Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Effective pain control is crucial to optimise the success of medical procedures. Immersive virtual reality (VR) technology could offer an effective non-invasive, non-pharmacological option to distract patients and reduce their experience of pain. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Immersive virtual reality (VR) technology in reducing patient’s pain perception during various medical procedures by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and SIGLE until December 2022 for all randomised clinical trials (RCT) evaluating any type of VR in patients undergoing any medical procedure. We conducted a random effect meta-analysis summarising standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated heterogeneity using I 2 and explored it using subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Results In total, we included 92 RCTs ( n  = 7133 participants). There was a significant reduction in pain scores with VR across all medical procedures ( n  = 83, SMD − 0.78, 95% CI − 1.00 to − 0.57, I 2  = 93%, p  = < 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed varied reduction in pain scores across trial designs [crossover ( n  = 13, SMD − 0.86, 95% CI − 1.23 to − 0.49, I 2  = 72%, p  = < 0.01) vs parallel RCTs ( n  = 70, SMD − 0.77, 95% CI − 1.01 to − 0.52, I 2  = 90%, p  = < 0.01)]; participant age groups [paediatric ( n  = 43, SMD − 0.91, 95% CI − 1.26 to − 0.56, I 2  = 87%, p  = < 0.01) vs adults ( n  = 40, SMD − 0.66, 95% CI − 0.94 to − 0.39, I 2  = 89%, p  = < 0.01)] or procedures [venepuncture ( n  = 32, SMD − 0.99, 95% CI − 1.52 to − 0.46, I 2  = 90%, p  = < 0.01) vs childbirth ( n  = 7, SMD − 0.99, 95% CI − 1.59 to − 0.38, I 2  = 88%, p  = < 0.01) vs minimally invasive medical procedures ( n  = 25, SMD − 0.51, 95% CI − 0.79 to − 0.23, I 2  = 85%, p  = < 0.01) vs dressing changes in burn patients ( n  = 19, SMD − 0.8, 95% CI − 1.16 to − 0.45, I 2  = 87%, p  = < 0.01)]. We explored heterogeneity using meta-regression which showed no significant impact of different covariates including crossover trials ( p  = 0.53), minimally invasive procedures ( p  = 0.37), and among paediatric participants ( p  = 0.27). Cumulative meta-analysis showed no change in overall effect estimates with the additional RCTs since 2018. Conclusions Immersive VR technology offers effective pain control across various medical procedures, albeit statistical heterogeneity. Further research is needed to inform the safe adoption of this technology across different medical disciplines.

Endometrial hyperplasia (EH) is a precusor lesion for endometrial cancer (EC), the commonest gynaecological malignancy in high-income countries. EH is a proliferation of glandular tissue, classified as either non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia (NEH) or, if the cytological features are abnormal, atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). The clinical significance of AEH is that patients face both a high risk of having occult EC and a high risk of progression to EC if untreated. Recommendations on the care of women with EH were introduced by United Kingdom-wide guidance (Green-top Guide No. 67, 2016). National adherence to guidance is unknown. We aimed to describe the care of patients with EH; to compare the patterns of care for those with EH with national guidance to identify opportunities for quality improvement; and to compare patterns of care prior to and following the introduction of national guidance to understand its impact. In this UK-wide patient-level clinical audit, we included 3,307 women who received a new histological diagnosis of EH through a gynaecology service between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2020. We described first-line management, management at 2 years, and surgical characteristics prior to and following national guidance for EH using proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and compared process measures between time periods using multilevel Poisson regression. Of the 3,307 patients, 1,570 had NEH and 1,511 had AEH between 2012 and 2019. An additional 85 patients had NEH and 141 had AEH during 2020. Prior to national guidance, 9% (95% CI [6%, 15%]) received no initial treatment for NEH compared with 3% (95% CI [1%, 5%]) post-guidance; 31% (95% CI [26%, 36%]) and 48% (95% CI [43% 53%]) received an intrauterine progestogen, respectively, in the same periods. The predominant management of women with AEH did not differ, with 68% (95% CI [61%, 74%]) and 67% (95 CI [63%, 71%]) receiving first-line hysterectomy, respectively. By 2 years, follow-up to histological regression without hysterectomy increased from 38% (95% CI [33%, 43%]) to 52% (95% CI [47%, 58%]) for those with NEH (rate ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI [1.18, 1.63] p < 0.001). We observed an increase in the use of total laparoscopic hysterectomy among those with AEH (RR 1.26, 95% CI [1.04, 1.52]). In the later period, 37% (95% CI [29%, 44%]) of women initially diagnosed with AEH who underwent a first-line hysterectomy, received an upgraded diagnosis of EC. Study limitations included retrospective data collection from routine clinical documentation and the inability to comprehensively understand the shared decision-making process where care differed from guidance. The care of patients with EH has changed in accordance with national guidance. More women received first-line medical management of NEH and were followed up to histological regression. The follow-up of those with AEH who do not undergo hysterectomy must be improved, given their very high risk of coexistent cancer and high risk of developing cancer.

