(Abstracted from Lancet 2018;392:2697–2704)
Infertility is common and affects about 10% to 15% of couples. In such couples, 1 in 500 women has infertility due to uterine causes, with uterine agenesis (Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser [MRKH] syndrome), or due to hysterectomy, malformation, or the sequelae of infection or surgery.
This study suggests that isoflavone 100-mg regime treatment may be a safe and effective alternative therapy for menopausal symptoms and may offer a benefit to the cardiovascular system.
Recently, we proposed an oocyte-growth differentiation factor-9 hypothesis that predicts alterations in the initial stages of folliculogenesis in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) ovaries. Here, we test this hypothesis by scoring the composition of follicles in normal and PCOS ovaries. Follicles were classified as primordial, transitional primary, classic primary, secondary, and Graafian. A total of 2274 follicles were scored. The total number of growing follicles was significantly greater in PCOS ovaries than normal, but the number of nongrowing primordial follicles did not differ. Consequently, the increase in growing follicles in PCOS cannot be explained by increased primordial follicle recruitment. Differential counts showed that the number of growing follicles at each stage of development was significantly greater: PCOS had 2.7-fold more primary, 1.8-fold more secondary, and 2-fold more Graafian follicles than normal. The greatest effect was on the classic primary follicles where the number was almost 5-fold greater in PCOS ovaries. The absence of apoptosis in normal and PCOS preantral follicles argues that the increase in growing follicles in PCOS cannot be explained by changes in atresia. We conclude, therefore, that primary follicle growth is abnormally slow in PCOS and the dynamics are reflected in a stockpiling of classic primary follicles.
OBJECTIVE:Differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms is essential for creating a system for patient referrals. Therefore, the contributions of the tumor markers CA125 and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as well as the risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk malignancy index (RMI) values were considered individually and in combination to evaluate their utility for establishing this type of patient referral system.METHODS:Patients who had been diagnosed with ovarian masses through imaging analyses (n = 128) were assessed for their expression of the tumor markers CA125 and HE4. The ROMA and RMI values were also determined. The sensitivity and specificity of each parameter were calculated using receiver operating characteristic curves according to the area under the curve (AUC) for each method.RESULTS:The sensitivities associated with the ability of CA125, HE4, ROMA, or RMI to distinguish between malignant versus benign ovarian masses were 70.4%, 79.6%, 74.1%, and 63%, respectively. Among carcinomas, the sensitivities of CA125, HE4, ROMA (pre- and post-menopausal), and RMI were 93.5%, 87.1%, 80%, 95.2%, and 87.1%, respectively. The most accurate numerical values were obtained with RMI, although the four parameters were shown to be statistically equivalent.CONCLUSION:There were no differences in accuracy between CA125, HE4, ROMA, and RMI for differentiating between types of ovarian masses. RMI had the lowest sensitivity but was the most numerically accurate method. HE4 demonstrated the best overall sensitivity for the evaluation of malignant ovarian tumors and the differential diagnosis of endometriosis. All of the parameters demonstrated increased sensitivity when tumors with low malignancy potential were considered low-risk, which may be used as an acceptable assessment method for referring patients to reference centers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.