Moraes CCD, Marinho VFW, Campos ALM, Guedes JDS, Xavier ÉBDS, Caetano JPJ, Marinho RM. Oocyte cryopreservation for future fertility: comparison of ovarian response between cancer and non-cancer patients.
JBRA Assist Reprod 2019;
23:91-98. [PMID:
30875168 PMCID:
PMC6501752 DOI:
10.5935/1518-0557.20190010]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective:
This study aimed to assess whether a diagnosis of cancer interferes with
ovarian function prior to the treatment of the disease.
Methods:
This observational retrospective study used data from medical records of
ovarian stimulation cycles performed for purposes of oocyte
cryopreservation.
Results:
The included patients had a mean age of 35.13±3.72 years and 51.6% of
them were aged between 36 and 40 years. More than half of the patients
(57.6%) were single and 82.1% had a normal body mass index (BMI). Most women
had not become pregnant (85.5%) or had babies (95.1%) or miscarriages
(89.6%) prior to cryopreservation. The mean number of oocytes obtained from
non-cancer patients was 11.4±8, while for cancer patients the number
was 13.8±9. The mean number of frozen mature oocytes was 9.7±7
for the non-cancer group and 11.2±7.2 for the cancer group. The
majority (63.1%) of the patients had up to 10 oocytes frozen per cycle.
Breast cancer had the highest incidence among the included patients. There
was no significant difference in ovarian response between patients with
different types of cancer.
Conclusion:
The number of harvested and frozen oocytes from cancer and non-cancer
patients indicated that in the two groups response to ovarian stimulation
was similar.
Collapse