Literature DB >> 26855092

Successful Oocyte Cryopreservation in Reproductive-Aged Cancer Survivors.

Sarah Druckenmiller1, Kara N Goldman, Patty A Labella, M Elizabeth Fino, Antonia Bazzocchi, Nicole Noyes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that oocyte cryopreservation is a feasible reproductive option for patients with cancer of childbearing age who require gonadotoxic therapies.
METHODS: This study is a university-based retrospective review of reproductive-aged cancer patient treatment cycles that included ovarian stimulation, transvaginal oocyte retrieval, oocyte cryopreservation, and, in some cases, subsequent oocyte thaw, in vitro fertilization, and embryo transfer. Outcome measures included ovarian stimulation response, number of oocytes retrieved, cryopreserved, and thawed, and pregnancy data.
RESULTS: From 2005 to 2014, 176 reproductive-aged patients with cancer (median age 31 years, interquartile range 24-36) completed 182 oocyte cryopreservation cycles. Median time between consult request and oocyte retrieval was 12 days (interquartile range 10-14). Median peak stimulation estradiol was 1,446 pg/mL (interquartile range 730-2,687); 15 (interquartile range 9-23) oocytes were retrieved and 10 (interquartile range 5-18) metaphase II oocytes were cryopreserved per cycle. Ten patients (11 cycles) have returned to attempt pregnancy with their cryopreserved oocytes. Among thawed oocytes, the cryopreservation survival rate was 86% (confidence interval [CI] 78-94%). Nine of 11 thaw cycles resulted in embryos suitable for transfer. The embryo implantation rate was 27% (CI 8-46%) and the live birth rate was 44% (CI 12-77%) per embryo transfer. Chance for live birth with embryos created from cryopreserved oocytes was similar between the patients with cancer in this study and noncancer patients who underwent the same treatment at our center (44% [CI 12-77%] compared with 33% [CI 22-44%] per embryo transfer).
CONCLUSION: Oocyte cryopreservation is now a feasible fertility preservation option for reproductive-aged patients with cancer who require gonadotoxic therapies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26855092     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001248

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  18 in total

1.  A comparison of live birth rates and perinatal outcomes between cryopreserved oocytes and cryopreserved embryos.

Authors:  Jacqueline R Ho; Irene Woo; Kristin Louie; Wael Salem; Sami I Jabara; Kristin A Bendikson; Richard J Paulson; Karine Chung
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Back-to-back random-start ovarian stimulation prior to chemotherapy to maximize oocyte yield.

Authors:  Kaitlyn Wald; Hakan Cakmak; Evelyn Mok-Lin; Marcelle Cedars; Mitchell Rosen; Joseph Letourneau
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Medical and elective fertility preservation: impact of removal of the experimental label from oocyte cryopreservation.

Authors:  Samantha B Schon; Maren Shapiro; Clarisa Gracia; Suneeta Senapati
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Long-term outcomes in cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation.

Authors:  Molly B Moravek; Rafael Confino; Kristin N Smith; Ralph R Kazer; Susan C Klock; Angela K Lawson; William J Gradishar; Mary Ellen Pavone
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  Antral follicle responsiveness to FSH, assessed by the follicular output rate (FORT), is altered in Hodgkin's lymphoma when compared with breast cancer candidates for fertility preservation.

Authors:  Charlotte Sonigo; Marjorie Comtet; Solene Duros; Christophe Sifer; Nathalie Sermondade; Michaël Grynberg
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  Decreased pregnancy and live birth rates after vitrification of in vitro matured oocytes.

Authors:  Yoni Cohen; Alexandra St-Onge-St-Hilaire; Samer Tannus; Grace Younes; Michael H Dahan; William Buckett; Weon-Young Son
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  Ovarian stimulation is a safe and effective fertility preservation option in the adolescent and young adult population.

Authors:  Sharrόn L Manuel; Molly B Moravek; Rafael Confino; Kristin N Smith; Angela K Lawson; Susan C Klock; Mary Ellen Pavone
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 3.412

8.  Ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in an oncology patient with etonogestrel implant in place.

Authors:  John S Rushing; Leslie Appiah; Alex J Polotsky; Shona Murray; Erin Foust; Kathryn Hassell; Cassandra Roeca
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 9.  Fertility-preservation in endometrial cancer: is it safe? Review of the literature.

Authors:  Márcia Mendonça Carneiro; Rívia Mara Lamaita; Márcia Cristina França Ferreira; Agnaldo Lopes Silva-Filho
Journal:  JBRA Assist Reprod       Date:  2016-12-01

Review 10.  Fertility preservation in women with cervical, endometrial or ovarian cancers.

Authors:  Michael Feichtinger; Kenny A Rodriguez-Wallberg
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol Res Pract       Date:  2016-07-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.