Histological diagnostic criterion for chronic endometritis based on the clinical outcome.
Chronic endometritis
Diagnostic criterion
Infertility
Plasma cell
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 03 2021
04 03 2021
Historique:
received:
13
04
2020
accepted:
23
02
2021
entrez:
5
3
2021
pubmed:
6
3
2021
medline:
1
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The diagnostic criteria of chronic endometritis remain controversial in the treatment for infertile patients. A prospective observational study was conducted in a single university from June 2014 to September 2017. Patients who underwent single frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer with a hormone replacement cycle after histological examination for the presence of chronic endometritis were enrolled. Four criteria were used to define chronic endometritis according to the number of plasma cells in the same group of patients: 1 or more (≥ 1) plasma cells, 2 or more (≥ 2), 3 or more (≥ 3), or 5 or more (≥ 5) in 10 high-power fields. Pregnancy rates, live birth rates, and miscarriage rates of the non-chronic endometritis and the chronic endometritis groups defined with each criterion were calculated. A logistic regression analysis was performed for live births using eight explanatory variables (seven infertility factors and chronic endometritis). A receiver operating characteristic curve was drawn and the optimal cut-off value was calculated. A total of 69 patients were registered and 53 patients were finally analyzed after exclusion. When the diagnostic criterion was designated as the presence of ≥ 1 plasma cell in the endometrial stroma per 10 high-power fields, the pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and miscarriage rate were 63.0% vs. 30.8%, 51.9% vs. 7.7%, and 17.7% vs. 75% in the non-chronic and chronic endometritis groups, respectively. This criterion resulted in the highest pregnancy and live birth rates among the non-chronic endometritis and the smallest P values for the pregnancy rates, live birth rates, and miscarriage rates between the non-chronic and chronic endometritis groups. In the logistic regression analysis, chronic endometritis was an explanatory variable negatively affecting the objective variable of live birth only when chronic endometritis was diagnosed with ≥ 1 or ≥ 2 plasma cells per 10 high-power fields. The optimal cut-off value was obtained when one or more plasma cells were found in 10 high-power fields (sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 64.9%). Chronic endometritis should be diagnosed as the presence of ≥ 1 plasma cells in 10 high-power fields. According to this diagnostic criterion, chronic endometritis adversely affected the pregnancy rate and the live birth rate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The diagnostic criteria of chronic endometritis remain controversial in the treatment for infertile patients.
METHODS
A prospective observational study was conducted in a single university from June 2014 to September 2017. Patients who underwent single frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer with a hormone replacement cycle after histological examination for the presence of chronic endometritis were enrolled. Four criteria were used to define chronic endometritis according to the number of plasma cells in the same group of patients: 1 or more (≥ 1) plasma cells, 2 or more (≥ 2), 3 or more (≥ 3), or 5 or more (≥ 5) in 10 high-power fields. Pregnancy rates, live birth rates, and miscarriage rates of the non-chronic endometritis and the chronic endometritis groups defined with each criterion were calculated. A logistic regression analysis was performed for live births using eight explanatory variables (seven infertility factors and chronic endometritis). A receiver operating characteristic curve was drawn and the optimal cut-off value was calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 69 patients were registered and 53 patients were finally analyzed after exclusion. When the diagnostic criterion was designated as the presence of ≥ 1 plasma cell in the endometrial stroma per 10 high-power fields, the pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and miscarriage rate were 63.0% vs. 30.8%, 51.9% vs. 7.7%, and 17.7% vs. 75% in the non-chronic and chronic endometritis groups, respectively. This criterion resulted in the highest pregnancy and live birth rates among the non-chronic endometritis and the smallest P values for the pregnancy rates, live birth rates, and miscarriage rates between the non-chronic and chronic endometritis groups. In the logistic regression analysis, chronic endometritis was an explanatory variable negatively affecting the objective variable of live birth only when chronic endometritis was diagnosed with ≥ 1 or ≥ 2 plasma cells per 10 high-power fields. The optimal cut-off value was obtained when one or more plasma cells were found in 10 high-power fields (sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 64.9%).
