Ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in women with cancer is as expected according to an age-specific nomogram

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.

What should be done in terms of fertility preservation for patients with cancer? The French 2021 guidelines

AIM

To provide practice guidelines about fertility preservation (FP) in oncology.

METHODS

We selected 400 articles after a PubMed review of the literature (1987-2019).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Any child, adolescent and adult of reproductive age should be informed about the risk of treatment gonadotoxicity. In women, systematically proposed FP counselling between 15 and 38 years of age in case of treatment including bifunctional alkylating agents, above 6 g/m2 cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED), and for radiation doses on the ovaries ≥3 Gy. For postmenarchal patients, oocyte cryopreservation after ovarian stimulation is the first-line FP technique. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be discussed as a first-line approach in case of treatment with a high gonadotoxic risk, when chemotherapy has already started and in urgent cases. Ovarian transposition is to be discussed prior to pelvic radiotherapy involving a high risk of premature ovarian failure. For prepubertal girls, ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be proposed in the case of treatment with a high gonadotoxic risk. In pubertal males, sperm cryopreservation must be systematically offered to any male who is to undergo cancer treatment, regardless of toxicity. Testicular tissue cryopreservation must be proposed in males unable to cryopreserve sperm who are to undergo a treatment with intermediate or severe risk of gonadotoxicity. In prepubertal boys, testicular tissue preservation is: - recommended for chemotherapy with a CED ≥7500 mg/m2 or radiotherapy ≥3 Gy on both testicles. - proposed for chemotherapy with a CED ≥5.000 mg/m2 or radiotherapy ≥2 Gy. If several possible strategies, the ultimate choice is made by the patient.

Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation before gonadotoxic treatments: Principles of safe ovarian stimulation, a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Review the safety of fertility preservation through ovarian stimulation with oocyte or embryo cryopreservation, including cycle and medication options.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review of peer-reviewed sources revealed 2 applicable randomized control trials and 60 cohort studies as well as 20 additional expert opinions or reviews.

RESULTS

The capacity for future family building is important for the majority of reproductive age people, despite life-altering medical or oncologic diagnosis. Modern fertility preservation generates a high rate of oocyte yield while utilizing protocols that can be started at multiple points in the menstrual cycle and suppressing supra-physiologic levels of estrogen. Finally, more than one quarter of fertility preservation patients will return to later utilize fertility services.

CONCLUSION

For most patients, fertility preservation can safely be pursued and completed within 2 weeks without affecting disease severity or long-term survival.

Conservative management of stage IIB ovarian carcinoma with favorable oncology and fertility outcomes

•Fertility treatment prior to definitive cancer therapy in stage IIB EOC.•Both fertility and oncologic outcomes were successful.•The role of Multidisciplinary team is critical.

COH outcomes in breast cancer patients for fertility preservation: a comparison with the expected response by age

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed during childbearing age, and fertility preservation is becoming increasingly more essential. However, recent studies indicate a possible poorer response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in cancer patients than in non-cancer controls and a negative impact of BRCA mutations on female fertility. This study aims to evaluate ovarian response and the number of mature oocytes (MII) vitrified in women with breast cancer, with or without BRCA mutation, comparing them to the expected response according to an age-related nomogram.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study involving sixty-one breast cancer patients who underwent COH for oocyte cryopreservation. The age-specific nomogram was built using 3871 patients who underwent COH due to oocyte donation, fertility preservation for non-medical reasons, or FIVET for male factor exclusively.

RESULTS

The mean number of oocytes retrieved was 13.03, whereas the mean number of MII oocytes was 10.00. After the application of the z-score, no statistically significant differences were found compared with the expected response in the general population, neither by dividing patients according to the presence or absence of BRCA mutation nor according to the phase in which they initiated stimulation.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained do not support the notion of a negative impact of the BRCA mutation on the ovarian response of women with breast cancer. Women with breast cancer undergoing COH for fertility preservation can expect the ovarian response predicted for their age.

Does type of cancer affect ovarian response in oncofertility patients?

