Laboratory evaluation in oocyte cryopreservation suggests retrieved oocytes are comparable whether frozen for medical indications, deferred reproduction or oocyte donation

Fertility preservation parameters in patients with haematologic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with haematologic malignancies represent one of the most common groups referred for fertility preservation before gonadotoxic oncological treatment. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of haematologic cancer on ovarian reserve and response to ovarian stimulation compared with healthy controls. A total of eight observative studies were included in the final quantitative analysis. Despite a younger age (mean difference -4.17, 95% CI -6.20 to -2.14; P < 0.0001), patients with haematologic malignancy had lower serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels compared with the control group (MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.80 to -0.29; P = 0.007). The marginally higher total recombinant FSH dose (MD 632.32, 95% CI -187.60 to 1452.24; P = 0.13) and significantly lower peak oestradiol serum level (MD -994.05, 95% CI -1962.09 to -26.02; P = 0.04) were demonstrated in the study group compared with the healthy controls. A similar number of retrieved oocytes were achieved in both groups (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.80 to 1.20; P = 0.69). In conclusion, haematologic malignancies may detrimentally affect ovarian function manifesting in decreased AMH serum levels despite a younger age compared with healthy controls. This effect can be overcome by the application of relevant IVF protocols and stimulation doses to achieve an adequate oocyte yield.

Outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in women with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

What are the associations between a history of cancer and outcomes after ART?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Compared to women without cancer, on average, women with cancer had a lower return for embryo transfer and a lower likelihood of clinical pregnancy and live birth after ART.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Small, single-institution studies have suggested that cancer and its treatment may negatively affect ART outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing ART outcomes between women with and without cancer. PubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched for original, English-language studies published up to June 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Inclusion criteria required reporting of ART outcomes after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) among women with a history of cancer compared to women without cancer who used ART for any indication. Outcomes of interest ranged from duration of COS to likelihood of live birth after embryo transfer. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs and 95% prediction intervals (PIs). We assessed heterogeneity by age-adjustment, referent group indication for ART, study location and among women with breast cancer and women who initiated ART before cancer treatment. We used visual inspection, Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method to assess funnel plot asymmetry.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Of 6094 unique records identified, 42 studies met inclusion criteria, representing a median per study of 58 women with cancer (interquartile range (IQR) = 159) and 114 women without cancer (IQR = 348). Compared to women without cancer, on average, women with cancer had a lower return for embryo transfer (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.74; 95% PI: 0.00, 64.98); lower likelihood of clinical pregnancy (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.73; 95% PI: 0.19, 1.35); and lower likelihood of live birth (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.83; 95% PI: 0.19, 1.69). Substantial among-study heterogeneity was observed for COS duration, gonadotropin dose, cycle cancellation, total oocytes and mature oocytes. Fertilization percentage showed less heterogeneity, but study-specific estimates were imprecise. Similarly, number of embryos showed less heterogeneity, and most studies estimated minimal differences by cancer history. Funnel plot asymmetry was observed for estradiol peak and oocyte maturation percentage.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Appreciable confounding is possible in 11 studies that lacked adequate control for group differences in age, and among-study heterogeneity was observed for most outcomes. Lack of data limited our ability to assess how cancer clinical factors (e.g. cancers other than breast, cancer stage and treatment) and ART cycle characteristics (e.g. fresh versus frozen embryo transfers and use of gestational carriers) may affect outcomes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Women with cancer may be less likely to achieve pregnancy and live birth after embryo transfer. Further examination of reproductive outcomes and sources of heterogeneity among studies is warranted to improve evidence of the expected success of ART after a cancer diagnosis.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported in part by R01 CA211093 and P30 ES010126. C.M. was supported by the University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Control Education Program (T32 CA057726) and the National Cancer Institute (F31 CA260787). J.A.R.-H. was supported by the National Cancer Institute (K08 CA234333, P30 CA016672). J.A.R.-H. reports receiving consulting fees from Schlesinger Group and Guidepoint. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Concomitant tamoxifen or letrozole for optimal oocyte yield during fertility preservation for breast cancer: the TAmoxifen or Letrozole in Estrogen Sensitive tumors (TALES) randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether concomitant tamoxifen 20 mg with gonadotropins (tamoxifen-gonadotropin) versus letrozole 5 mg with gonadotropins (letrozole-gonadotropin) affects mature oocyte yield.

