Does dual oocyte retrieval with continuous FSH administration increase the number of mature oocytes in low responders? An open-label randomized controlled trial.

Boudry L ，Mateizel I ，Wouters K ，Papaleo E ，Mackens S ，De Vos M ，Racca A ，Adriaenssens T ，Tournaye H ，Blockeel C ... -  《-》

The BISTIM study: a randomized controlled trial comparing dual ovarian stimulation (duostim) with two conventional ovarian stimulations in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF.

Is the total number of oocytes retrieved with dual ovarian stimulation in the same cycle (duostim) higher than with two consecutive antagonist cycles in poor responders? Based on the number of total and mature oocytes retrieved in women with poor ovarian response (POR), there is no benefit of duostim versus two consecutive antagonist cycles. Recent studies have shown the ability to obtain oocytes with equivalent quality from the follicular and the luteal phase, and a higher number of oocytes within one cycle when using duostim. If during follicular stimulation smaller follicles are sensitized and recruited, this may increase the number of follicles selected in the consecutive luteal phase stimulation, as shown in non-randomized controlled trials (RCT). This could be particularly relevant for women with POR. This is a multicentre, open-labelled RCT, performed in four IVF centres from September 2018 to March 2021. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved over the two cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate in women with POR that two ovarian stimulations within the same cycle (first in the follicular phase, followed by a second in the luteal phase) led to the retrieval of 1.5 (2) more oocytes than the cumulative number of oocytes from two consecutive conventional stimulations with an antagonist protocol. In a superiority hypothesis, with power 0.8 alpha-risk 0.05 and a 35% cancellation rate, 44 patients were needed in each group. Patients were randomized by computer allocation. Eighty-eight women with POR, defined using adjusted Bologna criteria (antral follicle count ≤5 and/or anti-Müllerian hormone ≤1.2 ng/ml) were randomized, 44 in the duostim group and 44 in the conventional (control) group. HMG 300 IU/day with flexible antagonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation, except in luteal phase stimulation of the duostim group. In the duostim group, oocytes were pooled and inseminated after the second retrieval, with a freeze-all protocol. Fresh transfers were performed in the control group, frozen embryo transfers were performed in both control and duostim groups in natural cycles. Data underwent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. There was no difference between the groups regarding demographics, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters. The mean (SD) cumulative number of oocytes retrieved from two ovarian stimulations was not statistically different between the control and duostim groups, respectively, 4.6 (3.4) and 5.0 (3.4) [mean difference (MD) [95% CI] +0.4 [-1.1; 1.9], P = 0.56]. The mean cumulative numbersof mature oocytes and total embryos obtained were not significantly different between groups. The total number of embryos transferred by patient was significantly higher in the control group 1.5 (1.1) versus the duostim group 0.9 (1.1) (P = 0.03). After two cumulative cycles, 78% of women in the control group and 53.8% in the duostim group had at least one embryo transfer (P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the mean number of total and mature oocytes retrieved per cycle comparing Cycle 1 versus Cycle 2, both in control and duostim groups. The time to the second oocyte retrieval was significantly longer in controls, at 2.8 (1.3) months compared to 0.3 (0.5) months in the duostim group (P < 0.001). The implantation rate was similar between groups. The cumulative live birth rate was not statistically different, comparing controls versus the duostim group, 34.1% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = 0.08). The time to transfer resulting in an ongoing pregnancy did not differ in controls 1.7 (1.5) months versus the duostim group, 3.0 (1.6) (P = 0.08). No serious adverse events were reported. The RCT was impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the halt in IVF activities for 10 weeks. Delays were recalculated to exclude this period; however, one woman in the duostim group could not have the luteal stimulation. We also faced unexpected good ovarian responses and pregnancies after the first oocyte retrieval in both groups, with a higher incidence in the control group. However, our hypothesis was based on 1.5 more oocytes in the luteal than the follicular phase in the duostim group, and the number of patients to treat was reached in this group (N = 28). This study was only powered for cumulative number of oocytes retrieved. This is the first RCT comparing the outcome of two consecutive cycles, either in the same menstrual cycle or in two consecutive menstrual cycles. In routine practice, the benefit of duostim in patients with POR regarding fresh embryo transfer is not confirmed in this RCT: first, because this study demonstrates no improvement in the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase after follicular phase stimulation, in contrast to previous non-randomized studies, and second, because the freeze-all strategy avoids a pregnancy with fresh embryo transfer after the first cycle. However, duostim appears to be safe for women. In duostim, the two consecutive processes of freezing/thawing are mandatory and increase the risk of wastage of oocytes/embryos. The only benefit of duostim is to shorten the time to a second retrieval by 2 weeks if accumulation of oocytes/embryos is needed. This is an investigator-initiated study supported by a research Grant from IBSA Pharma. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. I.A. declares honoraria from GISKIT and support for travel and meetings from GISKIT. G.P.-B. declares Consulting fees from Ferring and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Ferring; payment for expert testimony from Ferring, Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter; and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. N.C. declares grants from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. E.D. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, and General Electrics. C.P.-V. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex. M.Pi. declares support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Gedeon Richetr, and Merck KGaA. M.Pa. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, Theramex, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and MSD (Organon France). H.B.-G. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, MSD (Organon France), Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. S.G. and M.B. have nothing to declare. Registration number EudraCT: 2017-003223-30. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803228. EudraCT: 28 July 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: 14 January 2019. 3 September 2018.

