Oocyte Cryopreservation for Future Fertility: Comparison of Ovarian Response Between Cancer and Non-cancer Patients

Overview

Journal JBRA Assist Reprod

Specialty Reproductive Medicine

Date 2019 Mar 16

PMID 30875168

Citations 7

Authors

Camila Cruz de Moraes

Victoria Furquim Werneck Marinho

Ana Luisa Menezes Campos

Janaina de Souza Guedes

Erica Becker de Sousa Xavier

Joao Pedro Junqueira Caetano

Ricardo Mello Marinho

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to assess whether a diagnosis of cancer interferes with ovarian function prior to the treatment of the disease.

Methods: This observational retrospective study used data from medical records of ovarian stimulation cycles performed for purposes of oocyte cryopreservation.

Results: The included patients had a mean age of 35.13±3.72 years and 51.6% of them were aged between 36 and 40 years. More than half of the patients (57.6%) were single and 82.1% had a normal body mass index (BMI). Most women had not become pregnant (85.5%) or had babies (95.1%) or miscarriages (89.6%) prior to cryopreservation. The mean number of oocytes obtained from non-cancer patients was 11.4±8, while for cancer patients the number was 13.8±9. The mean number of frozen mature oocytes was 9.7±7 for the non-cancer group and 11.2±7.2 for the cancer group. The majority (63.1%) of the patients had up to 10 oocytes frozen per cycle. Breast cancer had the highest incidence among the included patients. There was no significant difference in ovarian response between patients with different types of cancer.

Conclusion: The number of harvested and frozen oocytes from cancer and non-cancer patients indicated that in the two groups response to ovarian stimulation was similar.

Citing Articles

Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation versus Other Fertility Techniques for Chemoradiation-Induced Premature Ovarian Insufficiency in Women: A Systematic Review and Future Directions.

Chaudhri E, Salman A, Awartani K, Khan Z, Hashmi S Life (Basel). 2024; 14(3).

PMID: 38541717 PMC: 10972149. DOI: 10.3390/life14030393.

Oocyte Quality Assessment in Breast Cancer: Implications for Fertility Preservation.

Fabiani C, Guarino A, Meneghini C, Licata E, Paciotti G, Miriello D Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(22).

PMID: 36428810 PMC: 9688559. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14225718.

Outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in women with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Meernik C, Poole C, Engel S, Rauh-Hain J, Luke B, Nichols H Hum Reprod. 2022; 38(1):30-45.

PMID: 36342891 PMC: 9825268. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac235.

Patients undergoing elective and oncofertility preservation respond similarly to controlled ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation.

Kira A, Hentschke M, de Vasconcelos N, Colombo T, Trindade V, Petracco A JBRA Assist Reprod. 2022; 26(3):407-411.

PMID: 35403417 PMC: 9355427. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20210080.

Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation before gonadotoxic treatments: Principles of safe ovarian stimulation, a systematic review.

Ozcan M, Snegovskikh V, Adamson G Womens Health (Lond). 2022; 18:17455065221074886.

PMID: 35130799 PMC: 8829712. DOI: 10.1177/17455065221074886.

References

Kim J, Kim S, Lee H, Lee J, Jee B, Suh C . Efficacy of random-start controlled ovarian stimulation in cancer patients. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(3):290-5. PMC: 4330484. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.3.290. View

Noyes N, Labella P, Grifo J, Knopman J . Oocyte cryopreservation: a feasible fertility preservation option for reproductive age cancer survivors. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010; 27(8):495-9. PMC: 2941585. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-010-9434-3. View

Rodriguez-Wallberg K, Tanbo T, Tinkanen H, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Nedstrand E, Laczna Kitlinski M . Ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation among alternatives for fertility preservation in the Nordic countries - compilation of 20 years of multicenter experience. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016; 95(9):1015-26. PMC: 5129549. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12934. View

Hammarberg K, Kirkman M, Pritchard N, Hickey M, Peate M, McBain J . Reproductive experiences of women who cryopreserved oocytes for non-medical reasons. Hum Reprod. 2017; 32(3):575-581. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew342. View

. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(3):e9-e17. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.093. View

Hodes-Wertz B, Druckenmiller S, Smith M, Noyes N . What do reproductive-age women who undergo oocyte cryopreservation think about the process as a means to preserve fertility?. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(5):1343-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.201. View

Nurudeen S, Douglas N, Mahany E, Sauer M, Choi J . Fertility Preservation Decisions Among Newly Diagnosed Oncology Patients: A Single-Center Experience. Am J Clin Oncol. 2014; 39(2):154-9. DOI: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000031. View

Cobo A, Garcia-Velasco J, Coello A, Domingo J, Pellicer A, Remohi J . Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2015; 105(3):755-764.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.027. View

Callejo J, Salvador C, Gonzalez-Nunez S, Almeida L, Rodriguez L, Marques L . Live birth in a woman without ovaries after autograft of frozen-thawed ovarian tissue combined with growth factors. J Ovarian Res. 2013; 6(1):33. PMC: 3674930. DOI: 10.1186/1757-2215-6-33. View

10.

Bliss S, Navratil A, Xie J, Roberson M . GnRH signaling, the gonadotrope and endocrine control of fertility. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2010; 31(3):322-40. PMC: 2923852. DOI: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2010.04.002. View

11.

Donnez J, Dolmans M . Ovarian tissue freezing: current status. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 27(3):222-30. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000171. View

12.

Santo E, Dieamant F, Petersen C, Mauri A, Vagnini L, Renzi A . Social oocyte cryopreservation: a portrayal of Brazilian women. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017; 21(2):101-104. PMC: 5473702. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20170024. View

13.

Lamar C, DeCherney A . Fertility preservation: state of the science and future research directions. Fertil Steril. 2008; 91(2):316-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.133. View

14.

Vaiarelli A, Venturella R, Vizziello D, Bulletti F, Ubaldi F . Dual ovarian stimulation and random start in assisted reproductive technologies: from ovarian biology to clinical application. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 29(3):153-159. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000365. View

15.

Pereira N, Voskuilen-Gonzalez A, Hancock K, Lekovich J, Schattman G, Rosenwaks Z . Random-start ovarian stimulation in women desiring elective cryopreservation of oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017; 35(4):400-406. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.002. View

16.

Gonzalez C, Boada M, Devesa M, Veiga A . Concise review: fertility preservation: an update. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2012; 1(9):668-72. PMC: 3659739. DOI: 10.5966/sctm.2012-0076. View

17.

Cardozo E, Thomson A, Karmon A, Dickinson K, Wright D, Sabatini M . Ovarian stimulation and in-vitro fertilization outcomes of cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation compared to age matched controls: a 17-year experience. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015; 32(4):587-96. PMC: 4380886. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-015-0428-z. View

18.

Alvarez R, Ramanathan P . Fertility preservation in female oncology patients: the influence of the type of cancer on ovarian stimulation response. Hum Reprod. 2016; 33(11):2051-2059. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew158. View

19.

Nagy Z, Chang C, Shapiro D, Bernal D, Elsner C, Mitchell-Leef D . Clinical evaluation of the efficiency of an oocyte donation program using egg cryo-banking. Fertil Steril. 2008; 92(2):520-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.06.005. View

20.

Smitz J, Dolmans M, Donnez J, Fortune J, Hovatta O, Jewgenow K . Current achievements and future research directions in ovarian tissue culture, in vitro follicle development and transplantation: implications for fertility preservation. Hum Reprod Update. 2010; 16(4):395-414. PMC: 2880913. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmp056. View