Kenny A Rodriguez-Wallberg1,2, Anna Marklund1,3, Frida Lundberg1, Ida Wikander2, Milan Milenkovic1,2, Amandine Anastacio1, Fotios Sergouniotis2, Kjell Wånggren2,4, Jeanette Ekengren2, Tekla Lind2, Birgit Borgström5. 1. Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Division of Gynecology and Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Division of Pediatrics, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In Scandinavian countries, programs for fertility preservation are offered free of charge at tertiary-care university hospitals to all patients facing treatments with risk of subsequent sterility. In this prospective study we aimed to investigate trends in female patients' choices after counseling and fertility preservation outcomes during follow up in relation to benign vs malignant indications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data on 1254 females including 1076 adults and 178 girls who received fertility preservation counseling for either oncologic (n = 852) or benign indications (n = 402) at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, between 1 October 1998 and 1 December 2018 were analyzed. As appropriate, t tests and chi-square tests were used to compare groups. Logistic regression was used to compare outcomes among groups depending on indications. RESULTS: Adult women generally elected to undergo oocyte retrieval after controlled ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes (n = 538, 73%), whereas a minor proportion opted for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue retrieved through laparoscopy (n = 221, 27%). More than half of the women with a partner chose either not to fertilize their oocytes aiming at cryopreservation of oocytes or to share obtained oocytes attempting both cryopreservation of oocytes and cryopreservation of embryos. All pre-pubertal (n = 48) and 73% of post-pubertal girls (n = 66) elected cryopreservation of ovarian tissue. In recent years, an increasing number of teenagers have opted for controlled ovarian stimulation aiming at cryopreservation of oocytes, either before (n = 24, 17%) or after completion of cancer treatment (n = 15, 10%). During follow up, 27% of the women returned for a new reproductive counseling, additional fertility preservation or to attempt pregnancy. Utilization rates among individuals who were alive and of childbearing age by December 2018 indicated 29%, 8% and 5% for embryos, oocytes and ovarian tissue with live birth rates of 54%, 46% and 7%, respectively. Women with benign indications were significantly younger than women with previous malignant indications at the time of attempting pregnancy. Although the pregnancy rates were similar among both groups, the live birth rate was significantly higher in women with benign vs previous malignant indications (47% vs 21%, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Trends in fertility preservation choices have changed over time. Women with previous malignancy had lower live birth rates than women with benign fertility preservation indications.
INTRODUCTION: In Scandinavian countries, programs for fertility preservation are offered free of charge at tertiary-care university hospitals to all patients facing treatments with risk of subsequent sterility. In this prospective study we aimed to investigate trends in female patients' choices after counseling and fertility preservation outcomes during follow up in relation to benign vs malignant indications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data on 1254 females including 1076 adults and 178 girls who received fertility preservation counseling for either oncologic (n = 852) or benign indications (n = 402) at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, between 1 October 1998 and 1 December 2018 were analyzed. As appropriate, t tests and chi-square tests were used to compare groups. Logistic regression was used to compare outcomes among groups depending on indications. RESULTS: Adult women generally elected to undergo oocyte retrieval after controlled ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes (n = 538, 73%), whereas a minor proportion opted for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue retrieved through laparoscopy (n = 221, 27%). More than half of the women with a partner chose either not to fertilize their oocytes aiming at cryopreservation of oocytes or to share obtained oocytes attempting both cryopreservation of oocytes and cryopreservation of embryos. All pre-pubertal (n = 48) and 73% of post-pubertal girls (n = 66) elected cryopreservation of ovarian tissue. In recent years, an increasing number of teenagers have opted for controlled ovarian stimulation aiming at cryopreservation of oocytes, either before (n = 24, 17%) or after completion of cancer treatment (n = 15, 10%). During follow up, 27% of the women returned for a new reproductive counseling, additional fertility preservation or to attempt pregnancy. Utilization rates among individuals who were alive and of childbearing age by December 2018 indicated 29%, 8% and 5% for embryos, oocytes and ovarian tissue with live birth rates of 54%, 46% and 7%, respectively. Women with benign indications were significantly younger than women with previous malignant indications at the time of attempting pregnancy. Although the pregnancy rates were similar among both groups, the live birth rate was significantly higher in women with benign vs previous malignant indications (47% vs 21%, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Trends in fertility preservation choices have changed over time. Women with previous malignancy had lower live birth rates than women with benign fertility preservation indications.
