Background: To the best of our knowledge, no study has exhaustively evaluated the association between maternal morbidities and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the first wave of the pandemic in pregnant women. We investigated, in natural conceptions and assisted reproductive technique (ART) pregnancies, whether maternal morbidities were more frequent in pregnant women with COVID-19 diagnosis compared to pregnant women without COVID-19 diagnosis during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and findings: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in a national cohort of all hospitalizations for births ≥22 weeks of gestation in France from January to June 2020 using the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Pregnant women with COVID-19 were identified if they had been recorded in the database using the ICD-10 (International Classification of Disease) code for presence of a hospitalization for COVID-19. A total of 244,645 births were included, of which 874 (0.36%) in the COVID-19 group. Maternal morbidities and adverse obstetrical outcomes among those with or without COVID-19 were analyzed with a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted on patient characteristics. Among pregnant women, older age (31.1 (±5.9) years old versus 30.5 (±5.4) years old, respectively, p < 0.001), obesity (0.7% versus 0.3%, respectively, p < 0.001), multiple pregnancy (0.7% versus 0.4%, respectively, p < 0.001), and history of hypertension (0.9% versus 0.3%, respectively, p < 0.001) were more frequent with COVID-19 diagnosis. Active smoking (0.2% versus 0.4%, respectively, p < 0.001) and primiparity (0.3% versus 0.4%, respectively, p < 0.03) were less frequent with COVID-19 diagnosis. Frequency of ART conception was not different between those with and without COVID-19 diagnosis (p = 0.28). When compared to the non-COVID-19 group, women in the COVID-19 group had a higher frequency of admission to ICU (5.9% versus 0.1%, p < 0.001), mortality (0.2% versus 0.005%, p < 0.001), preeclampsia/eclampsia (4.8% versus 2.2%, p < 0.001), gestational hypertension (2.3% versus 1.3%, p < 0.03), postpartum hemorrhage (10.0% versus 5.7%, p < 0.001), preterm birth at <37 weeks of gestation (16.7% versus 7.1%, p < 0.001), <32 weeks of gestation (2.2% versus 0.8%, p < 0.001), <28 weeks of gestation (2.4% versus 0.8%, p < 0.001), induced preterm birth (5.4% versus 1.4%, p < 0.001), spontaneous preterm birth (11.3% versus 5.7%, p < 0.001), fetal distress (33.0% versus 26.0%, p < 0.001), and cesarean section (33.0% versus 20.2%, p < 0.001). Rates of pregnancy terminations ≥22 weeks of gestation, stillbirths, gestational diabetes, placenta praevia, and placenta abruption were not significantly different between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups. The number of venous thromboembolic events was too low to perform statistical analysis. A limitation of this study relies in the possibility that asymptomatic infected women were not systematically detected. Conclusions: We observed an increased frequency of pregnant women with maternal morbidities and diagnosis of COVID-19 compared to pregnant women without COVID-19. It appears essential to be aware of this, notably in populations at known risk of developing a more severe form of infection or obstetrical morbidities and in order for obstetrical units to better inform pregnant women and provide the best care. Although causality cannot be determined from these associations, these results may be in line with recent recommendations in favor of vaccination for pregnant women.

The management of low prognosis patients in ART represents a challenge for reproductive specialists. Different profiles and biologic characteristics have been identified among these patients. Indeed, while poor ovarian response can be seen in patients with impaired ovarian reserve, others, identified as hypo-responders, show unexpected poor or suboptimal response to controlled ovarian stimulation despite satisfying ovarian parameters. These hypo-responders are associated during FSH stimulation to slow initial responses in terms of estradiol levels and follicle growth, longer stimulations, and/or greater cumulative FSH doses. Hence, it appears that ovarian sensitivity to gonadotropins differs from a patient to another, and plays a determinant role on ovarian response to stimulation. Although precise mechanisms remain to be elucidated, increasing evidence suggests that ovarian sensitivity to FSH could be influenced by the presence of genetic mutations or single nucleotide polymorphisms of gonadotropins and their receptors. Evaluating ovarian sensitivity to FSH therefore appears as a key element to improve IVF success rates in these low prognosis patients and open new treatment perspectives. Since the traditional ovarian markers currently used are not sufficient to accurately reflect ovarian response to FSH, a tool to assess ovarian sensitivity to gonadotropin stimulation was required. The present review aims to present Follicular Output Rate (FORT) as an efficient quantitative and qualitative marker of ovarian responsiveness to gonadotropins, discuss the underlying mechanisms of impaired sensitivity to FSH and the possible FORT implications for Poseidon criteria.

Background: To compare RCB (Residual Cancer Burden) and Neo-Bioscore in terms of prognostic performance and see if adding pathological variables improve these scores. Methods: We analysed 750 female patients with invasive breast cancer (BC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) at Institut Curie between 2002 and 2012. Scores were compared in global population and by BC subtype using Akaike information criterion (AIC), C-Index (concordance index), calibration curves and after adding lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and pre-/post-NAC TILs levels. Results: RCB and Neo-Bioscore were significantly associated to disease-free and overall survival in global population and for triple-negative BC. RCB had the lowest AICs in every BC subtype, corresponding to a better prognostic performance. In global population, C-Index values were poor for RCB (0.66; CI [0.61–0.71]) and fair for Neo-Bioscore (0.70; CI [0.65–0.75]). Scores were well calibrated in global population, but RCB yielded better prognostic performances in each BC subtype. Concordance between the two scores was poor. Adding LVI and TILs improved the performance of both scores. Conclusions: Although RCB and Neo-Bioscore had similar prognostic performances, RCB showed better performance in BC subtypes, especially in luminal and TNBC. By generating fewer prognostic categories, RCB enables an easier use in everyday clinical practice.

Although an increasing number of young breast cancer (BC) patients have a pregnancy desire after BC, the time necessary to obtain a pregnancy after treatment and subsequent outcomes remain unknown. We aimed to determine the time to evolutive pregnancy in a cohort of BC survivors and subsequent obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. We analyzed BC patients treated at Institut Curie from 2005–2017, aged 18–43 years old (y.o.) at diagnosis having at least one subsequent pregnancy. 133 patients were included, representing 197 pregnancies. Mean age at BC diagnosis was 32.8 y.o. and at pregnancy beginning was 36.8 y.o. 71% pregnancies were planned, 18% unplanned and 86% spontaneous. 64% pregnancies resulted in live birth (n = 131). Median time from BC diagnosis to pregnancy beginning was 48 months and was significantly associated with endocrine therapy (p < 0.001). Median time to pregnancy was 4.3 months. Median time to evolutive pregnancy 5.6 months. In multivariate analysis, menstrual cycles before pregnancy remained significantly associated with time to pregnancy and endocrine therapy with time evolutive to pregnancy. None of the BC treatments (chemotherapy/endocrine therapy/trastuzumab) was significantly associated with obstetrical nor neonatal outcomes, that seemed comparable to global population. Our findings provide reassuring data for pregnancy counseling both in terms of delay and outcome.