Literature DB >> 35980490

Clinical outcome of embryo cryopreservation in Japanese breast cancer patients: pregnancy rates after transfer of thawed embryos.

Yuki Okutsu-Horage1, Hideyuki Iwahata1, Yuki Suzuki-Takahashi1, Yodo Sugishita1, Seido Takae1, Nao Suzuki2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine pregnancy outcomes after cryopreserved embryo transfer (ET) in breast cancer patients and to investigate the effect of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) as well as that of aromatase inhibitor (AI) administration and of the random start (RS) ovarian stimulation method.
METHODS: This retrospective study covered 126 patients who underwent embryo cryopreservation between 2010 and 2019. Thirty-one patients underwent frozen embryo transfer (FET), and we examined resulting pregnancy rates (PRs) and live birth rates (LBRs) in those who did and did not undergo COH and in relation to the AI and RS methods.
RESULTS: PR and LBR per patient were higher among patients who underwent COH than among those who did not. PR per ET did not differ from that documented for non-cancer infertility patients, after adjustment for age. The PR and LBR did not differ between use and non-use of AI (27.8% vs 35.2%). In addition, there was no significant difference in the PR or LBR between RS and conventional start ovarian stimulation (33.3% vs 30.8%). No prenatal fetal abnormalities were observed in 8 cases (including 5 AI cases and 2 RS cases).
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the outcome of FET after FP was equivalent to that seen in non-cancer patients. Further, neither use of AI nor the RS method influenced LBR. COH including use of AI and the RS method are useful in FP for collecting and freezing many embryos within a short period and for increasing the per patient LBR after cancer treatment.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aromatase inhibitor; Breast cancer; Cryopreservation; Fertility preservation; Oncofertility; Pregnancy outcome; Random start

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35980490      PMCID: PMC9428083          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02575-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.357


  25 in total

Review 1.  Fertility preservation in young women undergoing breast cancer therapy.

Authors:  Murat Sonmezer; Kutluk Oktay
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2006-05

Review 2.  Fertility Preservation in Women.

Authors:  Jacques Donnez; Marie-Madeleine Dolmans
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  The safety and efficacy of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for fertility preservation in women with early breast cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rachael J Rodgers; Geoffrey D Reid; Juliette Koch; Rebecca Deans; William L Ledger; Michael Friedlander; Robert B Gilchrist; Kirsty A Walters; Jason A Abbott
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  Reproductive potential and performance of fertility preservation strategies in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients.

Authors:  M Lambertini; O Goldrat; A R Ferreira; J Dechene; H A Azim; J Desir; A Delbaere; M-D t'Kint de Roodenbeke; E de Azambuja; M Ignatiadis; I Demeestere
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 32.976

5.  Ovarian stimulation and in-vitro fertilization outcomes of cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation compared to age matched controls: a 17-year experience.

Authors:  Eden R Cardozo; Alexcis P Thomson; Anatte E Karmon; Kristy A Dickinson; Diane L Wright; Mary E Sabatini
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-01-18       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  Update on fertility preservation from the Barcelona International Society for Fertility Preservation-ESHRE-ASRM 2015 expert meeting: indications, results and future perspectives.

Authors:  Francisca Martinez
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  The euploid blastocysts obtained after luteal phase stimulation show the same clinical, obstetric and perinatal outcomes as follicular phase stimulation-derived ones: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Alberto Vaiarelli; Danilo Cimadomo; Erminia Alviggi; Anna Sansone; Elisabetta Trabucco; Ludovica Dusi; Laura Buffo; Nicoletta Barnocchi; Fabrizio Fiorini; Silvia Colamaria; Maddalena Giuliani; Cindy Argento; Laura Rienzi; Filippo Maria Ubaldi
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 6.918

8.  The presence of dominant follicles and corpora lutea does not perturb response to controlled ovarian stimulation in random start protocols.

Authors:  Francesca Filippi; Edgardo Somigliana; Andrea Busnelli; Cristina Guarneri; Stefania Noli; Liliana Restelli; Paolo Vercellini
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on ovarian reserve and fertility preservation outcomes in young women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Eleonora Porcu; Giulia Maria Cillo; Linda Cipriani; Federica Sacilotto; Leonardo Notarangelo; Giuseppe Damiano; Maria Dirodi; Ilaria Roncarati
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 3.412

10.  Letrozole-associated controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in breast cancer patients versus conventional controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in infertile patients: assessment of oocyte quality related biomarkers.

Authors:  Oranite Goldrat; Geraldine Van Den Steen; Eric Gonzalez-Merino; Julie Dechène; Christine Gervy; Anne Delbaere; Fabienne Devreker; Viviane De Maertelaer; Isabelle Demeestere
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 5.211

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.