Xiaolan Li

Dr. Xiaolan Li


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

1Year (2026-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
20 July 2026 in Biomedicines
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
XLXiaolan Li
Xiaolan Li
SHShujing He
Shujing He
YCYajie Chang
Yajie Chang
PCPan Chen
Pan Chen
YWYanfang Wang
Yanfang Wang
JLJingjie Li
Jingjie Li
Objectives: This study compared controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) outcomes and chromosomal euploidy results between the Utrogestan-based progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-Ant) protocols in preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M) cycles, and assessed the efficacy and safety of the Utrogestan-based PPOS protocol. Methods: In this retrospective single-center cohort study, 176 PGT-M cycles managed with the Utrogestan-based PPOS protocol were compared with 176 GnRH-Ant cycles using 1:1 direct caliper matching without replacement. Embryos were classified as euploid, mosaic, aneuploid, or no-call according to next-generation sequencing results. The primary outcomes were euploidy rate and chromosomal aberration patterns; secondary outcomes included COH outcomes and pregnancy outcomes. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. The total gonadotropin (Gn) dose was significantly lower in the Utrogestan-based PPOS group (2100 (1500–3000) vs. 2250 (1800–3000), p = 0.035). PGT analysis revealed comparable rates of euploidy, aneuploidy, mosaicism, and “No-call” between the Utrogestan-based PPOS (n = 586) and GnRH-Ant (n = 605) groups. The unadjusted difference in euploidy rate per MII oocyte between groups (18.98% vs. 16.36%, p = 0.045) was no longer statistically significant after multivariable adjustment (p = 0.194). In addition, patterns of aneuploidy and chromosomal involvement were similar between groups. The Utrogestan-based PPOS group showed numerically higher clinical pregnancy rate (70.67% vs. 63.22%) and live birth rate (62.67% vs. 51.72%), and a lower early abortion rate (5.66% vs. 12.73%), but none of these differences were statistically significant. Conclusions: Compared with the GnRH-Ant protocol, the Utrogestan-based PPOS protocol required a significantly lower total Gn dose while exhibiting comparable euploidy rate, analogous chromosomal abnormality spectrums, and pregnancy outcomes. The Utrogestan-based PPOS protocol may be a feasible alternative ovarian stimulation strategy in PGT-M cycles.