Charlotte Sonigo1, Nelly Frydman2,3, Anne Mayeur4, Vincent Puy2,3, Victoria Windal2, Laetitia Hesters2, Vanessa Gallot1, Alexandra Benoit1, Michael Grynberg1. 1. Department of Reproductive Medicine and Fertility Preservation, Antoine Béclère Hospital, APHP, Paris-Saclay University, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France. 2. Reproductive Biology Unit CECOS, Antoine Béclère Hospital APHP, Paris-Saclay University, 157 rue de la porte de Trivaux, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France. 3. Laboratory of Development of the Gonads, UMRE008 Genetic Stability Stem Cells and Radiation, Paris University, Paris-Saclay University, CEA, F-92265 Fontenay-aux-Roses, Paris, France. 4. Reproductive Biology Unit CECOS, Antoine Béclère Hospital APHP, Paris-Saclay University, 157 rue de la porte de Trivaux, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France. anne.mayeur@aphp.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of frozen oocytes or embryos cryopreserved after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) or in vitro maturation (IVM) for female cancer patients who underwent a fertility preservation (FP) prior to gonadotoxic therapy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from 2009 to December 2017 was conducted. Among the 667 female cancer patients who underwent oocytes or embryos cryopreservation for FP, 40 (6%) have returned to the fertility clinic between 2011 and 2019 to use their frozen material after being cured. We compared these thaw cycles outcomes according to the techniques used at the time of cryopreservation. RESULTS: Among the 40 women cancer survivors who used their cryopreserved material, thirty patients have benefited from at least one embryo transfer. Ten patients did not have an embryo transfer since the oocytes did not survive after the thawing process or because no embryo was obtained after fertilization. We related three live births following FP using IVM (two from frozen oocytes and one after embryo cryopreservation). Five live births were obtained when COS was performed at the time of FP (one from frozen oocytes and four after embryo cryopreservation). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results, although they are obtained in a small sample, are encouraging and show that different FP techniques can be used in female cancer patients and lead to live births. IVM is one of the options available that does not delay the start of chemotherapy or if ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins is contraindicated.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of frozen oocytes or embryos cryopreserved after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) or in vitro maturation (IVM) for female cancer patients who underwent a fertility preservation (FP) prior to gonadotoxic therapy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from 2009 to December 2017 was conducted. Among the 667 female cancer patients who underwent oocytes or embryos cryopreservation for FP, 40 (6%) have returned to the fertility clinic between 2011 and 2019 to use their frozen material after being cured. We compared these thaw cycles outcomes according to the techniques used at the time of cryopreservation. RESULTS: Among the 40 women cancer survivors who used their cryopreserved material, thirty patients have benefited from at least one embryo transfer. Ten patients did not have an embryo transfer since the oocytes did not survive after the thawing process or because no embryo was obtained after fertilization. We related three live births following FP using IVM (two from frozen oocytes and one after embryo cryopreservation). Five live births were obtained when COS was performed at the time of FP (one from frozen oocytes and four after embryo cryopreservation). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results, although they are obtained in a small sample, are encouraging and show that different FP techniques can be used in female cancer patients and lead to live births. IVM is one of the options available that does not delay the start of chemotherapy or if ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins is contraindicated.
Authors: Ingrid Segers; Erlisa Bardhi; Ileana Mateizel; Ellen Van Moer; Rik Schots; Greta Verheyen; Herman Tournaye; Michel De Vos Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: J Ferlay; M Colombet; I Soerjomataram; T Dyba; G Randi; M Bettio; A Gavin; O Visser; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 9.162