Joseph M Letourneau1, Hakan Cakmak2, Molly Quinn2, Nikita Sinha2, Marcelle I Cedars2, Mitchell P Rosen2. 1. Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 499 Illinois Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. Joseph.Letourneau@ucsf.edu. 2. Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 499 Illinois Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Unlike infertility, patients presenting for fertility preservation (FP) are often using combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC). We studied whether long-term (≥6 months) CHC use is associated with reversible suppression of antral follicle count (AFC). METHODS: This is a longitudinal study of FP cycles from 2012 to 2016. We studied three groups: those without CHC exposure (NO CHC), those with CHC usage with a CHC break (BREAK), and without a break (NO BREAK) prior to ovarian stimulation. We assessed ovarian reserve by AFC at initial consultation and discussed the possibility of CHC suppression of AFC. Patients chose between ovarian stimulation with no CHC break versus ovarian stimulation after a CHC break. AFC was measured serially in the BREAK group. We assessed whether AFC suppression was reversed in the BREAK group. Total oocyte yield was compared among the NO CHC, BREAK, and NO BREAK groups. T tests, ANOVA, and linear/logistic regressions were used. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-three women underwent FP. Twenty-one percent (n = 154) were taking long-term CHC (≥6 months). AFC suppression was more likely with CHC use (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4, P = 0.011). The BREAK group (n = 79) stopped CHC for an average of 4 months. AFC improvement started at 1 month and plateaued at approximately 6- to 7-month break. The BREAK group had approximately twice as many oocytes per initial AFC as NO BREAK (2.8 ± 3.8 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When women present for FP on CHC, AFC may be suppressed. A CHC break of several months is associated with an increase in AFC and a potential improvement in overall egg yield.
PURPOSE: Unlike infertility, patients presenting for fertility preservation (FP) are often using combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC). We studied whether long-term (≥6 months) CHC use is associated with reversible suppression of antral follicle count (AFC). METHODS: This is a longitudinal study of FP cycles from 2012 to 2016. We studied three groups: those without CHC exposure (NO CHC), those with CHC usage with a CHC break (BREAK), and without a break (NO BREAK) prior to ovarian stimulation. We assessed ovarian reserve by AFC at initial consultation and discussed the possibility of CHC suppression of AFC. Patients chose between ovarian stimulation with no CHC break versus ovarian stimulation after a CHC break. AFC was measured serially in the BREAK group. We assessed whether AFC suppression was reversed in the BREAK group. Total oocyte yield was compared among the NO CHC, BREAK, and NO BREAK groups. T tests, ANOVA, and linear/logistic regressions were used. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-three women underwent FP. Twenty-one percent (n = 154) were taking long-term CHC (≥6 months). AFC suppression was more likely with CHC use (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4, P = 0.011). The BREAK group (n = 79) stopped CHC for an average of 4 months. AFC improvement started at 1 month and plateaued at approximately 6- to 7-month break. The BREAK group had approximately twice as many oocytes per initial AFC as NO BREAK (2.8 ± 3.8 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When women present for FP on CHC, AFC may be suppressed. A CHC break of several months is associated with an increase in AFC and a potential improvement in overall egg yield.
Authors: M H van den Berg; E van Dulmen-den Broeder; A Overbeek; J W R Twisk; R Schats; F E van Leeuwen; G J Kaspers; C B Lambalk Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2010-03-27 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Joseph M Letourneau; Michelle E Melisko; Marcelle I Cedars; Mitchell P Rosen Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: J G Bentzen; J L Forman; A Pinborg; Ø Lidegaard; E C Larsen; L Friis-Hansen; T H Johannsen; A Nyboe Andersen Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2012-09-16 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: L Kotanidis; K Nikolettos; S Petousis; B Asimakopoulos; E Chatzimitrou; G Kolios; N Nikolettos Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Ernest Hung Yu Ng; Carina Chi Wai Chan; Oi Shan Tang; William Shu Biu Yeung; Pak Chung Ho Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2004-09-09 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: N Sinha; J M Letourneau; K Wald; P Xiong; Tal Imbar; B Li; E Harris; E Mok-Lin; M I Cedars; Mitchell P Rosen Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Drechsel Katja C E; van Tilborg Theodora C; Eijkemans Marinus J C; Lentjes Eef G W M; Homminga Irene; Goddijn Mariette; van Golde Ron J T; Verpoest Willem; Lichtenbelt Klaske D; Broekmans Frank J M; Bos Anna M E Journal: Reprod Sci Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 3.060