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the influence of type of cancer and cancer itself on the ovarian response during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation (FP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study performed at a single academic tertiary-care infertility center. Women diagnosed with cancer who underwent COS with GnRH antagonist protocol between January 2009 and December 2018 were included in this study. Patients were categorized into three groups; breast/gynecologic, hematologic, and other cancers. We secondarily compared the COS parameters and ovarian reserve markers in oncofertility cases against non-cancer patients who pursued FP for deferred reproduction. The primary outcome was number of mature oocytes. Secondary outcomes included oocyte yield (number of retrieved oocytes/number of follicles aspirated at time of retrieval) and oocyte-maturity index, defined as number of mature oocytes/total oocytes retrieved.

RESULTS

A total of 96 cancer patients were referred for FP counseling before starting their anti-cancer therapy. Clinical characteristics and ovarian response parameters were comparable between the three groups. Type of cancer was not a predictor for number of mature oocytes (p = 0.329), oocyte-maturity index (p = 0.815), or oocyte yield, (p = 0.161) after adjustment to cycle covariates. Moreover, cancer did not have impact on the number of mature oocytes (p = 0.699), oocyte-maturity index (p = 0.251) and oocyte yield (p = 0.094).

DISCUSSION

There is no difference observed in outcomes of ovarian stimulation based on primary cancer diagnosis in oncofertility patients undergoing FP. Interestingly, no significant impact for cancer itself was observed on ovarian reserve or response to gonadotrophins stimulation.

Added Benefit of Immature Oocyte Maturation for Fertility Preservation in Women with Malignancy

To assess the added value of maturing immature oocytes collected during fertility preservation treatments in women with malignancy. A retrospective case-control study analyzing the results of 327 cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation treatments. Oocyte maturation rates and cycle parameters were compared between 3 types of fertility preservation treatments: (1) stimulated IVF cycle (n = 143), (2) non-stimulated IVM cycle (n = 158), (3) follicle aspiration and oocyte collection from ovarian tissue prepared for ovarian tissue cryopreservation followed by in vitro maturation of the immature oocytes (n = 48). The primary outcome measure was the maturation rate and the number of mature oocytes. The secondary outcomes were oocyte fertilization and embryo development rates. The mean maturation rate in IVF cycles was 38% and in the non-stimulated IVM cycles was 55%. In women who chose to cryopreserve their embryos, similar fertilization and embryo cleavage rates were found in oocytes that matured after stimulated IVF cycles compared to non-stimulated IVM cycles. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering, treatment with aromatase inhibitor, or oral contraceptives use before the cycle did not affect the maturation rate. Ovarian stimulation yields the highest number of oocytes or embryos for cryopreservation. Although the maturation rate of immature oocytes collected in stimulated IVF cycles is low, it is still a viable source of oocytes that can be used to improve the efficacy of fertility preservation treatments by increasing the number of mature oocytes available for freezing or fertilization.

Fertility preservation in female oncology patients: the influence of the type of cancer on ovarian stimulation response