Background Currently there are no established fertility preservation options for pre-pubertal boys facing cancer treatment. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment has been proposed to be chemoprotective against spermatogonial cell loss in an alkylating chemotherapy model of busulfan treated adult mice. Having previously shown that exposure to the alkylating-like chemotherapy cisplatin resulted in a reduction in germ cell numbers in immature human testicular tissues, we here investigate whether G-CSF would prevent cisplatin-induced germ cell loss in immature human and mouse (fetal and pre-pubertal) testicular tissues. Methods Organotypic in vitro culture systems were utilised to determine the effects of clinically-relevant concentrations of G-CSF in cisplatin-exposed immature testicular tissues. Human fetal ( n  = 14 fetuses) and mouse pre-pubertal ( n  = 4 litters) testicular tissue pieces were cultured and exposed to cisplatin or vehicle control for 24 hrs and analysed at 72 and 240 hrs post-exposure. Combined G-CSF and cisplatin exposure groups explored varying concentrations and duration of G-CSF supplementation to the culture medium (including groups receiving G-CSF before, during and after cisplatin exposure). In addition, effects of G-CSF supplementation alone were investigated. Survival of total germ cell and sub-populations were identified by expression of AP2γ and MAGE-A4 for human gonocytes and (pre)spermatogonia, respectively, and MVH and PLZF, for mouse germ cells and putative spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) respectively, were quantified. Results Exposure to cisplatin resulted in a reduced germ cell number in human fetal and mouse pre-pubertal testicular tissues at 240 hrs post-exposure. Germ cell number was not preserved by combined exposure with G-CSF using any of the exposure regimens (prior to, during or after cisplatin exposure). Continuous supplementation with G-CSF alone for 14 days did not change the germ cell composition in either human or mouse immature testicular tissues. Conclusions This study demonstrates that exposure to G-CSF does not prevent cisplatin-induced germ cell loss in immature human and mouse testicular tissues in an in vitro system.

Background Male factor infertility affect up to 50% of couples unable to conceive spontaneously. Several non-hormonal pharmacological treatments have been proposed to boost spermatogenesis and increase chances of conception in men with infertility. Still, no clear evidence exists on the most effective treatment strategy. Objective We aimed to compare the effectiveness of non-hormonal pharmacological treatment options for men with infertility using a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until October 2023 for randomised/quasi-randomised trials that evaluated any non-hormonal pharmacological treatment options for men with idiopathic semen abnormalities or those with hypogonadism. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses using a random effect model. We assessed risk of bias, heterogeneity, and network inconsistency. We calculated the mean rank and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each intervention the maximum likelihood to achieve each of reported outcomes. We reported primarily on sperm concentration and other important semen and biochemical outcomes using standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence-intervals(CI). Results We included 14 randomised trials evaluating four treatments (Clomiphene citrate, Tamoxifen, Aromatase inhibitors, anti-oxidants) and their combinations in 1342 men. The overall quality of included trials was low. Sperm concentration improved with clomiphene compared to anti-oxidants (SMD 2.15, 95%CI 0.78–3.52), aromatase inhibitor (SMD 2.93, 95%CI 1.23–4.62), tamoxifen (SMD − 1.96, 95%CI -3.57; -0.36) but not compared to placebo (SMD − 1.53, 95%CI -3.52- 0.47). Clomiphene had the highest likelihood to achieve the maximum change in sperm concentration (SUCRA 97.4). All treatments showed similar effect for sperm motility, semen volume, and normal sperm morphology. FSH levels showed significant improvement with clomiphene vs.anti-oxidant (SMD 1.48, 95%CI 0.44–2.51) but not compared to placebo. The evidence networks for LH and testosterone suffered from significant inconsistency ( p  = 0.01) with similar trend of improvement with clomiphene compared to other treatments but not compared to placebo. Conclusion There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of Clomiphene, tamoxifen, and aromatase inhibitors to optimise semen parameters in men with infertility. Future randomised trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of clomiphene in improving fertility outcomes in men. PROSPERO CRD42023430179.