METHODS

Open-label, single-institution, randomized trial. Inclusion criteria included the following: females, ages 18-44 years old, with new diagnosis of non-metastatic breast cancer, who were undergoing fertility preservation with either oocyte or embryo cryopreservation. Those with estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer were randomized to tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin. Another group with estrogen-receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer was recruited, as a prospectively collected comparison arm who took neither letrozole nor tamoxifen (gonadotropin only). The primary outcome was the number of mature oocytes obtained from the cycle. The randomized groups were powered to detect a difference of three or more mature oocytes.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were randomized to tamoxifen-gonadotropin and fifty-one to letrozole-gonadotropin. Thirty-eight patients completed gonadotropin only. Age, antral follicle count, and body mass index were similar between the randomized groups. Our primary outcome of mature oocyte yield was similar between the tamoxifen-gonadotropin and letrozole-gonadotropin groups (12±8.6 vs. 11.6±7.5, p=0.81, 95%CI of difference =-2.9 to 3.7). In a pre-specified secondary comparison, mature oocyte yield was also similar with tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin versus gonadotropin only (12±8.6 vs. 11.6±7.5 vs. 12.4±7.2). There were no serious adverse events in any of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamoxifen-gonadotropin and letrozole-gonadotropin produced a similar number of mature oocytes. Women who received either tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin had a similar number of oocytes to the gonadotropin-only group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03011684 (retrospectively registered 1/5/2017, after 9% enrolled).

Experiences in fertility preservation: lessons learned to ensure that fertility and reproductive autonomy remain options for cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Assess fertility preservation (FP) measures chosen by patients newly diagnosed with malignancy and their outcomes.

METHODS

Reproductive-age patients referred for FP underwent counseling and elected cryopreservation vs. no treatment. Outcome measures included ovarian stimulation, FP choice, oocytes/zygotes retrieved/cryopreserved and pregnancy outcome.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2012, 136 patients were counseled with 124 electing treatment: 83 oocyte-only, 21 oocyte + zygote and 20 zygote-only cryopreservation. Age, partnership and financial status factored into FP choice. Treatment was completed in 12 ± 2 days with 14 ± 11 metaphase-II oocytes harvested and cryopreserved/cycle. Eight patients returned to attempt pregnancy; three succeeded.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that oocyte and/or zygote banking are feasible FP options for women with malignancy; given the choice, the majority elected oocyte cryopreservation, highlighting desire for reproductive autonomy. Continued growth and research, combined with interdisciplinary communication, will ensure that appropriate candidates are offered FP and the potential for future parenthood, an important quality-of-life marker for survivors.

Recent advances in oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation

Options for preserving fertility in women include well-established methods such as fertility-sparing surgery, shielding to reduce radiation damage to reproductive organs, and emergency in-vitro fertilisation after controlled ovarian stimulation, with the aim of freezing embryos. The practice of transfering frozen or thawed embryos has been in place for over 25 years, and today is a routine clinical treatment in fertility clinics. Oocytes may also be frozen unfertilised for later thawing and fertilisation by intracytoplasmic sperm injection in vitro. In recent years, oocyte cryopreservation methods have further developed, reaching promising standards. More than 1000 children are born worldwide after fertilisation of frozen and thawed oocytes. Nevertheless, this technique is still considered experimental. In this chapter, we focus on options for fertility preservation still in development that can be offered to women. These include freezing of oocytes and ovarian cortex and the transplantation of ovarian tissue.

Strategies to improve embryo implantation to supraphysiological rates

The implantation rate is reduced in the human species and a great number of embryos present developmental anomalies. The past, present, and future of artificial reproductive technology (ART) strategies to improve the chances of implantation are discussed, in addition to the social, clinical, and epidemiological aspects of a progressively lower human fertility potential. The increasing age of couples looking to become pregnant for the first time, and the general tendency of deferring motherhood, are aspects that only a long-term social policy can address. A general proposal for oocyte and sperm cryopreservation is discussed as an option to reduce the impact of age and the possible risks of unethical use of gamete donation. Investing in gamete banking resources may be a unique option for the future.

Treatment outcomes and quality-of-life assessment in a university-based fertility preservation program: results of a registry of female cancer patients at 2 years

PURPOSE

To explore patient goals and quality of life (QOL) via a prospective registry and compare fertility preservation (FP) outcomes before, during, and after cancer therapy.

METHODS

Of 35 patients entering the registry from 3/2008 to 3/2010, 29/35 completed the study survey and agreed to follow-up, and 31/35 completed treatment. Survey results and FP outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Most patients rated the impact of cancer treatment on fertility of highest importance at baseline and 1-year follow-up. QOL scores were overall positive at both intervals. Patients naïve to any cancer treatment (n = 12) had more gametes frozen than patients with prior cancer treatment (n = 19) with no difference in age or gonadotropin dosage. For patients awaiting cancer treatment, the median time from consultation to oocyte retrieval was 25 days. Cancer treatment sequalae posed challenges to optimal FP outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Fertility preservation remains a significant issue for cancer patients. With early reproductive endocrinologist referral, cancer treatment delay is minimized and FP outcomes are optimized.