Authors: E Coleman; A E Radix; W P Bouman; G R Brown; A L C de Vries; M B Deutsch; R Ettner; L Fraser; M Goodman; J Green; A B Hancock; T W Johnson; D H Karasic; G A Knudson; S F Leibowitz; H F L Meyer-Bahlburg; S J Monstrey; J Motmans; L Nahata; T O Nieder; S L Reisner; C Richards; L S Schechter; V Tangpricha; A C Tishelman; M A A Van Trotsenburg; S Winter; K Ducheny; N J Adams; T M Adrián; L R Allen; D Azul; H Bagga; K Başar; D S Bathory; J J Belinky; D R Berg; J U Berli; R O Bluebond-Langner; M-B Bouman; M L Bowers; P J Brassard; J Byrne; L Capitán; C J Cargill; J M Carswell; S C Chang; G Chelvakumar; T Corneil; K B Dalke; G De Cuypere; E de Vries; M Den Heijer; A H Devor; C Dhejne; A D'Marco; E K Edmiston; L Edwards-Leeper; R Ehrbar; D Ehrensaft; J Eisfeld; E Elaut; L Erickson-Schroth; J L Feldman; A D Fisher; M M Garcia; L Gijs; S E Green; B P Hall; T L D Hardy; M S Irwig; L A Jacobs; A C Janssen; K Johnson; D T Klink; B P C Kreukels; L E Kuper; E J Kvach; M A Malouf; R Massey; T Mazur; C McLachlan; S D Morrison; S W Mosser; P M Neira; U Nygren; J M Oates; J Obedin-Maliver; G Pagkalos; J Patton; N Phanuphak; K Rachlin; T Reed; G N Rider; J Ristori; S Robbins-Cherry; S A Roberts; K A Rodriguez-Wallberg; S M Rosenthal; K Sabir; J D Safer; A I Scheim; L J Seal; T J Sehoole; K Spencer; C St Amand; T D Steensma; J F Strang; G B Taylor; K Tilleman; G G T'Sjoen; L N Vala; N M Van Mello; J F Veale; J A Vencill; B Vincent; L M Wesp; M A West; J Arcelus Journal: Int J Transgend Health Date: 2022-09-06
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
Authors: Anna Marklund; Sandra Eloranta; Ida Wikander; Margareta Laczna Kitlinski; Mikael Lood; Elizabeth Nedstrand; Ann Thurin-Kjellberg; Pu Zhang; Jonas Bergh; Kenny A Rodriguez-Wallberg Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Teresa K Woodruff; Lauren Ataman-Millhouse; Kelly S Acharya; Teresa Almeida-Santos; Antoinette Anazodo; Richard A Anderson; Leslie Appiah; Joy Bader; Kerri Becktell; Robert E Brannigan; Lesley Breech; Maria T Bourlon; Žana Bumbuliene; Karen Burns; Lisa Campo-Engelstein; Jacira R Campos; Grace M Centola; Mauricio Barbour Chehin; Diane Chen; Michel De Vos; Francesca E Duncan; Ahmed El-Damen; Douglas Fair; Yemi Famuyiwa; Patricia Y Fechner; Paula Fontoura; Olivia Frias; Sabrina A Gerkowicz; Jill Ginsberg; Clarisa R Gracia; Kara Goldman; Veronica Gomez-Lobo; Brent Hazelrigg; Michael H Hsieh; Luis R Hoyos; Alfonso Hoyos-Martinez; Robert Jach; Jacek Jassem; Murid Javed; Yasmin Jayasinghe; Roohi Jeelani; Jacqueline S Jeruss; Nalini Kaul-Mahajan; Jessica Keim-Malpass; Tyler G Ketterl; Mohamed Khrouf; Dana Kimelman; Atsuko Kusuhara; William H Kutteh; Monica M Laronda; Jung Ryeol Lee; Vicky Lehmann; Joseph M Letourneau; Lynda K McGinnis; Eileen McMahon; Lillian R Meacham; Monserrat Fabiola Velez Mijangos; Molly Moravek; Leena Nahata; George Moses Ogweno; Kyle E Orwig; Mary Ellen Pavone; Fedro Alessandro Peccatori; Romina Ileana Pesce; Hanna Pulaski; Gwendolyn Quinn; Ramiro Quintana; Tomas Quintana; Bruno Ramalho de Carvalho; Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman; Joyce Reinecke; Fernando M Reis; Julie Rios; Alice S Rhoton-Vlasak; Kenny A Rodriguez-Wallberg; Cassandra Roeca; Seth J Rotz; Erin Rowell; Mahmoud Salama; Amanda J Saraf; Anibal Scarella; Tara Schafer-Kalkhoff; Deb Schmidt; Suneeta Senapati; Divya Shah; Ariella Shikanov; Margarett Shnorhavorian; Jodi L Skiles; James F Smith; Kristin Smith; Fabio Sobral; Kyle Stimpert; H Irene Su; Kouhei Sugimoto; Nao Suzuki; Mili Thakur; David Victorson; Luz Viale; Wendy Vitek; W Hamish Wallace; Ellen A Wartella; Lynn M Westphal; Stacy Whiteside; Lea H Wilcox; Christine Wyns; Shuo Xiao; Jing Xu; Mary Zelinski Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Gabriela Armuand; Cecilia Dhejne; Jan I Olofsson; Margareta Stefenson; Kenny A Rodriguez-Wallberg Journal: Ther Adv Reprod Health Date: 2020-04-30
Authors: Ida Wikander; Frida E Lundberg; Hanna Nilsson; Birgit Borgström; Kenny A Rodriguez-Wallberg Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 6.244