Background Testicular germ cell cancer (TGCC) develops from pre-malignant germ neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) cells. GCNIS originates from fetal gonocytes (POU5F1 + /MAGE-A4 − ), which fail to differentiate to pre-spermatogonia (POU5F1 − /MAGE-A4 + ) and undergo malignant transformation. Gankyrin is an oncogene which has been shown to prevent POU5F1 degradation and specifically interact with MAGE-A4 in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells. We aimed to investigate the role of Gankyrin in progression from gonocyte to pre-invasive GCNIS and subsequent invasive TGCC. Methods We determined Gankyrin expression in human fetal testicular tissue (gestational weeks 9–20; n  = 38), human adult testicular tissue with active spermatogenesis ( n  = 9), human testicular tissue with germ cell maturation delay ( n  = 4), testicular tissue from patients with pre-invasive GCNIS ( n  = 6), and invasive TGCC including seminoma (n = 6) and teratoma ( n  = 7). Functional analysis was performed in-vitro by siRNA knock-down of Gankyrin in the NTera2 cells (derived from embryonal carcinoma). Results Germ cell expression of Gankyrin was restricted to a sub-population of prespermatogonia in human fetal testes. Nuclear Gankyrin was also expressed in GCNIS cells of childhood and adult pre-invasive TGCC patients, and in GCNIS from seminoma and non-seminoma patients. Cytoplasmic expression was observed in seminoma tumour cells and NTera2 cells. Gankyrin knock-down in NTera2 cells resulted in an increase in apoptosis mediated via the TP53 pathway, whilst POU5F1 expression was unaffected. Furthermore, Gankyrin knock-down in NTera2 cells increased cisplatin sensitivity with an increase in cell death (13%, p  < 0.05) following Gankyrin knock-down, when compared to cisplatin treatment alone, likely via BAX and FAS. Our results demonstrate that Gankyrin expression changes in germ cells during normal transition from gonocyte to prespermatogonia. In addition, changes in Gankyrin localisation are associated with progression of pre-invasive GCNIS to invasive TGCC. Furthermore, we found that Gankyrin is involved in the regulation of NTera2 cell survival and that a reduction in Gankyrin expression can modulate cisplatin sensitivity. Conclusions These results suggest that manipulation of Gankyrin expression may reduce the cisplatin dose required for the treatment of TGCC, with benefits in reducing dose-dependent side effects of chemotherapy. Further studies are required in order to assess the effects of modulating Gankyrin on GCNIS/TGCC using in vivo models.

IntroductionOlder patients undergoing cancer surgery are at increased risk of post-operative complications, prolonged hospital stay, and mortality. Identification of frailty can help predict patients at high risk of peri-operative complications and allow a collaborative, multidisciplinary team approach to their care. A survey was conducted to assess the confidence and knowledge of trainees in obstetrics and gynecology regarding identification and management of peri-operative issues encountered in frail gynecological oncology patients.MethodsA web-based survey was distributed via the Audit and Research in Gynaecological Oncology (ARGO) collaborative and UK Audit and Research Collaborative in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (UKARCOG) . The survey on the management of frail peri-operative patients was disseminated to doctors-in-training (trainees) working in obstetrics and gynecology in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. Specialty (ST1–7), subspecialty, and general practice trainees, non-training grade doctors, and foundation year doctors currently working in obstetrics and gynecology were eligible. Consultants were excluded. Study data were collected using REDCAP software hosted at the University of Manchester. Responses were collected over a 6-week period between January and February 2020.ResultsOf the 666 trainees who participated, 67% (425/666) reported inadequate training in peri-operative management of frail patients. Validated frailty assessment tools were used by only 9% (59/638) of trainees and less than 1% (4/613) were able to correctly identify all the diagnostic features of frailty. Common misconceptions included the use of chronological age and gender in frailty assessments. The majority of trainees (76.5%, 448/586) correctly answered a series of questions relating to mental capacity; however, only 6% (36/606) were able to correctly identify all three diagnostic features of delirium. A total of 87% (495/571) of trainees supported closer collaboration with geriatricians and a multidisciplinary approach.ConclusionsObstetrics and gynecology trainees reported inadequate training in the peri-operative care of frail gynecological oncology patients, and overwhelmingly favored input from geriatricians. Routine use of validated frailty assessment tools may aid diagnosis of frailty in the peri-operative setting. There is an unmet need for formal education in the management of frail surgical patients within the UK and Irish obstetrics and gynecology curriculum.

