Follicular fluid cytokine and homocysteine profiles in poor ovarian responders with and without sonographic endometrioma: A comparative study

Abstract

Objective: To compare follicular fluid (FF) cytokine and homocysteine profiles in women with poor ovarian response (POR) undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF), with and without sonographic endometrioma, and to explore potential inflammatory alterations associated with endometrioma in this population. Materials and Methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted among 60 women diagnosed with POR who were undergoing IVF treatment. Participants were divided into two groups according to the presence of sonographic endometrioma: Group I included women without sonographic endometrioma (n=30) and Group II included women with sonographic endometrioma (n=30). FF samples were collected during oocyte retrieval and analyzed for inflammatory biomarkers. Concentrations of interleukin-1 beta (IL-1 beta), IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-17A, IL-18, IL-23, IL-33, interferon-alpha 2 (IFN-alpha 2), IFN-gamma, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and homocysteine were measured using LEGENDplex multiplex assays and flow cytometry. Cytokine and homocysteine levels were compared between groups. Results: Most inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1 beta, IL-6, IL-8, IFN-gamma, and MCP-1, showed lower levels in women with sonographic endometrioma compared with women without sonographic endometrioma. In contrast, TNF-alpha and IL-33 levels tended to be higher in the endometrioma group. Homocysteine levels were also lower in women with sonographic endometriomas. However, none of the observed differences reached statistical significance. Overall, the findings suggested distinct, albeit non-significant, inflammatory trends in the FF microenvironment of women with POR and sonographic endometrioma. Conclusion: Women with POR and sonographic endometrioma showed altered trends in FF inflammatory-marker profiles compared with women without sonographic endometrioma; however, these differences were not statistically significant. Since the absence of sonographic endometrioma does not exclude endometriosis, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Larger prospective studies that include IVF and assess embryological and reproductive outcomes are required to clarify the clinical significance of FF biomarkers in women with POR and endometrioma.