The FOAM study : Is Hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

This is an investigator initiated trial, VU medical center Amsterdam is the sponsor, contact information: prof. CJM de Groot, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: + 31-204444444. This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 837001504. ZonMW gives financial support for the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provides the ExEm FOAM® kits. The funding bodies have no role in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; and in writing the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial

Funding Information: The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foamVR kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference −1.2%, 95% CI: −3.4% to 1.5%; P¼ 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18–41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies—management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results—the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference −1.2%; 95% CI: −3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost e136 and HSG e280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were e3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and e3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference e−119; 95% CI: e−125 to e−114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was e10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save e10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting—and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746

Retrospective evaluation of whole exome and genome mutation calls in 746 cancer samples

Funder: NCI U24CA211006Abstract: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that ~80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAF < 15%) and clonal heterogeneity contribute up to 68% of private WGS mutations and 71% of private WES mutations. We observe that ~30% of private WGS mutations trace to mutations identified by a single variant caller in WES consensus efforts. WGS captures both ~50% more variation in exonic regions and un-observed mutations in loci with variable GC-content. Together, our analysis highlights technological divergences between two reproducible somatic variant detection efforts

Changes in the Uterine Scar during the First Year after a Caesarean Section: A Prospective Longitudinal Study

Aim: To study changes in a ceasarean section (CS) scar during the first year after a CS using gel installation sonography (GIS). Methods: Proof-of-concept study, prospective cohort study. Twenty women who delivered by their first CS were evaluated by both transvaginal sonography and GIS 2 months and 1 year after CS. A niche was defined as an anechogenic space at the uterine caesarean scar with a depth >2 mm. The primary outcome was any change in the thickness of the residual myometrium (RMT) as evaluated by GIS. Results: Mean RMT changed in time from 11.9 mm at 2 months to 6.5 mm at 12 months after the CS (p < 0.001). Niche prevalence did not change. The adjacent myometrium (AM) reduced from 15 to 12.4 mm (p = 0.04). The ratio between RMT and AM with GIS decreased from 0.80 at 2 months to 0.54 at 12 months (p = 0.002). Conclusion: RMT thickness, the adjacent myometium and the ratio between the RMT and AM reduces from 2 to 12 months after a CS. The prevalence did not change. This needs to be taken into account when deciding on the timing of niche measurement and the interpretation of the RMT

Prognostic Factors for Niche Development in the Uterine Caesarean Section Scar

In a prospective study on 134 women after their first cesarean section prognostic factors for developing an uterine niche (scar defect) measured with sonohysterography were evaluated. With multivariable logistic regression anlaysis the following prognostic factors were identified; enlarged cervical dilatation and induction of labour. Contractions before labour reduced the risk for niche development. The predictive value of the model made with this prognostic factors was low. The development of a niche is a multifactorial proces and more studies are needed

Niches after cesarean section in a population seeking hysteroscopic sterilization

Objective To study the prevalence of hysteroscopically evaluated disruptions of the integrity of the uterine wall (‘niches’) in women with and without a previous cesarean section. Study design A prospective cohort study was performed in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Women seeking hysteroscopic sterilization were included. A hysteroscopic evaluation of the anterior wall of the uterus and cervix to identify the existence of disruptions (niches) was performed in a standard manner. Primary outcome was the presence of a uterine niche, defined as any visible defect, disruption, or concavity (gap) in the anterior wall. Secondary outcome was to develop a registration form of niche features for hysteroscopic evaluation. Results In total, 713 women were included, 603 without and 110 with a previous cesarean section. In women with a previous cesarean Section 83 (75%) niches were observed using hysteroscopy. Anterior wall disruptions were not observed in women without a cesarean section. The following niche features were identified and incorporated in a registration form: polyps, cysts, myometrium defect, fibrotic tissue, (abnormal) vascular pattern, lateral branches, mucus production inside the defect, and bleeding. Conclusion In a prospective cohort study among women undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization, a uterine niche could be detected by hysteroscopy in 75% of women with a previous cesarean section

Niches after cesarean section in a population seeking hysteroscopic sterilization

Objective To study the prevalence of hysteroscopically evaluated disruptions of the integrity of the uterine wall (‘niches’) in women with and without a previous cesarean section. Study design A prospective cohort study was performed in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Women seeking hysteroscopic sterilization were included. A hysteroscopic evaluation of the anterior wall of the uterus and cervix to identify the existence of disruptions (niches) was performed in a standard manner. Primary outcome was the presence of a uterine niche, defined as any visible defect, disruption, or concavity (gap) in the anterior wall. Secondary outcome was to develop a registration form of niche features for hysteroscopic evaluation. Results In total, 713 women were included, 603 without and 110 with a previous cesarean section. In women with a previous cesarean Section 83 (75%) niches were observed using hysteroscopy. Anterior wall disruptions were not observed in women without a cesarean section. The following niche features were identified and incorporated in a registration form: polyps, cysts, myometrium defect, fibrotic tissue, (abnormal) vascular pattern, lateral branches, mucus production inside the defect, and bleeding. Conclusion In a prospective cohort study among women undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization, a uterine niche could be detected by hysteroscopy in 75% of women with a previous cesarean section

Can Hysterosalpingo-Foam Sonography Replace Hysterosalpingography as First-Choice Tubal Patency Test? A Randomized Non-inferiority Trial

(Abstracted from Hum Reprod 2022;37:969-979) A main cause of female infertility is tubal pathology, with 11% to 30% of cases resulting from previous surgery, infections (such as sexually transmitted diseases), or endometriosis. Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is considered as the first choice for a tubal patency test during fertility workup, but the more patient-friendly hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography option has also been introduced