogenous LH surge [ 53]. However, prolonged suppression of the pituitary gland and low concentra - tions of endogenous FSH may lead to a decrease in the number and size of follicles. This could potentially increase the concentra - tions of gonadotropins required and decrease the number of retrieved oocytes, thereby increasing the difficulty of oocyte retrieval, especially from women with diminished ovarian reserve who have undergone ovarian surgery [ 54]. Compared with GnRH-a, GnRH antagonists have several advantages, such as a flexible timing of initiation, a lower average dosage, a shorter duration of treatment, a lower cost, and a lower risk of causing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. This improves patient com - pliance and has resulted in the increasing use of GnRH antago - nists in clinical practice [ 55, 56]. GnRH antagonists also can be combined with embryo cryopreservation protocols to achieve cumulative clinical pregnancy and cumulative live birth rates sim - ilar to those of ultralong protocols, thereby avoiding the longer pretreatment time required with the use of GnRH-a in ultralong protocols [35]. Therefore, in clinical practice, ovulation hyperstim - ulation protocols can be selected to suit the needs of the patient. Overall, there have been few studies on ovulation hyperstim - ulation protocols for infertility related to endometriosis, and most have been small-sample studies and retrospective analyses. Therefore, more RCT studies are needed to comprehensively compare the efficacies of various ovulation hyperstimulation protocols. As for surgery treatment, according to the current research, for patients with evident pain symptoms and complications such as hydronephrosis, pyelonephritis, intestinal obstruction, and pel - vic abscess, surgery is recommended firstly [ 57]. However, for asymptomatic patients, current data is insufficient to recommend surgical intervention as a first-line treatment. The choice of treat - ment between IVF and surgery as a first-line treatment remains questionable, more RCTs are needed to compare the differences between surgery and IVF . Therefore, individualized treatment should be considered for endometriosis patients before IVF/ICSI. Disclosure statement The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. Funding The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article. Data availability statement The data in this paper is available.

[ 1] Horne AW , Missmer SA. Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of endometriosis. BMJ. 2022;379:e070750. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022- 070750. [ 2] Macer ML, Taylor HS. Endometriosis and infertility: a review of the pathogenesis and treatment of endometriosis-associated infertility. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2012;39(4):535–549. doi: 10.1016/j. ogc.2012.10.002. [ 3] Filip L, Duică F , Prădatu A, et  al. Endometriosis associated infertil - ity: a critical review and analysis on etiopathogenesis and thera - peutic approaches. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020;56(9):460. doi: 10.3390/ medicina56090460 . [ 4] Muteshi CM, Ohuma EO, Child T, et  al. The effect of endometriosis on live birth rate and other reproductive outcomes in ART cycles: a cohort study. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;2018(4):hoy016. hoy016. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoy016. [ 5] Prefumo F , Rossi AC. Endometriosis, endometrioma, and ART results: current understanding and recommended practices. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:34–40. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.01.019. [ 6] Bonavina G, Taylor HS. Endometriosis-associated infertility: from pathophysiology to tailored treatment. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:1020827. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1020827. [ 7] Shan J, Li DJ, Wang XQ. Towards a better understanding of endometriosis-related infertility: a review on how endometriosis affects endometrial receptivity. Biomolecules. 2023;13(3):430. doi: 10.3390/ biom13030430. [ 8] Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Chiappa V , Ceccaroni M, et al. Epidemiology of infertility in women with endometriosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2024;92:102454. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2023.102454. [ 9] Simopoulou M, Rapani A, Grigoriadis S, et  al. Getting to know endometriosis-related infertility better: a review on how endometriosis affects oocyte quality and embryo development. Biomedicines. 2021;9(3):273. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9030273. [10] Goud PT, Goud AP , Joshi N, et  al. Dynamics of nitric oxide, altered follicular microenvironment, and oocyte quality in women with endo - metriosis. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):151–159.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertn- stert.2014.03.053. [11] Xu B, Guo N, Zhang X-M, et  al. Oocyte quality is decreased in wom - en with minimal or mild endometriosis. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):10779. doi: 10.1038/srep10779. [12] Simón C, Gutiérrez A, Vidal A, et  al. Outcome of patients with endo - metriosis in assisted reproduction: results from in-vitro fertilization and oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(4):725–729. doi: 10.1093/ oxfordjournals.humrep.a138578. [13] Kamath MS, et  al. Endometriosis and oocyte quality: an analysis of 13 614 donor oocyte recipient and autologous IVF cycles. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022(3):hoac025. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoac025. [14] Zeng C, Lu R, Li X, et  al. The presence of ovarian endometrioma ad - versely affect ovarian reserve and response to stimulation but not oo - cyte quality or IVF/ICSI outcomes: a retrospective cohort study. J Ovarian Res. 2022;15(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s13048-022-01042-9. [15] Wu Y , Y ang 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;12:739228. