The impact of the embryo banking on the cumulative live birth rate in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of embryo banking on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and the time to live birth (TTLB) in poor ovarian responders (POR) according to the Bologna criteria.

Methods

A total of 276 infertile women undergoing IVF with POR were included in this retrospective study. They were divided into two groups with (n = 121) or without (n = 155) embryo banking at the discretion of the attending physicians. A total of 656 and 405 stimulation cycles were started in the two groups respectively during the 24 month follow-up.

Results

The biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth rate per transfer were comparable between two groups (p > 0.05). The CLBR was significantly lower in the banking group than in the non-banking group (31.4% (38/121) and 43.2% (67/151), p < 0.05). TTLB was significantly longer in the banking group (20.5 months vs. 16.0 months, p < 0.001). In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of live birth was significantly lower in the banking group compared with the non-banking group (Log rank test, chi-square = 21.958, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Embryo banking in women undergoing IVF with POR based on the Bologna criteria reduces CLBR and lengthens TTLB when compared with no embryo banking.

Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial on various ovarian stimulation protocols

STUDY QUESTION

Does ovarian stimulation with the addition of tamoxifen or letrozole affect the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) retrieved compared to standard ovarian stimulation in women with breast cancer who undergo fertility preservation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols with tamoxifen or letrozole did not affect the number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration in women with breast cancer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced for women with breast cancer who opt for fertility preservation by means of banking of oocytes or embryos. How these ovarian stimulation protocols compare to standard ovarian stimulation in terms of COC yield is unknown.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This multicentre, open-label randomized controlled superiority trial was carried out in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands and 1 hospital in Belgium between January 2014 and December 2018. We randomly assigned women with breast cancer, aged 18–43 years, who opted for banking of oocytes or embryos to one of three study arms; ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, ovarian stimulation plus letrozole or standard ovarian stimulation. Standard ovarian stimulation included GnRH antagonist, recombinant FSH and GnRH agonist trigger. Randomization was performed with a web-based system in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified for oral contraception usage at start of ovarian stimulation, positive estrogen receptor (ER) status and positive lymph nodes. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to the assigned treatment. The primary outcome was number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

During the study period, 162 women were randomly assigned to one of three interventions. Fifty-four underwent ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 53 ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 55 standard ovarian stimulation. Analysis was according to intention-to-treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

No differences among groups were observed in the mean (±SD) number of COCs retrieved: 12.5 (10.4) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 14.2 (9.4) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 13.6 (11.6) after standard ovarian stimulation (mean difference −1.13, 95% CI −5.70 to 3.43 for tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.58, 95% CI −4.03 to 5.20 for letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation). After adjusting for oral contraception usage at the start of ovarian stimulation, positive ER status and positive lymph nodes, the mean difference was −1.11 (95% CI −5.58 to 3.35) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.30 (95% CI −4.19 to 4.78) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation. There were also no differences in the number of oocytes or embryos banked. There was one serious adverse event after standard ovarian stimulation: one woman was admitted to the hospital because of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The available literature on which we based our hypothesis, power analysis and sample size calculation was scarce and studies were of low quality. Our study did not have sufficient power to perform subgroup analysis on follicular, luteal or random start of ovarian stimulation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our study showed that adding tamoxifen or letrozole to a standard ovarian stimulation protocol in women with breast cancer does not impact the effectiveness of fertility preservation and paves the way for high-quality long-term follow-up on breast cancer treatment outcomes and women’s future pregnancy outcomes. Our study also highlights the need for high-quality studies for all women opting for fertility preservation, as alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced to clinical practice without proper evidence.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was supported by a grant (2011.WO23.C129) of ‘Stichting Pink Ribbon’, a breast cancer fundraising charity organization in the Netherlands. M.G., C.B.L. and R.S. declared that the Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (location VUMC) has received unconditional research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. C.B.L. declared a speakers fee for Inmed and Yingming. S.C.L. reports grants and non-financial support from Agendia, grants, non-financial support and other from AstraZeneca, grants from Eurocept-pharmaceuticals, grants and non-financial support from Genentech/Roche and Novartis, grants from Pfizer, grants and non-financial support from Tesaro and Immunomedics, other from Cergentis, IBM, Bayer, and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work; In addition, S.C.L. has a patent UN23A01/P-EP pending that is unrelated to the present work. J.M.J.S. reported payments and travel grants from Merck and Ferring. C.C.M.B. reports her role as unpaid president of the National guideline committee on Fertility Preservation in women with cancer. K.F. received unrestricted grants from Merck Serono, Good Life and Ferring not related to present work. K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. declared former employment from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD). K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. reports grants from MSD, Gedeon Richter and Ferring paid to his institution; consulting fee payments from MSD and Merck Serono paid to his institution; speaker honoraria from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono paid to his institution. D.S. has also received travel and meeting support from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono. No payments are related to present work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4108.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

