Molly B Moravek1, Rafael Confino2, Kristin N Smith2, Ralph R Kazer2, Susan C Klock2, Angela K Lawson2, William J Gradishar3, Mary Ellen Pavone4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: m-pavone@northwestern.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term outcomes of cancer patients who pursued fertility preservation (FP) with those who did not and compare random-start (RS) and menstrual cycle-specific (CS) protocols for FP. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Single urban academic institution. PATIENT(S): Oncology patients who contacted the FP patient navigator, 2005-2015. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Time to cancer treatment, disease-free survival, and reproductive outcomes in FP versus no-FP patients and cycle outcomes for RS versus CS protocols. Data were analyzed by χ2 and logistic regression. RESULT(S): Of 497 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 41% elected FP. The median number of days to cancer treatment was 33 and 19 days in the FP and no-FP groups, respectively. There was no difference in cancer recurrence or mortality. There were no differences in stimulation parameters, outcomes, or days to next cancer treatment in RS versus CS protocols. Twenty-one patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, resulting in 16 live births. Eight of 21 returning patients used a gestational carrier. Thirteen FP (6.4%) and 16 no-FP (5.5%) patients experienced a spontaneous pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): FP is both safe and efficacious for eligible cancer patients. Only 10% of patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, and almost half used a gestational carrier, suggesting the need for further research into reproductive decision-making in cancer survivors.
OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term outcomes of cancerpatients who pursued fertility preservation (FP) with those who did not and compare random-start (RS) and menstrual cycle-specific (CS) protocols for FP. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Single urban academic institution. PATIENT(S): Oncology patients who contacted the FP patient navigator, 2005-2015. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Time to cancer treatment, disease-free survival, and reproductive outcomes in FP versus no-FP patients and cycle outcomes for RS versus CS protocols. Data were analyzed by χ2 and logistic regression. RESULT(S): Of 497 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 41% elected FP. The median number of days to cancer treatment was 33 and 19 days in the FP and no-FP groups, respectively. There was no difference in cancer recurrence or mortality. There were no differences in stimulation parameters, outcomes, or days to next cancer treatment in RS versus CS protocols. Twenty-one patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, resulting in 16 live births. Eight of 21 returning patients used a gestational carrier. Thirteen FP (6.4%) and 16 no-FP (5.5%) patients experienced a spontaneous pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): FP is both safe and efficacious for eligible cancerpatients. Only 10% of patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, and almost half used a gestational carrier, suggesting the need for further research into reproductive decision-making in cancer survivors.
Authors: Giovanna Simi; Maria Elena Rosa Obino; Elena Casarosa; Pietro Litta; Paolo Giovanni Artini; Vito Cela Journal: Gynecol Endocrinol Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Daniel M Stein; David E Victorson; Jeremy T Choy; Kate E Waimey; Timothy P Pearman; Kristin Smith; Justin Dreyfuss; Karen E Kinahan; Divya Sadhwani; Teresa K Woodruff; Robert E Brannigan Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Ruba A Akel; Xiaoyue M Guo; Molly B Moravek; Rafael Confino; Kristin N Smith; Angela K Lawson; Susan C Klock; Edward J Tanner Iii; Mary Ellen Pavone Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Molly B Moravek; Rafael Confino; Angela K Lawson; Kristin N Smith; Ralph R Kazer; Susan C Klock; William J Gradishar; Jacqueline S Jeruss; Mary Ellen Pavone Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Leah Hawkins Bressler; Jennifer E Mersereau; Chelsea Anderson; Juan L Rodriguez; M Elizabeth Hodgson; Clarice R Weinberg; Dale P Sandler; Hazel B Nichols Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anne P Hutchinson; Shweta Hosakoppal; Kathryn A Trotter; Rafael Confino; John Zhang; Susan C Klock; Angela K Lawson; Mary Ellen Pavone Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 3.357
Authors: Nikita M Shah; Dana M Scott; Pridvi Kandagatla; Molly B Moravek; Erin F Cobain; Monika L Burness; Jacqueline S Jeruss Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 5.344
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