Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been widely administered throughout the global community to minimize the morbidity and mortality caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although generally well-tolerated, these vaccines have generated some unwanted consequences, including thrombosis and menstrual irregularities. The effect of vaccination on female reproductive function has also been questioned. The aim of this review is to give readers a clear understanding of the effects of COVID-19 vaccines on thrombosis, reproductive function, and menstrual irregularities by systemically analyzing the available literature. The available evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines have a minimal impact on ovarian reserve. Furthermore, in vitro fertilization outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination remain unimpaired compared to those who did not receive the vaccines. Current evidence supports a certain degree of impact of COVID-19 vaccines on the menstrual cycle, with the most frequent alteration being menstrual irregularity, followed by menorrhagia. These changes are generally well-tolerated and transient, lasting less than 2 months. This review, by providing information with up-to-date references on this issue, may enhance readers’ understanding of the impact of COVID-19 vaccines on female reproductive function and the menstrual cycle.

Objective: In this retrospective study, we analyzed factors influencing the ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) in women with repeated implantation failure (RIF) undergoing embryo transfer with endometrial receptivity array (ERA). Methods: Eighty-three consecutive personalized embryo transfers (pETs) with ERA, from 54 women with RIF, were selected from June 2020 to April 2022. Vitrified blastocyst transfer was timed based on ERA results. Results: The ongoing PR per pET was 33.7%. Using ERA, the endometrium was identified as pre-receptive in 26 cycles, early receptive in 25 cycles, receptive in 31 cycles, and late receptive in one cycle. With cycles categorized into three receptivity phases (pre-receptive, early receptive, or receptive), no significant differences were found in the clinical PR (27.3%, 55.6%, and 40%, respectively) or ongoing PR (9.1%, 55.6%, and 40%, respectively) after a single blastocyst transfer. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the clinical PR or ongoing PR after the transfer of two or more blastocysts. Among women with ongoing pregnancy relative to those without, age at first pET was significantly lower (35 years vs. 39 years, p=0.001), while blastocyst score (23 vs. 18, p=0.012) and the proportion of blastocyst scores >18 (71.4% vs. 38.9%, p=0.005) were significantly higher. In multiple logistic regression analysis, the woman’s age (odds ratio [OR], 0.814; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.706 to 0.940; p=0.005) and blastocyst score >18 (OR, 3.052; 95% CI, 1.075 to 8.665; p=0.036) were identified as significant factors influencing ongoing pregnancy. Conclusion In pET with ERA, ongoing pregnancy was closely associated with woman’s age and blastocyst quality.

Objective: This prospective consecutive study investigated the variation in sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) in multiple semen samples from patients with cancer. Methods: Eighty-one patients with various cancers underwent multiple semen collections on 3 consecutive days for sperm cryopreservation prior to cancer treatment. A commercial Halosperm kit was used to measure SDF. Within- and between-subject coefficients of variation were estimated via random-effects analysis of variance to assess the consistency of semen parameters and SDF. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess the magnitude of the between-subject component of variance relative to the total variance. Results: The volume of semen in the day-2 and day-3 samples was significantly lower compared with the day-1 sample. Most parameters showed high ICC values, suggesting that within-subject fluctuations were small relative to the between-subject variability. The highest ICC values were identified for the SDF (ICC, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45–0.84) and semen volume (ICC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45–0.84). Conclusion Our findings showed that repeated ejaculates from patients with cancer had stable SDF levels.

The second-line chemotherapy using paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab for treating platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian, fallopian or primary peritoneal cancer frequently cause chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), which is significantly associated with deterioration of quality of life. Despite the potential of some agents to prevent and treat CIPN, and there is still a lack of evidence of the effect. Although selenium has been suggested as an antioxidant candidate to prevent CIPN, there are insufficient data regarding its effect due to its low dose by oral administration. Thus, we hypothesized intravenous administration of high-dose selenium (2,000 µg/day) at each cycle of the second-line chemotherapy would prevent and reduce CIPN in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian, fallopian or primary peritoneal cancer.MethodThis trial is an investigator-initiated, phase III, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of high-dose selenium (2,000 µg/day) for preventing CIPN in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian, fallopian or primary peritoneal cancer who receive paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab. A total of 68 patients will be randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups at a 1:1 ratio. As the primary endpoint, the incidence rate of CIPN three months after six cycles of chemotherapy will be compared between the two groups according to the combined criteria of neuropathy using the World Health Organization-CIPN criteria and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. As secondary endpoints, we will compare adverse events, patient-reported quality of life, and requirement of concomitant drugs for reducing CIPN between the two groups.

This article reports the live birth of a healthy newborn using vitrified-warmed oocytes from fertility preservation before ovarian surgery. The patient in our case underwent two cycles of controlled ovarian stimulation before laparoscopic bilateral ovarian cystectomy for endometriosis, and a total of 23 mature oocytes were vitrified. After surgery, her pathologic reports revealed a serous borderline tumor and endometrioma. Fifteen months after her second surgery of laparoscopic right salpingo-oophorectomy and left ovarian cystectomy owing to recurrence, she had been married by then, and three of the frozen oocytes were thawed for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. These oocytes were cryopreserved for 2.5 years. All three were fertilized, and two grade-A cleavage-stage embryos were transferred.A singleton pregnancy was achieved, resulting in the delivery of a healthy baby boy at 39.3 weeks of gestation. Oocyte cryopreservation is an effective method for fertility preservation prior to ovarian surgery when ovarian function decline is predictable.

Fertility preservation is a major concern in young patients diagnosed with breast cancer and planning to receive multimodality treatment, including gonadotoxic chemotherapy with or without age-related decline through long-term endocrine therapy. Most breast cancer patients undergo multimodality treatments; many short-term and long-term side effects arise during these therapies. One of the most detrimental side effects is reduced fertility due to gonadotoxic treatments with resultant psychosocial stress. Cryopreservation of oocytes, embryos, and ovarian tissue are currently available fertility preservation methods for these patients. As an adjunct to these methods, in vitro maturation or gonadotropinreleasing hormone agonist could also be considered. It is also essential to communicate well with patients in the decision-making process on fertility preservation. It is essential to refer patients diagnosed with breast cancer on time to fertility specialists for individualized treatment, which may lead to desirable outcomes. To do so, a multimodal team-based approach and in-depth discussion on the treatment of breast cancer and fertility preservation is crucial. This review aims to summarize infertility risk related to currently available breast cancer treatment, options for fertility preservation and its details, barriers to oncofertility counseling, and psychosocial issues.