Sharrόn L Manuel1, Molly B Moravek2, Rafael Confino1, Kristin N Smith1, Angela K Lawson1, Susan C Klock1, Mary Ellen Pavone3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 N. St. Clair Ave, Suite 2310, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 N. St. Clair Ave, Suite 2310, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. MaryEllen.Pavone@nm.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to describe the multidisciplinary approach and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) outcomes in adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients (ages 13-21) who underwent oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation (FP). METHODS: Multi-site retrospective cohort was performed from 2007 to 2018 at Northwestern University and Michigan University. Data were analyzed by chi-square test, t-test, and logistic regression. RESULTS: Forty-one patients began COH of which 38 patients successfully underwent oocyte retrieval, with mature oocytes obtained and cryopreserved without any adverse outcomes. To treat this group of patients, we use a multidisciplinary approach with a patient navigator. When dividing patients by ages 13-17 vs. 18-21, the median doses of FSH used were 2325 and 2038 IU, the median number of mature oocytes retrieved were 10 and 10, and median number frozen oocytes were 11 and 13, respectively. Median days of stimulation were 10 for both groups. There was no statistical difference in BMI, AMH, peak E2, FSH dosage, days stimulated, total oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes retrieved, and oocytes frozen between the two groups. Three patients were canceled for poor response. CONCLUSION: COH with oocyte cryopreservation is a feasible FP option for AYAs who may not have other alternatives when appropriate precautions are taken, such as proper counseling and having a support team. These promising outcomes correspond to similar findings of recent small case series, providing hope for these patients to have genetically related offspring in the future.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to describe the multidisciplinary approach and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) outcomes in adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients (ages 13-21) who underwent oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation (FP). METHODS: Multi-site retrospective cohort was performed from 2007 to 2018 at Northwestern University and Michigan University. Data were analyzed by chi-square test, t-test, and logistic regression. RESULTS: Forty-one patients began COH of which 38 patients successfully underwent oocyte retrieval, with mature oocytes obtained and cryopreserved without any adverse outcomes. To treat this group of patients, we use a multidisciplinary approach with a patient navigator. When dividing patients by ages 13-17 vs. 18-21, the median doses of FSH used were 2325 and 2038 IU, the median number of mature oocytes retrieved were 10 and 10, and median number frozen oocytes were 11 and 13, respectively. Median days of stimulation were 10 for both groups. There was no statistical difference in BMI, AMH, peak E2, FSH dosage, days stimulated, total oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes retrieved, and oocytes frozen between the two groups. Three patients were canceled for poor response. CONCLUSION: COH with oocyte cryopreservation is a feasible FP option for AYAs who may not have other alternatives when appropriate precautions are taken, such as proper counseling and having a support team. These promising outcomes correspond to similar findings of recent small case series, providing hope for these patients to have genetically related offspring in the future.
Authors: Emilie K Johnson; Courtney Finlayson; Erin E Rowell; Yasmin Gosiengfiao; Mary Ellen Pavone; Barbara Lockart; Kyle E Orwig; Robert E Brannigan; Teresa K Woodruff Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Pietro Bortoletto; Rafael Confino; Brigid M Smith; Teresa K Woodruff; Mary Ellen Pavone Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Molly B Moravek; Rafael Confino; Kristin N Smith; Ralph R Kazer; Susan C Klock; Angela K Lawson; William J Gradishar; Mary Ellen Pavone Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Austin G Armstrong; Bruce F Kimler; Brigid M Smith; Teresa K Woodruff; Mary Ellen Pavone; Francesca E Duncan Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: L M Ataman; M M Laronda; M Gowett; K Trotter; H Anvari; F Fei; A Ingram; M Minette; C Suebthawinkul; Z Taghvaei; M Torres-Vélez; K Velez; S K Adiga; A Anazodo; L Appiah; M T Bourlon; N Daniels; M M Dolmans; C Finlayson; R B Gilchrist; V Gomez-Lobo; E Greenblatt; J A Halpern; K Hutt; E K Johnson; K Kawamura; M Khrouf; D Kimelman; S Kristensen; R T Mitchell; M B Moravek; L Nahata; K E Orwig; M E Pavone; D Pépin; R Pesce; G P Quinn; M P Rosen; E Rowell; K Smith; C Venter; S Whiteside; S Xiao; M Zelinski; K N Goldman; T K Woodruff; F E Duncan Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2022-07-23 Impact factor: 3.357