(1) Background: This study aims to establish the knowledge, attitudes and current behaviours towards female fertility preservation (FP) services amongst healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the UK. (2) Methods: An online survey was advertised publicly on the social media platform Instagram between 25 February 2021 and 11 March 2021. (3) Results: In total, 415 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the survey. The majority of HCPs discussed FP techniques either never 39.5% (n = 164), once a year 20.7% (n = 86) or once a month 17.8% (n = 74). The majority rated their knowledge of each type of FP method as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ and strongly disagreed 14.2% (n = 59) or disagreed 42.2% (n = 175) with the statement they ‘felt confident to counsel a patient on FP’. The majority either agreed 37.8% (n = 157) or strongly agreed 22.2% (n = 92) that it was their responsibility to discuss FP and 38.1% (n = 158) agreed or strongly agreed 19.5% (n = 81) they considered the desire for future fertility when planning treatment. The majority 87.2% (n = 362) had not experienced formal training on FP. (4) Conclusions: Discrepancies in knowledge remain regarding techniques of FP, referral pathways, awareness of facilities offering services and existing educational resources. Many HCPs recognise the importance of FP and their responsibility to initiate discussions. The knowledge that FP may not delay the treatment of cancer has also improved; however, training in FP is scarce.

STUDY QUESTION Twenty years after the inception of the first fertility preservation programme for pre-pubertal boys, what are the current international practices with regard to cryopreservation of immature testicular tissue? SUMMARY ANSWER Worldwide, testicular tissue has been cryopreserved from over 3000 boys under the age of 18 years for a variety of malignant and non-malignant indications; there is variability in practices related to eligibility, clinical assessment, storage, and funding. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY For male patients receiving gonadotoxic treatment prior to puberty, testicular tissue cryopreservation may provide a method of fertility preservation. While this technique remains experimental, an increasing number of centres worldwide are cryopreserving immature testicular tissue and are approaching clinical application of methods to use this stored tissue to restore fertility. As such, standards for quality assurance and clinical care in preserving immature testicular tissue should be established. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A detailed survey was sent to 17 centres within the recently established ORCHID-NET consortium, which offer testicular tissue cryopreservation to patients under the age of 18 years. The study encompassed 60 questions and remained open from 1 July to 1 November 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Of the 17 invited centres, 16 completed the survey, with representation from Europe, Australia, and the USA. Collectively, these centres have cryopreserved testicular tissue from patients under the age of 18 years. Data are presented using descriptive analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Since the establishment of the first formal fertility preservation programme for pre-pubertal males in 2002, these 16 centres have cryopreserved tissue from 3118 patients under the age of 18 years, with both malignant (60.4%) and non-malignant (39.6%) diagnoses. All centres perform unilateral biopsies, while 6/16 sometimes perform bilateral biopsies. When cryopreserving tissue, 9/16 centres preserve fragments sized ≤5 mm3 with the remainder preserving fragments sized 6–20 mm3. Dimethylsulphoxide is commonly used as a cryoprotectant, with medium supplements varying across centres. There are variations in funding source, storage duration, and follow-up practice. Research, with consent, is conducted on stored tissue in 13/16 centres. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION While this is a multi-national study, it will not encompass every centre worldwide that is cryopreserving testicular tissue from males under 18 years of age. As such, it is likely that the actual number of patients is even higher than we report. Whilst the study is likely to reflect global practice overall, it will not provide a complete picture of practices in every centre. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Given the research advances, it is reasonable to suggest that cryopreserved immature testicular tissue will in the future be used clinically to restore fertility. The growing number of patients undergoing this procedure necessitates collaboration between centres to better harmonize clinical and research protocols evaluating tissue function and clinical outcomes in these patients. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) K.D. is supported by a CRUK grant (C157/A25193). R.T.M. is supported by an UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Future Leaders Fellowship (MR/S017151/1). The MRC Centre for Reproductive Health at the University of Edinburgh is supported by MRC (MR/N022556/1). C.L.M. is funded by Kika86 and ZonMW TAS 116003002. A.M.M.v.P. is supported by ZonMW TAS 116003002. E.G. was supported by the Research Program of the Research Foundation—Flanders (G.0109.18N), Kom op tegen Kanker, the Strategic Research Program (VUB_SRP89), and the Scientific Fund Willy Gepts. J.