STUDY QUESTION

Does the type of cancer influence on the ovarian response to stimulation for fertility preservation (FP) in female oncology patients?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Patients with gynaecological cancer have less number of retrieved mature oocytes compared with haematological and breast cancer patients.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Concerns about the impact of cancer therapy on future fertility have been raised and FP has become an important component in cancer management. Previous studies analysing FP results in cancer patients have shown conflicting findings.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a retrospective analytical study performed in the Centre for Reproductive Medicine, at St Bartholomew's Hospital, between January 2000 and December 2014. The aim of this study was to analyse the response to ovarian stimulation in cancer patients before undergoing cancer treatment and to determine whether any difference can be attributed to underlying cancer diagnosis. We also report the pregnancy outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 531 female patients recently diagnosed with cancer were referred for counselling on FP. A total of 306 patients underwent ovarian stimulation for oocyte or embryo cryopreservation. We compared the baseline characteristics and ovarian response in five main subgroups: breast cancer, haematological cancer, gynaecological cancer, gastrointestinal cancer and others. The primary outcome was the total number of mature oocytes retrieved and pregnancy outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The main cancer diagnosis was breast cancer with 145 patients (47.4%); 79 patients (25.8%) had haematological malignancies; 42 (13.7%) had gynaecological malignancies; 20 (6.5%) had gastrointestinal cancer and 20 (6.5%) had other types of cancer. Patients with breast cancer were older (P < 0.001). Patients with haematological malignancies had higher number of mature oocytes retrieved (P = 0.003). The number of mature oocytes retrieved was lower in patients with gynaecological malignancy compared with haematological and breast cancer patients (P = 0.005 and P = 0.045, respectively). The fertilization rate and the number of cycles cancelled were comparable between all the groups. Thirty-two embryo transfer cycles have been done in 22 patients who have returned to attempt pregnancy. Pregnancy rate per transfer cycle was 43.75%, and cumulative pregnancy rate per patient was 54.5%. Live birth rate per patient was 22.72%.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Apart from the retrospective nature of the study, patients were included over the period of 15 years, and over that time technology has changed and protocols have evolved. The results obtained from subcategory analyses should be interpreted with caution, as in each subgroup there are different types of malignancies with different number of patients in different age groups. Different ovarian stimulation protocols were applied. Only a few patients have come back to attempt pregnancy after being cured from their disease. We do not have follow-up data on these patients; as a result, we are not able to report the survival rate and the reason for non-return for embryo transfer. In addition, we cannot report information on spontaneous conceptions and births. Slow freezing used for embryo cryopreservation, high miscarriage rate and low live birth rate per transfer are other limitations of this study.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The current study is the largest series analysing each group of cancer separately and showing pregnancy outcomes in oncology patients undergoing FP. These results provide valuable information about the success of this technique in oncology patients.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The authors have not received any funding to support this study. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ovarian reserve and response to stimulation in women undergoing fertility preservation according to malignancy type

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does ovarian reserve and ovarian response to ovarian stimulation in women with cancer undergoing oocyte vitrification for fertility preservation vary according to the type of malignancy?

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study including 105 women aged between 18 and 40 years, who were referred for fertility preservation (oocyte vitrification) between 2013 and 2016. The women were divided into three groups: breast cancer, lymphoma or other cancer. All of them had been recently diagnosed with cancer, with gonadotoxic treatment scheduled, and had oocyte vitrification after ovarian stimulation with antagonist protocol.

RESULTS

Baseline antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormone were no different between women with breast cancer, lymphoma or other cancer. The number of cancelled cycles for poor ovarian response was similar between the groups. The number of FSH units per mature oocyte, the number of mature oocytes (metaphase II) retrieved, and the oocyte maturity rate were not significantly different between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

As the type of cancer does not seem to significantly affect ovarian reserve and ovarian response to ovarian stimulation, our results do not support the relevance of integrating this parameter when establishing ovarian stimulation protocol for oocyte vitrification cycle in women with cancer.

Antral follicle responsiveness to FSH, assessed by the follicular output rate (FORT), is altered in Hodgkin's lymphoma when compared with breast cancer candidates for fertility preservation

PURPOSE

Oocyte and/or embryo cryopreservation after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) represents the most established method for female fertility preservation (FP) before cancer treatment. Whether patients suffering from malignancies, candidates for FP, have a normal ovarian capacity to respond to stimulation is controversial. Reduced responsiveness of antral follicle to exogenous FSH might be at play. The percentage of antral follicles that successfully respond to FSH administration may be estimated by the follicular output rate (FORT), which presumably reflects the health of granulosa cells. The present study aims at investigating whether the FORT differs between Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) and breast cancer (BC) patients.

METHODS

Forty-nine BC and 33 HL patient candidates for FP using oocyte vitrification following COH were prospectively studied. FORT was calculated by the ratio between the pre-ovulatory follicle count (16-22 mm) on the day of oocyte triggering × 100/antral follicle count before initiation of the stimulation.