Massin N ，Abdennebi I ，Porcu-Buisson G ，Chevalier N ，Descat E ，Piétin-Vialle C ，Goro S ，Brussieux M ，Pinto M ，Pasquier M ，Bry-Gauillard H ... -  《-》

Pretreatment with luteal estradiol for programming antagonist cycles compared to no pretreatment in advanced age women stimulated with corifollitropin alfa: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

Does luteal estradiol (E2) pretreatment give a similar number of retrieved oocytes compared to no-pretreatment in advanced-aged women stimulated with corifollitropin alfa in an antagonist protocol? Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 gave similar number of retrieved oocytes compared to no-pretreatment in women aged 38-42 years. Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 pretreatment is a valuable tool to organize the IVF procedure better and is safe without any known impact on cycle outcome. However, variable effects were observed on the number of retrieved oocytes depending on the treated population. In advanced-age women, recruitable follicles tend to decrease in number and to be more heterogeneous in size but it remains unclear if estradiol pretreatment could change the oocyte yield through its negative feed-back effect on FSH intercycle rise. This non-blinded randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted between 2016 and 2022 with centrally computerized randomization and concealed allocation. Participants were 324 women aged 38-42 years undergoing IVF treatment. The primary endpoint was the total number of retrieved oocytes. Statistical analysis was performed with one-sided alpha risk of 2.5% and 95% confidence interval (CI) with the non-inferiority of E2 pretreatment proved by a P value <0.025 and a lower delta margin of the CI within two oocytes compared to no pretreatment. Secondary endpoints were duration and total dosage of recombinant FSH, cancellation rate, percentage of oocyte pick-up (OPU) on working days, total number of metaphase II oocytes and obtained embryos, fresh transfer live birth rate, and cumulative live birth rate. This multicentric study enrolled women with regular cycles, weight >50 kg and body mass index <32, IVF cycle 1-2. According to randomization, micronized estradiol 2 mg twice a day was started on days 20-24 and continued until Wednesday beyond the onset of menses followed by administration of corifollitropin alfa on Friday, i.e. stimulation (S)1 or from D1-3 of a natural cycle in unpretreated patients. GnRH antagonist was started at S6 and additional FSH at S8. Basal characteristics were similar in patients randomized in E2 pretreated (n = 164) and non-pretreated (n = 160) groups (intended to treat (ITT) population). A total of 291 patients started treatment (per protocol (PP) population), 147 in E2 pretreated group with a mean number [SD] of pre-treatment days 9.8 [2.6] and 144 in the non-pretreated group. Despite advanced age, oocyte yields ranged from 0 to 29 in both groups with a median number of 6 retrieved oocytes in accordance with a mean anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level above 1.2 ng/ml. We demonstrated the non-inferiority of E2 pretreatment with a mean difference of -0.1 oocyte 95% CI [-1.5; 1.3] P = 0.004 in the PP population and a mean difference of -0.44 oocyte [-1.84; 0.97] P = 0.014 in the ITT population. Oocyte retrieval was more often on working days in E2 pretreated patients (91.9 versus 74.2%, P < 0.001). In patients reaching OPU, the duration of stimulation was statistically significantly longer (11.7 [1.7] versus 10.8 [1.8] days, P < 0.001) and the extra FSH dosage in addition to corifollitropin alfa was statistically significantly higher (1040 [548] versus 778 [504] IU, P < 0.001) in E2 pretreated than non-pretreated patients. We did not observe any significant differences in the number of retrieved oocytes (8.4 [6.1] versus 9.1 [6.0]), in the number of Metaphase 2 oocytes (7 [5.5] versus 7.3 [5.2]) nor in the number of obtained embryos (5 [4.6] versus 5.2 [4.2]) in E2 pretreated patients compared to non-pretreated patients. The live birth rate after fresh transfer (16.2% versus 18.5%, respectively), and the cumulative live birth rate per patient (17.7% versus 22.9%, respectively) were similar in both groups. Among the PP population, 31.6% of patients fulfilled the criteria for group 4 of Poseïdon classification (AMH <1.2 ng/ml and/or antral follicle count <5). In this sub-group of patients, we observed in contrast a statistically higher number of retrieved oocytes in E2 pretreated patients compared to non-pretreated (5.1 [3.8] versus 3.4 [2.7], respectively, the mean difference of +1.7 oocyte [0.2; 3.2] P = 0.022) but without significant difference in the cumulative live birth rate per patient (15.7% versus 7.3%, respectively). Our stimulated women older than 38 years obtained a wide range of collected oocytes suggesting very different stages of ovarian aging in both groups. E2 pretreatment is more likely to increase oocyte yield at the stage of ovarian aging characterized by asynchrony of a reduced follicular cohort. Another limitation is the sample size in sub-group analysis of patients with AMH <1.2 ng/ml. Finally, the absence of placebo for pretreatment could also introduce possible bias. Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 pretreatment seems a useful tool in advanced age women to better schedule oocyte retrievals on working days. However, the potential benefit of the number of collected oocytes remains to be demonstrated in a larger population displaying the characteristics of decreased ovarian reserve encountered in Poseïdon classification. Research grant from (MSD) Organon, France. I.C., S.D., B.B., X.M., S.G., and C.J. have no conflict of interest with this study. I.C.D. declares fees as speaker from Merck KGaA, Gedeon Richter, MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, Theramex, and IBSA and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. I.C.D. also declares consulting fees, and travel and meeting support from Merck KGaA. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon, France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. N.C. declares grants from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon, France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. A.G.L. declares fees as speaker from Merck KGaA, Gedeon Richter, MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, Theramex, and IBSA. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02884245. 29 August 2016. 4 November 2016.