6 August 2013.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

30 January 2014.

Prognostic role of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in medically indicated fertility preservation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) among patients pursuing embryo banking (EB) for medically indicated fertility preservation (FP).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

University-affiliated fertility center.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent in vitro fertilization with or without PGT-A for medically indicated FP between January 2014 and April 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

None MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EB cycle characteristics, subsequent cycle pursuit/outcomes, and frozen embryo transfer (FET) outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 58 medical EB cycles were compared; 34 cycles used PGT-A. Of the EB patients with breast cancer, 67% used PGT-A; other indications were evenly divided between PGT-A (FP/PGT-A) and no PGT-A (FP). PGT-A use increased over the study period. Groups were similar in age, days of stimulation, and days from initial FP consultation to treatment initiation. Number of oocytes (14.5 [2-63] FP vs. 17.5 [1-64] FP/PGT-A), 2PN zygotes (7 [1-38] FP vs. 9 [0-36] FP/PGT-A), and blastocysts (5.5 [0-22] FP vs. 5 [0-18] FP/PGT-A) cryopreserved were similar between groups. Equal numbers cryopreserved both oocytes and embryos (5 vs. 3). Five FP/PGT-A patients underwent a second EB cycle. Among FP/PGT-A patients, an average of 6.7 ± 5 blastocysts underwent PGT-A, with 3.5 ± 3 (48.2%) euploid embryos cryopreserved for future FET compared to an average of 7.2 ± 7 untested embryos in the FP group.

CONCLUSION

PGT-A in medical EB cycles increased over time and did not limit the use of other FP methods such as oocyte cryopreservation. In some cases, poor PGT-A results informed patients to pursue a second EB cycle. When counseling patients, the prognostic benefits of PGT-A must be weighed against the financial costs and potential for "terminal" fertility diagnosis.

Worldwide decline of IVF birth rates and its probable causes

With steadily improving pregnancy and live birth rates, IVF over approximately the first two and a half decades evolved into a highly successful treatment for female and male infertility, reaching peak live birth rates by 2001-2002. Plateauing rates, thereafter, actually started declining in most regions of the world. We here report worldwide IVF live birth rates between 2004 and 2016, defined as live births per fresh IVF/ICSI cycle started, and how the introduction of certain practice add-ons in timing was associated with changes in these live birth rates. We also attempted to define how rapid worldwide 'industrialization' (transition from a private practice model to an investor-driven industry) and 'commoditization' in IVF practice (primary competitive emphasis on revenue rather than IVF outcomes) affected IVF outcomes. The data presented here are based on published regional registry data from governments and/or specialty societies, covering the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia/New Zealand (combined), Latin America (as a block) and Japan. Changes in live birth rates were associated with introduction of new IVF practices, including mild stimulation, elective single embryo transfer (eSET), PGS (now renamed preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy), all-freeze cycles and embryo banking. Profound negative associations were observed with mild stimulation, extended embryo culture to blastocyst and eSET in Japan, Australia/New Zealand and Canada but to milder degrees also elsewhere. Effects of 'industrialization' suggested rising utilization of add-ons ('commoditization'), increased IVF costs, reduced live birth rates and poorer patient satisfaction. Over the past decade and a half, IVF, therefore, has increasingly disappointed outcome expectations. Remarkably, neither the profession nor the public have paid attention to this development which, therefore, also has gone unexplained. It now urgently calls for evidence-based explanations.