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

Fertility in young-onset colorectal patients with cancer: a review

Although the overall incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer have declined, diagnosed cases of young-onset colorectal cancer have increased significantly. Concerns about future fertility are second only to concerns about survival and may significantly affect the quality of life of young cancer survivors. Fertility preservation is an important issue in young-onset colorectal patients with cancer undergoing oncotherapy. Here, we discussed the effects of different treatments on fertility, common options for fertility preservation, factors affecting fertility preservation and improvement measures, and the relationship between fertility and pregnancy outcomes in young-onset colorectal patients with cancer.

Experiences and intentions of patients undergoing medically indicated oocyte or embryo cryopreservation: a qualitative study

STUDY QUESTION

What structural (logistical) and psychological challenges do patients who cryopreserve oocytes or embryos for medical reasons face, including possible barriers to using their frozen materials?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The majority of women who underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation for medical reasons reported a desire to use their frozen oocytes or embryos but had been impeded by ongoing medical issues, the need for a gestational carrier, or the lack of a partner.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Current data suggest that many women who have frozen oocytes or embryos for medical indications are concerned about the prospect of infertility and have unique emotional and financial needs that differ from patients with infertility. Further, most patients have not returned to use their cryopreserved materials.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a qualitative interview study of 42 people who cryopreserved between January 2012 and December 2021. Interviews were conducted between March 2021 and March 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

All participants were cisgender women who had undergone oocyte or embryo cryopreservation for medical indications at an academic fertility center. Participants were invited to interview by email if they were younger than 40 years old when their oocytes or embryos were cryopreserved. Interviews were conducted over the internet and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis with the constant comparison method.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Saturation was reached at 42 interviews. The median age of participants was 35 years old (range 28-43) at interview and 31 years old (range 25-39) at cryopreservation. Of the 42 women, 30 had a cancer diagnosis, while 7 had non-cancer chronic medical conditions, and 5 had hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes. There were 12 women who banked embryos and 30 who banked oocytes. The majority of women indicated a desire to use their cryopreserved materials, but many were unsure about how or when. Four had already used their frozen oocytes or embryos, while another four had conceived without assisted reproduction. The cryopreservation experience was described by the majority as highly emotionally challenging because they felt out of place among couples receiving infertility treatment and, for cancer patients, overwhelmed by the complex decisions to be made in a short time period. Common reported barriers to using frozen materials included ongoing medical issues preventing pregnancy, the need for a gestational carrier, the lack of a partner, and the desire for unassisted conception. Some were glad to have frozen oocytes or embryos to allow more time to meet a partner or if they were considering becoming single parents.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The majority of participants had their oocytes or embryos frozen at a single, urban, academic fertility center, which may limit generalizability. We also could not calculate a response rate because the snowball technique was used to identify additional participants, so did not know the total number of people invited to participate. Like other interview studies, our study may be subject to response bias because those who agreed to participate may have particularly positive or negative views about their experiences. Furthermore, the mean follow-up time since freezing was relatively short (3.3 years, median 2.7 years), which may not have been enough time for some patients to use their frozen materials.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Learning about the experiences of patients undergoing medically indicated oocyte and embryo cryopreservation can help clinicians better counsel these patients regarding decisions and hurdles they may encounter. We found that most patients had not returned to use their frozen materials because of ongoing medical issues, the need for a gestational carrier, lack of a partner, or the desire to attempt unassisted reproduction.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study did not receive any funding. The authors of this study have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Reproductive outcomes of embryo cryopreservation and transfer at the start-up phase of fertility preservation in Japan

Purpose

To verify the effectiveness of embryo transfer (ET) using cryopreserved embryo as fertility preservation (FP).

Methods

This study was a questionnaire survey. The total number of embryo cryopreservation (EC) was investigated between 2014 and 2020. And for patients who underwent ET among study period, details of EC, outcome of ET, number of live births, and mortality were investigated.