Cédrin-Durnerin I ，Carton I ，Massin N ，Chevalier N ，Dubourdieu S ，Bstandig B ，Michelson X ，Goro S ，Jung C ，Guivarc'h-Lévêque A ... -  《-》

Impact of letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation on oocyte yield, embryo development, and live birth rate in women with normal ovarian reserve: secondary outcomes from the RIOT trial.

Does letrozole (LZ) co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins for in IVF impact follicle recruitment, oocyte number and quality, embryo quality, or live birth rate (LBR)? No impact of LZ was found in follicle recruitment, number of oocytes, quality of embryos, or LBR. Multi-follicle stimulation for IVF produces supra-physiological oestradiol levels. LZ is an aromatase inhibitor that lowers serum oestradiol thus reducing negative feedback and increasing the endogenous gonadotropins in both the follicular and the luteal phases, effectively normalizing the endocrine milieu during IVF treatment. Secondary outcomes from a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial (RCT) investigating once-daily 5 mg LZ or placebo during stimulation for IVF with FSH. The RCT was conducted at four fertility clinics at University Hospitals in Denmark from August 2016 to November 2018 and pregnancy outcomes of frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FET) registered until May 2023. One hundred fifty-nine women with expected normal ovarian reserve (anti-Müllerian hormone 8-32 nmol/l) were randomized to either co-treatment with LZ (n = 80) or placebo (n = 79). In total 1268 oocytes were aspirated developing into 386 embryos, and morphology and morphokinetics were assessed. One hundred twenty-nine embryos were transferred in the fresh cycle and 158 embryos in a subsequent FET cycle. The effect of LZ on cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), LBR, endometrial thickness in the fresh cycle, and total FSH consumption was reported. The proportion of usable embryos of retrieved oocytes was similar in the LZ group and the placebo group with 0.31 vs 0.36 (mean difference (MD) -0.05, 95% CI (-0.12; 0.03), P = 0.65). The size and number of aspirated follicles at oocyte retrieval were similar with 11.8 vs 10.3 follicles per patient (MD 1.5, 95% CI (-0.5; 3.1), P = 0.50), as well as the number of retrieved oocytes with 8.0 vs 7.9 oocytes (MD 0.1, 95% CI (-1.4; 1.6), P = 0.39) in the LZ and placebo groups, respectively. The chance of retrieving an oocyte from the 13 to 16 mm follicles at trigger day was 66% higher (95% CI (24%; 108%), P = 0.002) in the placebo group than in the LZ group, whilst the chance of retrieving an oocyte from the ≥17 mm follicles at trigger day was 50% higher (95% CI (2%; 98%), P = 0.04) in the LZ group than in the placebo group. The proportion of fertilized oocytes with two-pronuclei per retrieved oocytes or per metaphase II oocytes (MII) (the 2PN rates) were similar regardless of fertilization with IVF or ICSI with 0.48 vs 0.57 (MD -0.09, 95% CI (-0.24; 0.04), P = 0.51), and 0.62 vs 0.64 (MD -0.02, 95% CI (-0.13; 0.07), P = 0.78) in the LZ and placebo groups, respectively. However, the MII rate in the ICSI group was significantly lower with 0.75 vs 0.88 in the LZ vs the placebo group (MD -0.14, 95% CI (-0.22; -0.06), P = 0.03). Blastocysts on Day 5 per patient were similar with 1.5 vs 2.0, P = 0.52, as well as vitrified blastocysts per patient Day 5 with 0.8 vs 1.2 in (MD -0.4, 95% CI (-1.0; 0.2), P = 0.52) and vitrified blastocysts per patient Day 6 with 0.6 vs 0.6 (MD 0, 95% CI (-0.3; 0.3), P = 1.00) in the LZ vs placebo group, respectively. Morphologic evaluation of all usable embryos showed a similar distribution in 'Good', 'Fair', and 'Poor', in the LZ vs placebo group, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.8 95% CI (0.5; 1.3), P = 0.68 of developing a better class embryo. Two hundred and ninety-five of the 386 embryos were cultured in an embryoscope. Morphokinetic annotations showed that the odds of having a high KIDscore™ D3 Day 3 were 1.2 times higher (CI (0.8; 1.9), P = 0.68) in the LZ group vs the placebo group. The CPR per transfer was comparable with 31% vs 39% (risk-difference of 8%, 95% CI (-25%; 11%), P = 0.65) in the LZ and placebo group, respectively, as well as CPR per transfer adjusted for day of transfer, oestradiol and progesterone levels at trigger, progesterone levels mid-luteal, and number of oocytes retrieved (adjusted OR) of 0.8 (95% CI (0.4; 1.6), P = 0.72). Comparable LBR were found per transfer 28% vs 37% (MD -9%, 95% CI (-26%; 9%), P = 0.60) and per randomized women 24% vs 30% (MD of -6%, CI (-22%; 8%), P = 0.60) in the LZ group and placebo group, respectively. Furthermore, 4.8 years since the last oocyte aspiration, a total of 287 of 386 embryos have been transferred in the fresh or a subsequently FET cycle, disclosing the cumulative CPR, which is similar with 38% vs 34% (MD 95% CI (8%; 16%), P = 0.70) in the LZ vs placebo group. Both cleavage stage and blastocyst transfer and vitrification were permitted in the protocol, making it necessary to categorize their quality and pool the results. The study was powered to detect hormonal variation but not embryo or pregnancy outcomes. The similar utilization rate and quality of the embryos support the use of LZ co-treatment for IVF with specific indication as fertility preservation, patients with previous cancer, or poor responders. The effect of LZ on mature oocytes from different follicle sizes and LBRs should be evaluated in a meta-analysis or a larger RCT. Funding was received from EU Interreg for ReproUnion, Sjaelland University Hospital, Denmark, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Gedeon Ricther. Roche Diagnostics contributed with assays. A.P. has received grants from Ferring, Merck Serono, and Gedeon Richter, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, & Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring, Merck A/S, Theramex, & Organon, and travel support from Gedeon Richter. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests in the research or publication. NCT02939898 and NCT02946684.

Bülow NS ，Warzecha AK ，Nielsen MV ，Andersen CY ，Holt MD ，Petersen MR ，Sopa N ，Zedeler A ，Englund AL ，Pinborg A ，Grøndahl ML ，Skouby SO ，Macklon NS ... -  《-》

Corifollitropin alfa followed by highly purified HMG versus recombinant FSH in young poor ovarian responders: a multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial.