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.739228. [16] Sanchez AM, Pagliardini L, Cermisoni GC, et  al. Does endometriosis influence the embryo quality and/or development? Insights from a large retrospective matched cohort study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020;10(2):83. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10020083. [17] Boucher A, Brichant G, Gridelet V , et  al. Implantation failure in endo - metriosis patients: etiopathogenesis. J Clin Med. 2022;11(18):5366. doi: 10.3390/jcm11185366. [18] Marquardt RM, Kim TH, Shin J-H, et  al. Progesterone and estrogen signaling in the endometrium: what goes wrong in endometriosis? Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(15):3822. doi: 10.3390/ijms20153822. 8 H. ZeNG AND Y. wANG [19] Vallvé-Juanico J, Houshdaran S, Giudice LC. The endometrial immune environment of women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25(5):564–591. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmz018. [20] Moberg C, Bourlev V , Ilyasova N, et  al. Levels of oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and αB-crystallin in eutopic endometrium in re - lation to pregnancy in women with endometriosis. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2015;18(1):30–37. doi: 10.3109/14647273.2014.922705. [21] Radzinsky VY , Orazov MR, Ivanov II, et  al. Implantation failures in women with infertility associated endometriosis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35(sup1):27–30. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2019.1632089. [22] Wu J, Y ang X, Huang J, et  al. Fertility and neonatal outcomes of freeze-all vs. fresh embryo transfer in women with advanced endome - triosis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:770. doi: 10.3389/fen- do.2019.00770. [23] Bourdon M, Santulli P , Maignien C, et  al. The deferred embryo trans - fer strategy improves cumulative pregnancy rates in endometriosis-related infertility: a retrospective matched cohort study. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0194800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194800. [24] Zhou L, Wang L, Geng Q, et  al. Endometriosis is associated with a lowered cumulative live birth rate: a retrospective matched cohort study including 3071 in vitro fertilization cycles. J Reprod Immunol. 2022;151:103631. doi: 10.1016/j.jri.2022.103631. [25] Huang XD, Sun ZY , Yu Q. Impact of endometriosis on embryo quality and endometrial receptivity in women undergoing assisted reproduc - tive technology. Reprod Biol. 2023;23(2):100733. doi: 10.1016/j.rep- bio.2023.100733. [26] Pirtea P , de Ziegler D, Ayoubi JM. Endometrial receptivity in adeno - myosis and/or endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2023;119(5):741–745. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.03.004. [27] de Ziegler D, Pirtea P , Carbonnel M, et  al. Assisted reproduction in endometriosis. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;33(1):47– 59. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2018.10.001. [28] Duan X, Li Z, Li M, et  al. Analysis of controlled ovarian hyperstimu - lation protocols in women over 35 years old with poor ovarian re - sponse: a real-world study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):813. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-06112-4. [29] Beloosesky R, Kol S, Lightman A, et  al. Ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization with or without the "long" gonadotropin-releasing hor - mone agonist protocol: effect on cycle duration and outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(1):166–168. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(00)00574-4. [30] Liu S, Xie Y , Li F , et  al. Effectiveness of ultra-long protocol on in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer outcome in infertile women with endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(4):1232–1242. doi: 10.1111/jog.14630. [31] Cao X, Chang H-y, Xu J-y, et  al. The effectiveness of different down-regulating protocols on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in endometriosis: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12958-020-00571-6. [32] Huirne JA, Lambalk CB. Gonadotropin-releasing-hormone-receptor an - tagonists. Lancet. 2001;358(9295):1793–1803. doi: 10.1016/ s0140-6736(01)06797-6. [33] Pabuccu R, Onalan G, Kaya C. GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols for stage I-II endometriosis and endometrioma in in vitro fertilization/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(4):832– 839. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.046. [34] Kolanska K, Cohen J, Bendifallah S, et  al. Pregnancy outcomes after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in women with endometriosis-associated infertility: gnRH-agonist versus GnRH-antagonist. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017;46(9):681–686. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.09.007. [35] Chen Q, Du S, Lin Y , et  al. Controlled ovarian stimulation for endo - metriosis patients with ultra-long GnRH-agonist or GnRH-antagonist protocols: a retrospective study by propensity score matching. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2023;49(5):1366–1374. doi: 10.1111/jog.15570. [36] Drakopoulos P , Rosetti J, Pluchino N, et  al. Does the type of GnRH analogue used, affect live birth rates in women with endometriosis un - dergoing IVF/ICSI treatment, according to the rAFS stage? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018;34(10):884–889. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2018.1460346. [37] Zhao F , Lan Y , Chen T, et  al. Live birth rate comparison of three con - trolled ovarian stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in patients with diminished ovarian reserve after endometrio - ma cystectomy: a retrospective study. J Ovarian Res. 2020;13(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s13048-020-00622-x. [38] Li X, Zhang X, Cai J, et  al. Granulosa cells apoptosis and follicular fluid hormones: comparison of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocols. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2021;37(7):609– 613. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2020.1822802. [39] Zhang Y , Xu Y , Wang Y , et  al. Comparison of the predictive value of progesterone-related indicators for pregnancy outcomes of women un - dergoing the short-acting GnRH agonist long protocol: a retrospective study. J Ovarian Res. 2021;14(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s13048-021-00768-2. [40] Guo H, Li J, Shen X, et  al. Efficacy of different progestins in women with advanced endometriosis undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstim - ulation for in vitro fertilization-a single-center non-inferiority random - ized controlled trial. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:129. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00129. [41] Guo H, Du T, Gao H, et  al. The comparison of two different protocols ultra-long versus medroxyprogesterone acetate in women with ovarian endometriosis: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Reprod Health. 2022;19(1):198. doi: 10.1186/s12978-022-01500-z. [42] Alborzi S, Askary E, Keramati P , et  al. Assisted reproductive technique outcomes in patients with endometrioma undergoing sclerotherapy vs laparoscopic cystectomy: prospective cross-sectional study. Reprod Med Biol. 2021;20(3):313–320. doi: 10.1002/rmb2.12386. [43] Şükür YE, Özmen B, Y akıştıran B, et  al. Endometrioma surgery is as - sociated with increased risk of subsequent assisted reproductive tech - nology cycle cancellation: a retrospective cohort study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;41(2):259–262. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2020.1754366. [44] Bourdon M, Dahan Y , Maignien C, et  al. Influence of endometrioma size on ART outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45(6):1237–1246. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.08.097. [45] Raos M, Roman H, Seyer-Hansen M, et  al. EFFORT study: comparing impact of operation and assisted reproductive technologies on fertility for women with deep infiltrating endometriosis – study protocol for a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2022;12(4):e052877. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052877. [46] Ekine AA, Fülöp I, Tekse I, et  al. The surgical benefit of hysterolapa - roscopy in endometriosis-related infertility: a single centre retrospec - tive study with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):507. doi: 10.3390/jcm9020507. [47] Ferrier C, Hini JD, Gaillard T, et  al. First-line surgery vs first-line ART to manage infertility in women with deep endometriosis without bow - el involvement: a multi-centric propensity-score matching comparison. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;280:184–190. doi: 10.1016/j. ejogrb.2022.11.013. [48] Maignien C, Santulli P , Bourdon M, et  al. Deep infiltrating endometri - osis: a previous history of surgery for endometriosis may negatively affect assisted reproductive technology outcomes. Reprod Sci. 2020;27(2):545–554. doi: 10.1007/s43032-019-00052-1. [49] Ban Frangež H, Vrtacnik Bokal E, Štimpfel M, et  al. Reproductive out - comes after laparoscopic surgery in infertile women affected by ovarian endometriomas, with or without in vitro fertilisation: results from the SAFE (surgery and ART for endometriomas) trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;42(5):1293–1300. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2021.1959536. [50] Hamdan M, Dunselman G, Li TC, et  al. The impact of endometrioma on IVF/ICSI outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(6):809–825. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmv035. [51] Daniilidis A, Angioni S, Di Michele S, et  al. Deep endometriosis and infertility: what is the impact of surgery? J Clin Med. 2022;11(22):6727. doi: 10.3390/jcm11226727. [52] Bourdon M, Peigné M, Maignien C, et  al. Impact of endometriosis surgery on in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection out - comes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Sci. 2024;31(6):1431–1455. doi: 10.1007/s43032-023-01421-7. [53] Vannuccini S, Clemenza S, Rossi M, et  al. Hormonal treatments for endometriosis: the endocrine background. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2022;23(3):333–355. doi: 10.1007/s11154-021-09666-w. GYNecoloGic Al eNDocRiNoloGY 9 [54] Tian Y , Zhang L, Qi D, et  al. Efficacy of long-term pituitary down-regulation pretreatment prior to in vitro fertilization in infertile patients with endometriosis: a meta-analysis. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2023;52(3):102541. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2023.102541. [55] Buggio L, Dridi D, Barbara G, et  al. Novel pharmacological therapies for the treatment of endometriosis. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2022;15(9):1039–1052. doi: 10.1080/17512433.2022.2117155. [56] Venetis CA, Storr A, Chua SJ, et  al. What is the optimal GnRH antag - onist protocol for ovarian stimulation during ART treatment? A sys - tematic review and network meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2023;29(3):307–326. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmac040. [57] Ferrero S, Gazzo I, Crosa M, et  al. Impact of surgery for endometrio - sis on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2024;95:102496. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2024.102496.