Results

Of the 150 facilities, 114 responded (76.0%). A total of 1420 EC were performed during the study period; and ET was performed for 417 patients. Breast cancer was the most common primary disease. A total of 199 live births (including prospective) were obtained by ET; 1.7 EC and 2.2 ET were performed per patient, and live birth rate was 21.4% per ET (28.1% on 35-37-year-old patients). The number of EC and ET increased with age. The final birth rate, including pregnancies other than FP, was 51.8%. Ovarian stimulation with aromatase inhibitors was commonly used, although with no effect on live birth rates. Random start stimulation was also common, experienced by 36.3% of breast cancer patients.

Conclusion

Reproductive outcomes of ETs following EC as FP are acceptable. This research project was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000043664).

The Usage of Cryopreserved Reproductive Material in Cancer Patients Undergoing Fertility Preservation Procedures

BACKGROUND

Many cancer treatment methods can affect fertility by damaging the reproductive organs and glands that control fertility. Changes can be temporary or permanent. In order to preserve the fertility of cancer patients and protect the genital organs against gonadotoxicity, methods of fertility preservation are increasingly used. Considering that some patients ultimately decide not to use cryopreserved reproductive material, this review analysed the percentage of post-cancer patients using cryopreserved reproductive material, collected before treatment as part of fertility preservation.

METHODS

A systematic search of studies was carried out in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, based on a previously prepared research protocol. The search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID), and the Cochrane Library. In addition, a manual search was performed for recommendations/clinical practice guidelines regarding fertility preservation in cancer patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included in the review discussed the results of cryopreservation of oocytes, embryos, ovarian tissue, and semen. In 10 studies, the usage rate of cryopreserved semen ranged from 2.6% to 21.5%. In the case of cryopreserved female reproductive material, the return/usage rate ranged from 3.1% to 8.7% for oocytes, approx. 9% to 22.4% for embryos, and 6.9% to 30.3% for ovarian tissue. In studies analysing patients' decisions about unused reproductive material, continuation of material storage was most often indicated. Recovering fertility or death of the patient were the main reasons for rejecting cryopreserved semen in the case of men.

CONCLUSION

Fertility preservation before gonadotoxic treatment is widely recommended and increasingly used in cancer patients. The usage rate is an important indicator for monitoring the efficacy of these methods. In all of the methods described in the literature, this indicator did not exceed 31%. It is necessary to create legal and organizational solutions regulating material collection and storage and to create clear paths for its usage in the future, including by other recipients.

Outcomes of Fertility Preservation for Female Cancer Patients in a Single Tertiary Center

PURPOSE

To report our experience of fertility preservation (FP) in female cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of female who underwent elective oocyte or embryo cryopreservation before cancer treatment between January 2015 and December 2020 at Asan Medical Center. We analyzed the type of cancer, the rate of reuse of cryopreserved oocytes or embryos, and fertility outcomes such as the resumption of menstruation or pregnancy.

RESULTS

A total of 174 patients underwent 182 oocyte retrieval cycles after controlled ovarian stimulation for oocyte or embryo cryopreservation. The median age of patients was 33.0 (range 19-46) years, and the patients were most unmarried female (65.52%). The majority of patients were diagnosed with breast cancer (78.16%), and the remaining were diagnosed with gastrointestinal (6.33%) and hematologic malignancies (5.75%). The maturation rate of oocyte cryopreservation was 83.33%, and the fertilization rate of embryo cryopreservation was 72.07%. Of the 57 patients currently not undergoing cancer treatment, 34 resumed menstruating and 19 (33.33%, 19/57) returned to attempt a pregnancy. Among them, five patients succeeded in natural pregnancy. Eleven patients received frozen-thawed embryo transfer, and four patients succeeded in becoming pregnant (36.36%, 4/11). Only 6.3% of patients returned to use their gametes, and 93.7% of gametes are still in storage.

CONCLUSION

FP in cancer patients should be considered before cancer treatment. Through continuous research on oncofertility, it is necessary to consider how to increase the return rate and provide appropriate information to cancer patients of reproductive age.