-B.S. is supported by the Swedish Childhood Cancer Foundation (TJ2020-0026). The work of NORDFERTIL is supported by the Swedish Childhood Cancer Foundation (PR2019-0123; PR2022-0115), the Swedish Research Council (2018-03094; 2021-02107), and the Birgitta and Carl-Axel Rydbeck’s Research Grant for Paediatric Research (2020-00348; 2021-00073; 2022-00317; 2023-00353). C.E is supported by the Health Department of the Basque Government (Grants 2019111068 and 2022111067) and Inocente Inocente Foundation (FII22/001). M.P.R. is funded by a Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health Grant No: MR/N022556/1. A.F. and N.R. received support from a French national research grant PHRC No. 2008/071/HP obtained by the French Institute of Cancer and the French Healthcare Organization. K.E.O. is funded by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the US National Institutes of Health HD100197. V.B-L is supported by the French National Institute of Cancer (Grant Seq21-026). Y.J. is supported by the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation and a Medical Research Future Fund MRFAR000308. E.G., N.N., S.S., C.L.M., A.M.M.v.P., C.E., R.T.M., K.D., M.P.R. are members of COST Action CA20119 (ANDRONET) supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). The Danish Child Cancer Foundation is also thanked for financial support (C.Y.A.). The authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

Abstract STUDY QUESTION What are the primary outcomes and outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating potential treatments for male infertility in the last 10 years? SUMMARY ANSWER Outcome reporting across male infertility trials is heterogeneous with numerous definitions and measures used to define similar outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY No core outcome set for male infertility trials has been developed. Male infertility trials are unique in that they have potentially three participants, a man, a female partner and their offspring and this will likely lead to significant variation in outcome reporting in randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A systematic review of RCTs mapping outcomes and outcome measures evaluating potential treatments for men with infertility registered in the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 2010 and July 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Abstract screening and study selection was undertaken in duplicate using a review protocol that was developed prior to commencing the review. No risk of bias assessment was undertaken as this review aims to report on outcome reporting only. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE One hundred and seventy-five RCTs were identified, and given the large number of studies we limited our review to the 100 largest trials. Seventy-nine different treatments were reported across the 100 largest RCTs including vitamin and dietary supplements (18 trials), surgical treatments (18 trials) and sperm selection techniques (22 trials). When considering the largest 100 trials (range: 80–2772 participants), 36 primary and 89 secondary outcomes were reported. Forty-seven trials reported a primary outcome and 36 trials clearly defined their primary outcome. Pregnancy outcomes were inconsistently reported and included pregnancy rate (51 trials), pregnancy loss including miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth (9 trials) and live birth (13 trials). Trials consistently reporting the same outcome frequently used different definitions. For example, semen quality was reported by 75 trials and was defined in 7 different ways, including; the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 criteria (32 trials), WHO 1999 criteria (18 trials), WHO 1992 criteria (3 trials), WHO 1999 and 1992 criteria (1 trial) and the Kruger strict morphology criteria (1 trial). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We only evaluated the 100 largest trials published in the last 10 years and did not report outcomes on the remaining 75. An outcome was included as a primary outcome only if clearly stated in the manuscript and we did not contact authors to clarify this. As our review mapped outcomes and outcome measures, we did not undertake an integrity assessment of the trials included in our review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Most randomized trials evaluating treatments for male infertility report different outcomes. Only half of the RCTs reported pregnancy rate and even fewer reported live birth; furthermore, the definitions of these outcomes varies across trials. Developing, disseminating and implementing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for male infertility research could help to improve outcome selection, collection and reporting. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) A.P.—chairman of external scientific advisory committee of Cryos International Denmark ApS, member of the scientific advisory board for Cytoswim LDT and ExSeed Health. Guest lecture at the ‘Insights for Fertility Conference’, funded by MERK SERONO Limited. M.v.W.—holds a ZON-MW research grant. No external funding was obtained for this study.