Literature DB >> 32062803

Oncologic oocyte cryopreservation: national comparison of fertility preservation between women with and without cancer.

Jennifer F Kawwass1, Lisa M Shandley2, Sheree L Boulet2, Heather S Hipp2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The majority of data regarding oocyte cryopreservation (OC) outcomes focuses on healthy women. We compare trends, cycle characteristics, and outcomes between women freezing oocytes for fertility preservation due to cancer versus elective and other medical or fertility-related diagnoses.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort using national surveillance data includes all autologous OC cycles between 2012 and 2016. Cycles were divided into 4 distinct groups: cancer, elective, infertility, and medically indicated. We calculated trends and compared cycle and outcome characteristics between the 4 groups. We used multivariable log-binomial models to estimate associations between indication and gonadotropin dose, hyperstimulation, and cancelation and used Poisson regression models to estimate associations between indication and oocyte yield and maturity.
RESULTS: The study included 29,631 autologous OC cycles. Annual total (2925 to 8828) and cancer-related (177 to 504) cycles increased over the study period; the proportions remained constant. Compared to elective, cancer-related cycles were more likely to be performed among women < 35 years old, with higher BMI, living in the South, using an antagonist protocol. Compared to elective OC cycles, gonadotropin dose (aRR 0.89, 95%CI 0.80-0.99), cancelation (aRR 0.90, 95%CI 0.70-1.14), and hyperstimulation (aRR 1.46, 95%CI 0.77-2.29) were not different for cancer-related cycles. Oocyte yield and percent maturity were comparable in both groups.
CONCLUSION: The number of OC cycles among women with cancer has increased; however, the percentage OC cycles for cancer have remained stable. While patient demographic characteristics were different among those undergoing OC for cancer indication, cycle outcomes were comparable to elective OC. The outcomes of the subsequent oocyte thaw, fertilization, and embryo transfer cycles remain unknown.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; Fertility preservation; Oocyte (egg) freezing; Oocyte maturity; Outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32062803      PMCID: PMC7183023          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-020-01715-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.412


  14 in total

1.  Disparities in access to effective treatment for infertility in the United States: an Ethics Committee opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 7.329

2.  BRCA carriers have similar reproductive potential at baseline to noncarriers: comparisons in cancer and cancer-free cohorts undergoing fertility preservation.

Authors:  Vinay Gunnala; Jessica Fields; Mohamad Irani; Debra D'Angelo; Kangpu Xu; Glenn Schattman; Zev Rosenwaks
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Response to ovarian stimulation is not impacted by a breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Molly M Quinn; Hakan Cakmak; Joseph M Letourneau; Marcelle I Cedars; Mitchell P Rosen
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  Oocyte Cryopreservation in Adolescent Women.

Authors:  Heather S Hipp; Lisa M Shandley; D Austin Schirmer; Laurie McKenzie; Jennifer F Kawwass
Journal:  J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol       Date:  2019-03-20       Impact factor: 1.814

5.  Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls.

Authors:  Jonathan A C Sterne; Ian R White; John B Carlin; Michael Spratt; Patrick Royston; Michael G Kenward; Angela M Wood; James R Carpenter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-06-29

6.  Female patients with lymphoma demonstrate diminished ovarian reserve even before initiation of chemotherapy when compared with healthy controls and patients with other malignancies.

Authors:  Jovana Lekovich; Alexandre L S Lobel; Joshua D Stewart; Nigel Pereira; Isaac Kligman; Zev Rosenwaks
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  Five years' experience using oocyte vitrification to preserve fertility for medical and nonmedical indications.

Authors:  Juan A Garcia-Velasco; Javier Domingo; Ana Cobo; Maria Martínez; Luis Carmona; Antonio Pellicer
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline.

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

9.  Missing data and multiple imputation in clinical epidemiological research.

Authors:  Alma B Pedersen; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Deirdre Cronin-Fenton; Nickolaj R Kristensen; Tra My Pham; Lars Pedersen; Irene Petersen
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.790

10.  Responses to fertility treatment among patients with cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  A V Dolinko; L V Farland; S A Missmer; S S Srouji; C Racowsky; E S Ginsburg
Journal:  Fertil Res Pract       Date:  2018-04-17
View more
  4 in total

1.  Fertility preservation practices for female oncofertility differ significantly across the USA: results of a survey of SREI members.

Authors:  Leah J Cooper; Benjamin R Emery; Kenneth Aston; Douglas Fair; Mitchell P Rosen; Erica Johnstone; Joseph M Letourneau
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-07-23       Impact factor: 3.357

2.  Oocyte Biobanks: Old Assumptions and New Challenges.

Authors:  Pamela Tozzo
Journal:  BioTech (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-18

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Germline stem cells in human.

Authors:  Hanhua Cheng; Dantong Shang; Rongjia Zhou
Journal:  Signal Transduct Target Ther       Date:  2022-10-02
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.