Live birth rate after female fertility preservation for cancer or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the three main techniques; embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation

STUDY QUESTION

What are the chances of achieving a live birth after embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) in female cancer survivors?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The live birth rates (LBRs) following embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are 41% and 32%, respectively, while for IVF and spontaneous LBR after tissue cryopreservation and transplantation, these rates are 21% and 33%, respectively.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Currently, fertility preservation (FP) has become a major public health issue as diagnostic and therapeutic progress has made it possible to achieve an 80% survival rate in children, adolescents and young adults with cancer. In the latest ESHRE guidelines, only oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are considered as established options for FP. OTC is still considered to be an innovative method, while it is an acceptable FP technique in the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines. However, given the lack of studies on long-term outcomes after FP, it is still unclear which technique offers the best chance to achieve a live birth.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published controlled studies. Searches were conducted from January 2004 to May 2021 in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library using the following search terms: cancer, stem cell transplantation, FP, embryo cryopreservation, oocyte vitrification, OTC and reproductive outcome.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 126 full-text articles were preselected from 1436 references based on the title and abstract and assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The studies were selected, and their data were extracted by two independent reviewers according to the Cochrane methods. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with high heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Data from 34 studies were used for this meta-analysis. Regarding cryopreserved embryos, the LBR after IVF was 41% (95% CI: 34-48, I2: 0%, fixed effect). Concerning vitrified oocytes, the LBR was 32% (95% CI: 26-39, I2: 0%, fixed effect). Finally, the LBR after IVF and the spontaneous LBR after ovarian tissue transplantation were 21% (95% CI: 15-26, I2: 0%, fixed-effect) and 33% (95% CI: 25-42, I2: 46.1%, random-effect), respectively. For all outcomes, in the sensitivity analyses, the maximum variation in the estimated percentage was 1%.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The heterogeneity of the literature prevents us from comparing these three techniques. This meta-analysis provides limited data which may help clinicians when counselling patients.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study highlights the need for long-term follow-up registries to assess return rates, as well as spontaneous pregnancy rates and birth rates after FP.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from GEDEON RICHTER France. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021264042.

The Oncology Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina's recommendations for fertility preservation in oncologic patients

Malignancy is one of the major public health problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Along with breakthroughs in specific oncological therapy, improving the quality of life of cancer patients and management of therapy-induced side effects need to be recognized as a priority in the comprehensive cancer patient care. Fertility loss after cancer treatment is a field requiring special attention due to its various consequences on patients themselves.  Although oncofertility is well-recognized area of oncology, low- to middle-income countries are facing issues with its implementation in everyday practice. Increased awareness about fertility preservation is of high priority for all specialists who participate in the medical care of cancer patients. The absence of a systemic solution and lack of expertise led to the founding of Fertility Preservation Working Group of the Oncology Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have made recommendationsas an expert consensus with the ultimate goal of making the first step towards enhancement of oncofertility implementation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

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.

Fertility preservation in patients of childbearing age treated for breast cancer: A nationwide cohort study

Background

Approximately 7% of breast cancers are diagnosed in women under 40. Question of subsequent fertility has become fundamental. We aimed to evaluate the rate of fertility preservation (FP) by oocyte retrieval (OR) after ovarian stimulation in patients of childbearing age, managed for breast cancer with adjuvant chemotherapy in France, reuse rate of frozen gametes and live births rate (LBR) after treatment.

Methods

We included 15,774 women between 18 and 40 years old, managed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, between January 2011 and December 2020 from a French health registry. Patients with OR after breast surgery and before chemotherapy were considered as FP group; those with no OR as no FP group. To compare LBR with French population independently of age, we calculated Standardized Incidence Rates (SIR) of live births using indirect standardization method.

