Hypo-responsiveness to controlled ovarian stimulation is an undervalued topic in reproductive medicine. This phenomenon manifests as a low follicles output rate (FORT) with a discrepancy between the relatively low number of pre-ovulatory follicles which develop following ovarian stimulation as compared to the number of antral follicles available at the start of stimulation. The pathophysiology mechanisms explaining the ovarian resistance to gonadotropin stimulation are not fully understood, but the fact that both hypo-responders and normal responders share similar phenotypic characteristics suggests a genotype-based mechanism. Indeed, existing evidence supports the association between specific gonadotropin and their receptor polymorphisms and ovarian hypo-response. Apart from genotypic trait, environmental contaminants and oxidative stress might also be involved in the hypo-response pathogenesis. The ratio between the number of oocytes collected at the ovum pick up and the number of antral follicles at the beginning of OS [Follicle to oocyte index (FOI)] is proposed as a novel parameter to assess the hypo-response. Compared with traditional ovarian reserve markers, FOI might reflect most optimally the dynamic nature of follicular growth in response to exogenous gonadotropin. In this review, we contextualize the role of FOI as a parameter to identify this condition, discuss the underlying mechanisms potentially implicated in the pathogenesis of hypo-response, and appraise possible the treatment strategies to overcome hyper-responsiveness to gonadotropin stimulation.

Fractional microablative CO2 laser treatment is associated with a significant improvement of VVA symptoms in women affected by hormone-driven breast cancer. This procedure has the advantage of relieving iatrogenic/physiological VVA symptoms without resorting to contraindicated estrogen preparations, which have been the most effective therapy thus far.

This study shows that CO2 laser treatment is effective and safe in BC patients with iatrogenic menopause. However, the optimal number of cycles to administer and the need for retreatment remain to be defined. Prospective trials are needed to compare CO2 laser therapy with therapeutic alternatives.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of rescue fractional microablative CO2 laser treatment in women with severe symptoms and sexual dysfunction related to lichen sclerosus not responsive to long-term ultra-potent topical corticosteroid treatment. Methods: Consecutive eligible women with lichen sclerosus referred to our unit who received fractional microablative CO2 laser treatment after failure of ultra-potent topical corticosteroid treatment were enrolled in the study. The diagnosis was confirmed by histological assessment in all cases. Patients underwent two cycles of CO2 laser every 30 to 40 days. The severity of lichen sclerosus-related symptoms, sexual function, and procedure discomfort were evaluated with a visual analog scale in the same individual at baseline, after completion of each treatment cycle. Follow-up visits were scheduled during each treatment cycle and at least 1 month after completion of the treatment. The Friedman ANOVA test was used to evaluate differences in the visual analog scale scores of each symptom during treatment. Results: A total of 100 patients with vulvar lichen sclerosus were screened, 40 of whom fulfilled the eligibility criteria. We found a significant improvement in vulvar itching (χ2 [2] = 31,182, P < 0.001), vulvar dryness (χ2 [2] = 40,364, P < 0.001), superficial dyspareunia (χ2 [2] = 37,488, P < 0.001), and sensitivity during intercourse (χ2 [2] = 22,143, P < 0.001) after two CO2 laser cycles. Pain related to probe movement and laser application was low and did not change significantly consequent to treatment. No systemic or local adverse effects occurred during or after laser treatment. Conclusion: Fractional microablative CO2 laser treatment is safe and might represent an effective rescue procedure for patients suffering from lichen sclerosus who fail to respond to long-term ultra-potent topical corticosteroid treatment. These preliminary findings require further study with adequately powered randomized controlled trials.

IntroductionAlthough insulin resistance plays an important pathogenetic role in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), no correlation between ultrasound PCOS pattern and insulin resistance has yet been reported. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to assess whether the ovarian ultrasonographic parameter differed between PCOS women with insulin resistance and those with a hyperandrogenic profile.Materials and methodsWomen who fulfilled the Rotterdam criteria for PCOS were retrospectively studied. Anthropometric, biochemical, and clinical data were recorded. Women were divided into two groups based on specific transvaginal ultrasound parameters: subjects with more than half of the follicles measuring between 5 and 9 mm in diameter, an ultrasonographic determined stroma/total area (S/A) > 0.34 and a “necklace” sign of antral follicles (Group A); and subjects with more than half of the antral follicles measuring between 2 and 4 mm in diameter, an S/A ≤ 0.34; no “necklace” sign but ubiquitously distributed follicles determined by ultrasound (Group B). The association between these ultrasound patterns and the presence of insulin resistance was also evaluated.ResultsSeventy-eight patients were enrolled: 33 with ultrasound sound pattern A and 45 with pattern B. The latter pattern had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 78% in predicting PCOS women with insulin resistance. There were no differences in age, Ferriman–Gallwey score, and serum gonadotropin or androgen levels between the two groups. Body mass index, the waist-to-hip ratio, and homeostasis model assessment were significantly higher in group B than in group A (p < 0.05). Conversely, sex hormone binding globulin levels and ovarian volume were significantly higher in group A (p < 0.05). Insulin resistance was more frequent in group B than in group A (36/41, 87.8% versus 7/32, 21.8%; p < 0.05).ConclusionThese results suggest that insulin resistance could be associated with a specific ultrasound pattern in PCOS patients.