RESULTS

Overall, women in the HL group were younger in comparison with BC patients (26.4 ± 3.9 vs 33.6 ± 3.3 years, p < 0.0001, respectively). The FORT was significantly decreased in patients with HL when compared with BC group (27.0 ± 18.8 vs 39.8 ± 18.9%, p = 0.004, respectively), further leading to a comparable number of oocytes vitrified (10.8 ± 5.9 vs 10.2 ± 7.7 oocytes, p = 0.7, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The present findings indicate that the percentage of antral follicles that successfully respond to FSH administration is reduced in HL when compared to BC patients, supporting the hypothesis of a detrimental effect of hemopathy on follicular health. In vitro experimentations might provide additional data to confirm this hypothesis.

Successful controlled ovarian stimulation and vitrification of oocytes in an adolescent diagnosed with myelodysplastic/pre-malignant clone with monosomy 7

An improvement in long-term outcomes for malignancies and non-malignant conditions, together with a review of the NICE Guideline, has led to a need to provide clinical services to deal with the sequelae of disease, its treatment, and subsequent survival of young people diagnosed with cancer. In this article, we describe fertility preservation in an adolescent female diagnosed with Myelodysplastic/pre-malignant Clone with Monosomy 7 with pathophysiology like that of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) with known genetic markers in the tumour cells. We used random start controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) leading to oocyte collection and vitrification of metaphase II oocytes. Despite successful COS and vitrification, there remain numerous ethical considerations that merit more focussed discussion. Not least, in determining best practice for informed consent, but consideration of individualised protocols for ovarian stimulation, monitoring follicular development, together with prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) when considering most appropriate trigger for oocyte maturation. Random-start controlled ovarian stimulation and oocyte vitrification for adolescent girls diagnosed with cancer can be safely achieved through a collaborative, multidisciplinary and expert team approach. This case study offers a promising approach to fertility preservation, and would minimise the risk of introducing malignant cells after recovery.

State of the art on oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients: A critical review of the literature

During the last decades, important advances in therapeutic options have led to increased survival rates in cancer patients; however, cancer treatments are associated with several potential adverse effects including infertility in those diagnosed during their reproductive years. A proper discussion about fertility preservation options before the use of therapies with potential gonadotoxicity (i.e. oncofertility counseling) is standard of care and should be offered to all patients of childbearing age. Temporary ovarian suppression with LH-RH analogs, oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservation in female cancer patients. Oocyte cryopreservation should be preferred to embryo cryopreservation when this latter is prohibited by law, avoided for ethical or religious issues and in single women refusing sperm donation. Despite the increasing use of this strategy, data are still lacking about the efficacy and safety of the procedure in female cancer patients, with most of the evidence on this regard deriving from infertile non-oncologic women. This article aims at critically review the available evidence about the success of oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients with the final goal to further improve the oncofertility counseling of these women.

Usefulness of oocyte accumulation in low ovarian response for PGS

This is an observational study of the response to ovarian stimulation and preimplantational genetic screening (PGS) cycles of 188 patients with a foreseen high aneuploid rate, undergoing two or three stimulation cycles (2SC and 3SC) and oocyte vitrification to accumulate oocytes (Accumulation group = 112 patients) compared to patients undergoing one stimulation cycle (1SC Group= 76 patients) and fresh embryo transfer, between January 2011 and July 2014. Accumulation was performed when <10 MII oocytes were retrieved. Oocytes were vitrified for later warming and IVF, when the planned number of oocytes was achieved. After PGS, euploid embryos were transferred. Comparing 2SC Group with 3SC Group, AMH, AFC, number of oocytes retrieved per pick-up and total number of biopsied embryos were significantly higher in the 2SC Group. After chromosome analysis, 18.5% of biopsied embryos were euploid and 58.9% patients reached embryo transfer. There were no differences in pregnancy rates per patient between the 1SC, 2SC and 3SC Groups (36.8%, 34.9% and 31.0%, respectively) or per embryo transfer (59.6, 56.8 and 60%, respectively). In patients with <10 MII oocytes after ovarian stimulation undergoing PGS, accumulating oocytes can render a pregnancy rate per patient and per embryo transfer comparable to those of fresh PGS cycles.

