Laura Zalles

Jennifer Chae-Kim

Marja Brolinson

Seth Barishanksy

Kate Devine, Ali Borazjani, Samad Jahandideh, Jeanne O’Brien.

Awarded 1st Place Outstanding Paper.

Santoro N. A day in the life of a reproductive endocrinologist and infertilty subspecialist-integration or dissolution? Fertil Steril. 2023 Jul;120(1):44. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.03.016. Epub 2023 Mar 21. PMID: 36948445.

Santoro N. What’s up (or down) with lipids in menopause? Fertil Steril. 2023 Jun;119(6):1068. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.03.011. Epub 2023 Mar 17. PMID: 36934996.

Bortoletto P, Romanski PA, Petrozza JC, Pfeifer SM. Reproductive Surgery: Revisiting Its Origins and Role in the Modern Management of Fertility. Fertil Steril. 2023 Mar 2:S0015-0282(23)00164-4. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.02.031. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36870592.

Johnson J, Kim SY, Sam PK, Asokan R, Cari EL, Bales ES, Luu TH, Perez L, Kallen AN, Nel-Themaat L, Polotsky AJ, Post MD, Orlicky DJ, Jordan KR, Bitler BG. Expression and T cell regulatory action of the PD-1 immune checkpoint in the ovary and fallopian tube. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2023 Mar;89(3):e13649. doi: 10.1111/aji.13649. Epub 2022 Dec 26. PMID: 36394352; PMCID: PMC10559227.

Stovezky YR, Romanski PA, Bortoletto P, Spandorfer SD. Antimüllerian hormone is not associated with embryo ploidy in patients with and without infertility undergoing in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing. Fertil Steril. 2023 Mar;119(3):444-453. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.11.018. Epub 2022 Nov 21. PMID: 36423663.

Asami M, Lam BYH, Hoffmann M, Suzuki T, Lu X, Yoshida N, Ma MK, Rainbow K, Gužvić M, VerMilyea MD, Yeo GSH, Klein CA, Perry ACF. A program of successive gene expression in mouse one-cell embryos. Cell Rep. 2023 Feb 28;42(2):112023. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112023. Epub 2023 Jan 31. PMID: 36729835.

Poretsky L, Yeshua A, Cantor T, Avtanski D, Stojchevski R, Ziskovich K, Singer T. The effects of irisin and leptin on steroidogenic enzyme gene expression in human granulosa cells: In vitro studies. Metabol Open. 2023 Jan 13;17:100230. doi: 10.1016/j.metop.2023.100230. PMID: 36686605; PMCID: PMC9853360.

Adeleye AJ, Kawwass JF, Brauer A, Storment J, Patrizio P, Feinberg E. The mismatch in supply and demand: reproductive endocrinology and infertility workforce challenges and controversies. Fertil Steril. 2023 Jan 13:S0015-0282(23)00045-6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.01.007. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36642303.

New EP, Kodama S, Devine K, Jahandideh S, Imudia AN, Plosker SM. Live birth associated with peak serum estradiol levels in letrozole intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertil Steril. 2023 Jan 10:S0015-0282(23)00006-7. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.01.003. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36634734.

Chung EH, Mebane S, Harris BS, White E, Acharya KS. Oncofertility research pitfall? Recall bias in young adult cancer survivors. F S Rep. 2022 Dec 30;4(1):98-103. doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2022.12.007. PMID: 36959952; PMCID: PMC10028472.

Friedman J, Sheeder J, Lazorwitz A, Polotsky AJ. Herbal supplement use among reproductive-aged women in an academic infertility practice. F S Rep. 2022 Dec 17;4(1):104-111. doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2022.12.001. PMID: 36959959; PMCID: PMC10028423.

Santoro N. Reproductive endocrinology and infertility: the specialty with an ever changing alphabet soup. Fertil Steril. 2022 Dec;118(6):1035. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.10.012. Epub 2022 Nov 6. PMID: 36351855.

Dr. Nanette Santoro introduces Drs. Legro and DeCherney, and their Fertile Battle discussion topic: the application of genetics in the current and future Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility practice.

Morris JM, Romanski PA, Harris BS. Mind the Gap – Isthmoceles and Infertility. Fertil Steril. 2022 Dec 7:S0015-0282(22)02093-3. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.12.006. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36496081.

Prior studies have determined that a large isthmocele, an indentation of the myometrium at the site of incision from poor healing of the uterine tissue following Cesarean delivery, produces multiple unfavorable outcomes related to embryo implantation and development. This study enrolled women with unexplained infertility and prior Cesarean delivery resulting in a large isthmocele (residual overlying myometrial thickness of < 3 mm or residual myometrial thickness of <50% of adjacent myometrial tissue) and the primary outcome was endometrial thickness in the presence or absence of intrauterine fluid. Results from this study suggest that presence of an intrauterine fibroid had no significant effect on endometrial thickness (p=0.25), and that there exists a relationship between intrauterine fluid and a slightly longer duration of infertility (24 vs. 27 months; p=0.02).

Marsh P, Radif D, Rajpurkar P, Wang Z, Hariton E, Ribeiro S, Simbulan R, Kaing A, Lin W, Rajah A, Rabara F, Lungren M, Demirci U, Ng A, Rosen M. A proof of concept for a deep learning system that can aid embryologists in predicting blastocyst survival after thaw. Sci Rep. 2022 Dec 7;12(1):21119. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-25062-z. PMID: 36477633; PMCID: PMC9729222.

Doyle N, Jahandideh S, Hill MJ, Widra EA, Levy M, Devine K. Effect of Timing by Endometrial Receptivity Testing vs Standard Timing of Frozen Embryo Transfer on Live Birth in Patients Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2022 Dec 6;328(21):2117-2125. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.20438. PMID: 36472596; PMCID: PMC9856480.

Frozen embryo transfers have gained popularity in recent years, and in 2020, 75% of fertility treatment cycles involved embryo cryopreservation. This randomized clinical trial was initiated to determine if the use of endometrial receptivity assay (ERA) to time frozen euploid blastocyst transfer increases the probability of live birth. Study participants were planning to undergo IVF, PGT-A testing, and frozen embryo transfer. Participants were aged 30 to 40 years old at the time of egg retrieval and likely to produce at least 1 euploid blastocyst. 767 patients were randomized to one of two study arms: use of ERA to time frozen embryo transfer, or standard timing for embryo transfer. Results from the study indicate that live birth rate is not improved with the use of ERA testing, compared to standard timing of frozen embryo transfer (58.5% vs. 61.9%, respectively; difference, -3.4% [95% CI, -10.3% to 3.5%]; rate ratio [RR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.13]; P = 0.38). Similarly, clinical pregnancy rate was not improved with the use of ERA testing, compared to the control group (68.8% vs. 72.8%, respectively; difference, −4.0% [95% CI, −10.4% to 2.4%]; RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12]; P = .25).