Does administration of corifollitropin alfa followed by highly purified (hp) HMG result in higher ongoing pregnancy rates compared with daily recombinant FSH (rFSH) in young poor responders? Corifollitropin alfa followed by hp-HMG does not increase ongoing pregnancy rates compared with rFSH in young poor responders, although more supernumerary cryopreserved embryos were obtained with corifollitropin alfa and hp-HMG. Poor ovarian response remains one of the main therapeutic challenges in women undergoing ovarian stimulation, given that very low live birth rates of 6% have been reported in this particular group of infertile patients. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised that a degree of heterogeneity remains, as the prognostic effect of individual factors is still unclear, particularly for the young poor responder group. The rationale for conducting the current randomized trial was based on the results of a previous pilot study demonstrating promising results with the administration of hp-HMG following corifollitropin alpha in women younger than 40 years of age, fulfilling the 'Bologna' criteria. A multicenter, phase III, superiority, randomized trial was conducted using a parallel two-arm design. The study included 152 patients younger than 40 years old and fulfilling the 'Bologna' criteria for poor ovarian response, from one tertiary referral centre in Europe and one tertiary referral centre in Asia. Enrolment was performed from March 2013 to May 2016. Eligible patients were randomized to either administration of 150 μg corifollitropin alfa followed by 300 IU hp-HMG (Group A) or to 300 IU of daily recombinant FSH (Group B) in a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol. The randomization sequence was created using a computer generated randomization list stratified by centre, using 1:1 allocation. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (defined as the presence of an intrauterine gestational sac with an embryonic pole demonstrating cardiac activity at 9-10 weeks of gestation). Secondary outcomes included embryo cryopreservation rates, clinical and biochemical pregnancy rates and number of oocytes retrieved. Overall, 152 poor ovarian responders defined by the 'Bologna' criteria were included in the study. Using an intention-to treat analysis, the ongoing pregnancy rates did not differ significantly between Group A 11/77 (14.3%) and Group B 11/70 (15.7%), absolute difference: -0.4 (-11.5 to 10.8), OR = 0.9 (0.4-2.4). Biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates, live birth rates and the number of oocytes retrieved were also comparable between the two groups. Nevertheless, more patients in the corifollitropin alfa group had cryopreserved embryos compared to the rFSH group [22 (28.6%) versus 10 (14.3%), OR = 2.4 (1.01-5.5)]. Incidentally, Asian patients had significantly lower cancellation rates compared to European poor responders [2/64 (3.1%) versus 17/83 (20.4%), OR = 0.12 (0.03-0.5)]. This discrepancy could be explained by the fact that Asian women were better prognosis patients than European patients, with significantly lower FSH [9.8 (5.3) versus 11.5 (5.4), P = 0.017] and significantly higher AMH [1.1 (0.9) versus 0.4 (0.3), P-value <0.001] levels. Ongoing pregnancy rates close to 14% for both treatment groups differ significantly from the hypothesized primary outcome rates used in the power calculation. Therefore, our randomized trial might have been underpowered to detect smaller differences. The use of multiple secondary outcomes and multiple comparisons could have increased a Type 1 error. Finally, although the chance of selection biases remains low given the nature of the infertile population, the open-label design could have been a limitation. Poor ovarian response represents a challenge and although a specific protocol may have increased the number of cryopreserved embryos, no difference was observed in ongoing pregnancy rates. Our study, being one of the largest RCTs in 'Bologna' criteria poor responders, highlights that baseline characteristics may play a crucial role in clinical prognosis of this population. Given that ovarian stimulation using novel protocols does not seem to significantly increase pregnancy rates even in young women, we suggest that future clinical research should focus on increasing the number of recruitable follicles and on oocyte quality rather than evaluating different stimulation protocols. No external funding was used for this study. P.D., N.L.V., N.A.V.H., A.V., M.T.H., M.C., A.T.L. and A.V.V. have no conflict of interest to report. C.B. has received unrestricted research grants from MSD and Ferring as well as honoraria for lectures from Abbott, MSD, Merck and Ferring. P.H has received unrestricted research grants from MSD, Merck and Ferring as well as honoraria for lectures from Merck, MSD and IBSA. H.T. has received unrestricted research grants from MSD, Merck, Ferring, Cook, Roche Diagnostics, Besins International and Goodlife as well as consultation fees for research project in female infertility from Merck Finox, Abbott and ObsEva. N.P.P. has received unrestricted research grants from MSD, Ferring, Roche Diagnostics and Besins International as well as honoraria for lectures from MSD, Merck and Ferring. The EUDRACT number of the trial was 2013-000583-29 and the study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01816321). 19 February 2013. 28 February 2013.

Drakopoulos P ，Vuong TNL ，Ho NAV ，Vaiarelli A ，Ho MT ，Blockeel C ，Camus M ，Lam AT ，van de Vijver A ，Humaidan P ，Tournaye H ，Polyzos NP ... -  《-》