Freezing oocytes or embryos after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in cancer patients: the state of the art

Quality of life of young cancer survivors has become a major issue. However, anticancer therapies can have a detrimental impact on fertility. It is now well-established that all patients should receive information about the fertility risks associated with their cancer treatment and the fertility preservation options available. Currently, oocyte or embryo banking after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation represents the most effective method for preserving female fertility. Over the past years innovative protocols of ovarian stimulation have been developed to enable cancer patients to undergo oocyte or embryo cryopreservation irrespective of the phase of the cycle or without exogenous follicle-stimulating hormone-related increase in serum estradiol levels. The present article reviews the different protocols of ovarian hyperstimulation for cancer patients, candidates for fertility preservation.

Utilization rates and results of long-term embryo cryopreservation before gonadotoxic treatment

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term embryo cryopreservation, utilization, and success rate in patients subjected to gonadotoxic treatments in the context of cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study on patients (n = 54) undergoing ovarian stimulation and IVF for fertility preservation between January 1997 and June 2014. Embryos were slow-frozen and stored until the women were cured and able to undergo embryo transfer.

RESULTS

Fifty-four women underwent 66 oocyte pick-up procedures in total, and embryos were obtained from 52 of the 54 patients. Four patients died before their frozen embryos could be thawed. Of the remaining 48, 9 women returned to use their embryos, resulting in 6 pregnancies (66% cumulative pregnancy rate), two of which ended in miscarriage. The live birth rate per patient was thus 44% (4/9). The true come-back rate, calculated after applicable exclusions, was found to be 23%.

CONCLUSION

IVF followed by embryo freezing is a widely established technique for fertility preservation, but little has been published on the outcomes in cancer patients. While we found the number of good-quality embryos to be lower than in a normal population, the cumulative live birth rate was similar to that achieved with fresh embryos in non-cancer patients. The utilization rate of this fertility preservation method can be considered high.

[Pregnancy after cancer: for whom and when?]

Planning a pregnancy for patients with a history of cancer, including breast cancer, is a clinical situation that becomes more and more common. Several specific items are to be discussed: decrease of fertility after cancer treatment, fertility preservation options, impact of pregnancy on cancer recurrence risk and appropriate interval between cancer and pregnancy. Programming pregnancy after cancer is doable in a multidisciplinary setting, and begins at cancer diagnosis to anticipate the various specific pitfalls. Favor adequate oncologic care remains the leading rule.

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

PURPOSE

To compare the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes of cancer patients who underwent oocyte retrieval and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation prior to gonadotoxic therapy to those of age and time-matched controls with tubal factor infertility.

METHODS

All cancer patients who underwent embryo/oocyte cryopreservation at our institution from 1997 to 2014 were reviewed. Primary outcomes were total dose of gonadotropins used, number of oocytes retrieved, and number of 2pn embryos obtained. Outcomes were compared to age-matched controls with tubal-factor infertility who underwent a fresh embryo transfer within the same relative time period as the IVF cycle of the cancer patient.

RESULTS

Sixty-three cancer patients underwent 65 IVF cycles, and 21 returned for frozen embryo transfer. One hundred twenty-two age-matched controls underwent IVF cycles with fresh transfer, and 23 returned for frozen embryo transfer. No difference was seen between cancer patients and controls with respect to total ampules of gonadotropin used (38.0 vs. 35.6 respectively; p = 0.28), number of oocytes retrieved (12.4 vs. 10.9 respectively; p = 0.36) and number of 2pn embryos obtained (6.6 vs. 7.1 respectively; p = 0.11). Cumulative pregnancy rate per transfer for cancer patients compared to controls was 37 vs. 43 % respectively (p = 0.49) and cumulative live birth rate per transfer was 30 vs. 32 % respectively (p = 0.85). Cancer patients had a higher likelihood of live birth resulting in twins (44 vs. 14 %; p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Most IVF outcomes appear comparable for cancer patients and age-matched controls. Higher twin pregnancy rates in cancer patients may reflect lack of underlying infertility or need for cancer-specific transfer guidelines.