CONCLUSIONS
Chronic endometritis should be diagnosed as the presence of ≥ 1 plasma cells in 10 high-power fields. According to this diagnostic criterion, chronic endometritis adversely affected the pregnancy rate and the live birth rate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33663485
doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01239-y
pii: 10.1186/s12905-021-01239-y
pmc: PMC7934457
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
94Subventions
Organisme : the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : 16K11083
Organisme : the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : 19K09752
Références
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2018 Jan;79(1):
pubmed: 29135053
Fertil Steril. 2016 Jan;105(1):106-10
pubmed: 26456229
Fertil Steril. 2007 Nov;88(5):1339-43
pubmed: 17559843
Fertil Steril. 2018 May;109(5):832-839
pubmed: 29778382
Fertil Steril. 2020 Jan;113(1):187-196.e1
pubmed: 31718829
Lancet. 1976 Aug 14;2(7981):366
pubmed: 60595
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2010 Jan;29(1):44-50
pubmed: 19952932
Fertil Steril. 2017 Sep;108(3):505-512.e2
pubmed: 28697910
BMC Womens Health. 2020 Jun 1;20(1):114
pubmed: 32487112
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2017 Nov;78(5):
pubmed: 28608596
Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Jan;36(1):78-83
pubmed: 29111313
Hum Reprod Update. 2016 Nov;22(6):793-794
pubmed: 27671830
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011 Nov;28(11):1135-40
pubmed: 21947758
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018 Jun 01;22(2):148-156
pubmed: 29488367
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 18;9(2):e88354
pubmed: 24558386
Prz Menopauzalny. 2020 Jul;19(2):90-100
pubmed: 32802019
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2011 Nov;66(5):410-5
pubmed: 21749546
Fertil Steril. 2011 Dec;96(6):1451-6
pubmed: 22019126
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2021 Mar;85(3):e13372
pubmed: 33155317
Hum Reprod. 2015 Feb;30(2):323-30
pubmed: 25385744
Hum Reprod Update. 2020 Apr 15;26(3):356-367
pubmed: 32103270
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2020 Nov 5;:e13369
pubmed: 33152123
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2015 May 01;19(2):44-52
pubmed: 27206087
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Jun;289(6):1363-9
pubmed: 24395012
Int J Fertil Steril. 2020 Jan;13(4):250-256
pubmed: 31710184
Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):437-41
pubmed: 19217098
Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104(4):927-931
pubmed: 26207958
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019 May;45(5):951-960
pubmed: 30843321
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2021 Mar;85(3):e13357
pubmed: 33020952
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2012 Sep;15(3):129-33
pubmed: 22783910
Hum Reprod. 1999 Nov;14(11):2762-9
pubmed: 10548619
Tohoku J Exp Med. 2020;250(1):49-60
pubmed: 31996497
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2009 May;61(5):322-9
pubmed: 19341383
Am J Reprod Immunol. 2020 Sep;84(3):e13255
pubmed: 32329146
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;38(4):371-82
pubmed: 21830244
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Jan;28(1):14-38
pubmed: 24269084
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017 Mar 4;15(1):16
pubmed: 28259137
Fertil Steril. 2018 Jul 1;110(1):103-112.e1
pubmed: 29908776
Fertil Steril. 2019 Dec;112(6):1103-1111
pubmed: 31843086
Hum Reprod Update. 2019 Mar 1;25(2):202-223
pubmed: 30624659
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005 Nov-Dec;12(6):514-8
pubmed: 16337579
Hum Reprod. 2018 Dec 1;33(12):2212-2221
pubmed: 30304457
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;198(4):357-66
pubmed: 18395031
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012 Nov;29(11):1227-39
pubmed: 22976427
Fertil Steril. 2014 Apr;101(4):1026-30
pubmed: 24462055
Mod Pathol. 2010 Aug;23(8):1136-46
pubmed: 20495539