Literature DB >> 28938728

Modeling of live-birth rates and cost-effectiveness of oocyte cryopreservation for cancer patients prior to high- and low-risk gonadotoxic chemotherapy.

B Lyttle Schumacher1, N Grover2, T Mesen3, A Steiner1, J Mersereau1.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What is the live-birth rate (LBR) and cost-effectiveness of fertility preservation with oocyte cryopreservation (FP-OC) compared to expectant management in cancer patients age 25-40 based on estimated gonadotoxicity of treatments 5 years after cancer diagnosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: Oocyte cryopreservation prior to cancer treatment is more costly, yet more effective (producing more live births), than not undergoing oocyte cryopreservation but it is most beneficial for patients undergoing high-risk chemotherapy (HRC). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The decision to undergo FP prior to treatment is multifactorial and can be costly and delay treatment. Not all treatments carry the same gonadotoxicity and patients may choose to undergo FP-OC based on the probability of premature ovarian insufficiency, predicted outcomes and cost. A comprehensive model that incorporates age at diagnosis and toxicity of treatment to help guide patients in the decision to undergo FP-OC does not yet exist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE DURATION: This study used a Decision Analysis Model to estimate effectiveness and cost of FP for cancer patients. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: Age-based estimates of LBR and cost per live birth were calculated for ages 25-40 years based on gonadotoxicity of treatment. A decision analysis model was constructed using Treeage Pro 2015 with case base probabilities derived from national registries, practice guidelines and medical records from a national network of infertility practices (IntegraMed). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Compared to no FP-OC, FP-OC improved LBRs for women of all ages undergoing either low-risk chemotherapy (LRC) or HRC; however, it was most cost effective for women undergoing LRC at older ages or HRC at younger ages. Although FP-OC results in higher LBRs, it was always more costly. Using donor oocyte IVF can be a successful alternative to autologous FP-OC. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Decision tree results reflect probabilities of certain events and are compiled from multiple reputable sources but are not directly derived from a recruited cohort of patients. Outcomes are based on United States estimates and should be interpreted in the broader context of individual patient diagnoses, treatment care plans and country of origin. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: The development of this analytic model will help guide practitioners in their counseling of women from age 25 to 40 years, who are considering FP-OC at the time of cancer diagnosis. It provides a realistic pathway from diagnosis to LB and accounts for the majority of costs and outcome possibilities. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(s): This study was partially funded by a grant from National Institute of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (R01 HD67683) to A.Z.S. There are no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2017. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer; chemotherapy; cost-effectiveness; fertility preservation; gonadotoxic; oocyte cryopreservation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28938728      PMCID: PMC5850300          DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  10 in total

1.  Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis?

Authors:  H Bleichrodt; J Quiggin
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial.

Authors:  Ana Cobo; Marcos Meseguer; José Remohí; Antonio Pellicer
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 4.  Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Timothy Bracewell-Milnes; Srdjan Saso; Shabana Bora; Alaa M Ismail; Maya Al-Memar; Ali Hasan Hamed; Hossam Abdalla; Meen-Yau Thum
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 15.610

5.  A Call for Fertility Preservation Coverage for Breast Cancer Patients: The Cost of Consistency.

Authors:  Jessica R Walter; Shuai Xu; Teresa K Woodruff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Optimal timing for elective egg freezing.

Authors:  Tolga B Mesen; Jennifer E Mersereau; Jennifer B Kane; Anne Z Steiner
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients.

Authors:  Stephanie J Lee; Leslie R Schover; Ann H Partridge; Pasquale Patrizio; W Hamish Wallace; Karen Hagerty; Lindsay N Beck; Lawrence V Brennan; Kutluk Oktay
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-05-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update.

Authors:  Alison W Loren; Pamela B Mangu; Lindsay Nohr Beck; Lawrence Brennan; Anthony J Magdalinski; Ann H Partridge; Gwendolyn Quinn; W Hamish Wallace; Kutluk Oktay
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  ESHRE Guideline: management of women with premature ovarian insufficiency.

Authors:  L Webber; M Davies; R Anderson; J Bartlett; D Braat; B Cartwright; R Cifkova; S de Muinck Keizer-Schrama; E Hogervorst; F Janse; L Liao; V Vlaisavljevic; C Zillikens; N Vermeulen
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 10.  Preservation of fertility in patients with cancer.

Authors:  Jacqueline S Jeruss; Teresa K Woodruff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-02-26       Impact factor: 91.245

  10 in total
  8 in total

1.  Fertility Preservation Legislation in the United States: Potential Implications for Transgender Individuals.

Authors:  Moira A Kyweluk; Joyce Reinecke; Diane Chen
Journal:  LGBT Health       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 4.151

2.  Disparities in fertility preservation use among adolescent and young adult women with cancer.

Authors:  Clare Meernik; Stephanie M Engel; Ally Wardell; Christopher D Baggett; Parul Gupta; Nidia Rodriguez-Ormaza; Barbara Luke; Valerie L Baker; Ethan Wantman; Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Jennifer E Mersereau; Andrew F Olshan; Andrew B Smitherman; Jianwen Cai; Hazel B Nichols
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 4.062

3.  Oocyte cryopreservation versus ovarian tissue cryopreservation for adult female oncofertility patients: a cost-effectiveness study.

Authors:  Esther H Chung; Stephanie L Lim; Evan Myers; Haley A Moss; Kelly S Acharya
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 3.357

4.  A call to action: unified clinical practice guidelines for oncofertility care.

Authors:  Jacqueline Sehring; Anisa Hussain; Lauren Grimm; Elisabeth Rosen; Jody Esguerra; Karine Matevossian; Erica Louden; Angeline Beltsos; Roohi Jeelani
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 3.357

Review 5.  Oocyte cryopreservation review: outcomes of medical oocyte cryopreservation and planned oocyte cryopreservation.

Authors:  Zachary Walker; Andrea Lanes; Elizabeth Ginsburg
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 5.211

6.  Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised.

Authors:  Emma Trawick; Elnur Babayev; Nivedita Potapragada; Jennifer Elvikis; Kristin Smith; Kara N Goldman
Journal:  Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle)       Date:  2022-01-31

7.  Economic evaluation of betibeglogene autotemcel (Beti-cel) gene addition therapy in transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia.

Authors:  Anuraag R Kansal; Odette S Reifsnider; Sarah B Brand; Neil Hawkins; Anna Coughlan; Shujun Li; Lael Cragin; Clark Paramore; Andrew C Dietz; J Jaime Caro
Journal:  J Mark Access Health Policy       Date:  2021-06-07

8.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation for preservation of fertility in post-pubertal oncological women submitted to high-risk gonadotoxic chemotherapy.

Authors:  Diego Raimondo; Ilaria Giaquinto; Manuela Maletta; Rossella Vicenti; Raffaella Iodice; Alessandro Arena; Simona Del Forno; Antonio Raffone; Jacopo Lenzi; Paolo Casadio; Renato Seracchioli
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 4.447

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.