No abstract

One in six couples worldwide will experience at least one infertility problem during their reproductive years. Between 5.6% and 35.1% of women will exhibit poor ovarian response. A variety of methods have been applied to improve ovarian response, including dehydroepiandrosterone. In the ovaries, dehydroepiandrosterone promotes follicular development and granulosa cell proliferation by increasing intraovarian androgen concentrations while simultaneously enhancing the level of follicular insulin-like growth factor-1, which promotes folliculogenesis. Dehydroepiandrosterone supplementation may improve in vitro fertilization outcomes and ovarian response in patients with poor ovarian response. However, a few questions still loom over the effectiveness of dehydroepiandrosterone.

Objective: To identify the main research interests of Brazilian patients in the field of infertility and assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments. Methods: This prospective multicenter cross-sectional study was carried out in Brazil. Patients attending five fertility centers from the Huntington Group between October and December 2018 were invited to join the study, which consisted of answering an anonymous survey online. Two hundred and twenty-seven patients signed the informed consent form and were emailed the survey link. The survey was designed based on the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership protocol. In the area of infertility, patients were probed on issues such as somatic and psychological effects of treatment, prevention, assisted reproductive technology (medications and procedures), success rates, risks, and emotional aspects. Results: The response rate (RR) was 47.58% (108 patients; 88 women-RR 51.46% and 20 men-RR 35.71%). Patient mean age was 36.5 years (SD 4.6). The top ten research priorities listed were 1) short-and long-term side effects of treatment; 2) how to cope with infertility; 3) risks associated with ART; 4) success rates in ART; 5) impact of diet on ART and fertility; 6) healthy habits; 7) alternative therapies; 8) impact of exercise on fertility and ART success; 9) oocyte quality and ovarian reserve; and 10) genetic or inherited causes of infertility. Conclusion: To better cater to the needs of patients and develop patient-centered care in the field of infertility and ART treatment, clinicians, healthcare providers, and the scientific community must identify patient concerns and priorities and make efforts to address them.

Keywords Breast neoplasmsCarcinoma, lobular Breast diseases DescritoresNeoplasias da mama Carcinima lobular Doenças mamárias RESUMO O Carcinoma Lobular Invasor (CLI) é uma patologia maligna e foi descrito em 1946 por Foote e Stewart. É o segundo tipo histológico de câncer de mama representando de 5-10% de todos os carcinomas. Caracteriza-se histopatologicamente como uma neoplasia epitelial lobular invasora com presença de células pequenas e uniformes. Trata-se de um relato de caso de uma paciente de 61 anos que, após 6 meses de acompanhamento, apresenta ao estudo mamográfico uma distorção arquitetural no Quadrante Superior Lateral (QSL) da mama direita (MD) em correspondên-cia com alteração textural associada à sombra acústica posterior evidenciada à ultrassonografia (USG), nódulo espiculado e mal definido no QSL da mama esquerda (ME), BI-Rads 4c. Foi realizada uma punção por agulha fina (PAAF) na ME com laudo de agrupamento de células epiteliais atípicas e pequenas, sendo a hipótese de carcinoma a mais provável. A paciente foi submetida à segmentectomia bilateral e linfonodo sentinela da ME. O Laudo Histopatológico demonstrou CLI com linfonodo da ME livre de neoplasia. As características histopatológicas e clínicas do CLI fazem que os aspectos imaginológicos das lesões sejam de aparência variável. Portanto, a correlação entre as diferentes modalidades de imagem ajudam a determinar a extensão e o número de lesões. ABSTRACT Invasive Lobular Carcinoma (CLI) is a malignant disease and it was described in 1946 by

STUDY QUESTION: Which are the main research interests among patients of assisted reproductive technologies (ART)?SUMMARY ANSWER: Patients identified as research priorities that deserve further investigation: success rates and risks of ART, side-effects of treatments, resources to cope with infertility, effectiveness of alternative therapies, lifestyle habits to protect fertility, oocyte quality and ovarian reserve, and causes of genetic or hereditary infertility.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The involvement of patients and caregivers in setting research agendas in medicine has gathered significant momentum in the last decade. Patients’ involvement in setting research priorities offers several benefits: improved patient knowledge and awareness of their condition; greater understanding of the medical professionals of the impact of the condition on patients’ quality of life; reduced costs associated with redundant research activities. This is may be also applicable to research in infertility and ART, where patients’ interests have never been explored before.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a cross-sectional study that consists of an anonymous online survey, which was sent up to three times to 2112 patients from 11 fertility centers in 5 countries between January-December 2018. The study design was based on the James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership model, which comprises the identification of patients groups, the exploration of the research agenda, the analysis of collected data and identification of priorities.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 2112 patients were contacted, and 945 surveys were answered (RR: 44.7%). Patients were asked to identify research questions relevant to them in the areas of infertility causes and prevention, fertility treatments (medication and ART), and the emotional aspects of infertility. Answers were categorized in topics and ranked by frequency. A long list of the top-30 research topics was extracted from the aggregate results, from which, a short list of the top-10 research topics was created. At the end, 10 research questions related to each of the 10 research topics were constructed, based on the answers given by patients.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Female (845, 89.4%) and male (100, 10.6%) patients were included. The mean age of patients was 37.8 (SD 1.74). Most of the patients did not have children at the time of the survey (523, 59%), while 51 (5.7%) were pregnant. Sixty (6.3%) patients did not start treatment, 579 (61.3%) were performing a treatment with their own gametes and 304 (32.2%) were treated through gamete donation. Patients were mainly interested in the effectiveness of ART -especially per clinical profile-, side effects of drugs, protection of fertility and prevention of infertility –especially through diet and exercise-, and psychological aspects of the infertility journey. The top-10 research questions (and weight) obtained were: 1) What are the side-effects of ART treatments? (41.6%); 2) What are the most effective methods to cope with infertility from the psychological point of view? (37.2%); 3) What effects could diet have on fertility? (25.9%); 4) What are ART success rates per clinical profile? (25.9%); 5) Are there habits and lifestyle factors that could prevent infertility? (20.0%); 6) What are the long-term risks associated to ART? (18.5%); 7) Are alternative therapies such as acupuncture, yoga, and meditation effective to treat/prevent infertility? (18.5%); 8) What is the impact of exercise on fertility? (15.4%); 9) How does oocytes quantity and quality affect fertility? (9.5%); 10) What are the genetic patterns or hereditary conditions causing/related to infertility? (9.5%).LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although all respondents had attended a fertility center, not all of them were diagnosed as infertile (i.e. single women) and had started treatment at the time of response, while a few were pregnant; their priorities for research might have been influenced by their infertility journey. Also, all participants attended private fertility centers: areas of interest may be different in public settings.WIDER IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FINDINGS: Researchers and clinicians should keep in mind that, in addition to improvement of treatments’ success rates and side-effects, patients greatly value research on causes, prevention and emotional aspects of infertility. As their views might differ from those of medical professionals, patients’ voices should be incorporated in setting infertility research priorities.