Yuko Sanada1, Miyuki Harada1, Chisato Kunitomi1, Mayuko Kanatani1, Gentaro Izumi1, Tetsuya Hirata1, Tomoyuki Fujii1, Nao Suzuki2, Ken-Ichirou Morishige3, Daisuke Aoki4, Minoru Irahara5, Koichiro Tsugawa6, Mitsune Tanimoto7, Hiroyuki Nishiyama8, Hajime Hosoi9, Kazuhiko Sugiyama10, Akira Kawai11, Yutaka Osuga1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu, Japan. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan. 6. Division of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan. 7. Department of Hematology and Oncology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan. 8. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan. 9. Department of Pediatrics, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. 10. Department of Clinical Oncology and Neuro-oncology Program, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan. 11. Department of Musculoskeletal Oncology and Rehabilitation Medicine, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
AIM: The survival rates of cancer patients have greatly improved owing to the advances in oncology. The preservation of fertility in cancer patients is an important task. To determine the reality of cryopreservation of embryos, oocytes and ovarian tissue in cancer patients, large-scale survey analysis was performed in Japan. METHODS: We sent 613 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology-certified assisted reproductive technology institutions a questionnaire about their experience of performing cryopreservation for cancer patients between January 2011 and December 2015. Subsequently, the institutions that conducted cryopreservation for cancer patients were sent a second questionnaire. RESULTS: We received replies from 481 (78.5%) institutions. Among them, 126 (26.2%) conducted cryopreservation for cancer patients. These 126 institutions were sent a second questionnaire. Of these, 108 (85.7%) institutions responded. At the 108 institutions, 1085 embryo or oocyte cryopreservation procedures and 122 ovarian tissue cryopreservation procedures were conducted for cancer patients. Cryopreservation was mainly performed for breast cancer patients (~70%), followed by patients with hematological malignancy. A total of 361 and 19 embryo transfer cycles were performed for patients whose embryos and oocytes were cryopreserved, respectively, and 42 and seven institutions reported pregnancy outcomes after embryo transfer in patients that underwent embryo and oocyte cryopreservation, respectively. However, pregnancy was not observed in the seven cases that underwent ovarian tissue transfer. CONCLUSION: Indications, age limits and ovarian stimulation protocols for cryopreservation widely varied between the institutions. A national registration system for oncofertility must be established to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the current system.
AIM: The survival rates of cancerpatients have greatly improved owing to the advances in oncology. The preservation of fertility in cancerpatients is an important task. To determine the reality of cryopreservation of embryos, oocytes and ovarian tissue in cancerpatients, large-scale survey analysis was performed in Japan. METHODS: We sent 613 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology-certified assisted reproductive technology institutions a questionnaire about their experience of performing cryopreservation for cancerpatients between January 2011 and December 2015. Subsequently, the institutions that conducted cryopreservation for cancerpatients were sent a second questionnaire. RESULTS: We received replies from 481 (78.5%) institutions. Among them, 126 (26.2%) conducted cryopreservation for cancerpatients. These 126 institutions were sent a second questionnaire. Of these, 108 (85.7%) institutions responded. At the 108 institutions, 1085 embryo or oocyte cryopreservation procedures and 122 ovarian tissue cryopreservation procedures were conducted for cancerpatients. Cryopreservation was mainly performed for breast cancerpatients (~70%), followed by patients with hematological malignancy. A total of 361 and 19 embryo transfer cycles were performed for patients whose embryos and oocytes were cryopreserved, respectively, and 42 and seven institutions reported pregnancy outcomes after embryo transfer in patients that underwent embryo and oocyte cryopreservation, respectively. However, pregnancy was not observed in the seven cases that underwent ovarian tissue transfer. CONCLUSION: Indications, age limits and ovarian stimulation protocols for cryopreservation widely varied between the institutions. A national registration system for oncofertility must be established to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the current system.
Authors: Alejandra García; Gabriela Candás; Agustina Bemi; Héctor Daniel Vuoto; Ernesto Korbenfeld; Juan Isetta; Lucas Cogorno; Agustina González Zimmermann; Marcia Sigal; Santiago Acevedo; Julia Berwart; Martín Naveira; María Delfina Ocampo; Juan Luis Uriburu Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2021-02-10