Results

FP rate increased gradually since 2011, reaching 17% in 2019. A decrease in use was observed in 2020 (13,9%). Among patients with at least 2 years of follow-up, gamete reuse rate was 5,6%. Births after cancer were mostly from spontaneous pregnancies. Among patients with at least 3 years of follow-up, LBR was 19,6% in FP group, 3,9% in second group. SIR of live births was of 1,05 (95% CI = 0.91–1.19) and 0.33 (95% CI = 0.30–0.36) in FP and no FP group respectively.

Conclusion

Oncofertility activity increased until 2019 in France, reaching 17%. Gamete reuse rate was low. Births resulted mainly from spontaneous pregnancies. SIR of live births was lower in no FP group.

•

Fertility preservation rate increased gradually since 2011, reaching 17% in 2019.

•

Among patients with at least 2 years of follow-up, gamete reuse rate was 5,6%.

•

Births after breast cancer were mostly from spontaneous pregnancies.

•

Life births rate was 19,6% in fertility preservation group, 3,9% in second group.

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

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.

Fertility after Cancer: Risks and Successes

Simple Summary

Approximately one million new cases of cancer are diagnosed in women of reproductive age every year. In the last few decades, advances in early diagnosis and treatment have improved the survival rate. However, the adverse effects of anticancer therapy on the ovaries and uterus have a significant impact on future fertility and may affect the quality of life of cancer survivors. Unfortunately, evidence about the trend of ovarian reserve loss over time is insufficient for predicting the duration of the fertile period. Currently, impaired fertility in cancer survivors is a growing issue that is complicated by an increasing number of women delaying childbearing. This review focuses on the detrimental effects of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery on reproductive functions and describes the mechanisms causing reduced fertility in cancer survivors. Moreover, in this review, the available fertility preservation strategies to guarantee the chance of motherhood in cancer survivors are illustrated.

Abstract

The incidence of cancer in reproductive-aged women is 7%, but, despite the increased number of cancer cases, advances in early diagnosis and treatment have raised the survival rate. Furthermore, in the last four decades, there has been a rising trend of delaying childbearing. There has been an increasing number of couples referred to Reproductive Medicine Centers for infertility problems after one partner has been treated for cancer. In these cases, the main cause of reduced fertility derives from treatments. In this review, we describe the effects and the risks of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery in women with cancer, and we will focus on available fertility preservation techniques and their efficacy in terms of success in pregnancy and live birth rates.

A comparison of fertility preservation outcomes in patients who froze oocytes, embryos, or ovarian tissue for medically indicated circumstances: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare obstetric outcomes in patients cryopreserving reproductive cells or tissues before gonadotoxic therapy.

DESIGN

A literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines on Embase, Medline, and Web of Science. Studies reporting obstetric outcomes in cancer patients who completed cryopreservation of oocyte, embryo, or ovarian tissue were included.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Cancer patients attempting pregnancy using cryopreserved cells or tissues frozen before cancer therapy.

INTERVENTION(S)

Oocyte, embryo, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation for fertility preservation in cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The total numbers of clinical pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages in women attempting pregnancy using cryopreserved reproductive cells or tissues were calculated. A meta-analysis determined the effect size of each intervention.

RESULT(S)

The search returned 4,038 unique entries. Thirty-eight eligible studies were analyzed. The clinical pregnancy rates were 34.9%, 49.0%, and 43.8% for oocyte, embryo, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively. No significant differences were found among groups. The live birth rates were 25.8%, 35.3%, and 32.3% for oocyte, embryo, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively, with no significant differences among groups. The miscarriage rates were 9.2%, 16.9%, and 7.5% for oocyte, embryo, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively. Significantly fewer miscarriages occurred with ovarian tissue cryopreservation than with embryo cryopreservation.

CONCLUSION(S)

This enquiry is required to counsel cancer patients wishing to preserve fertility. Although the limitations of this study include heterogeneity, lack of quality studies, and low utilization rates, it serves as a starting point for comparison of reproductive and obstetric outcomes in patients returning for family-planning after gonadotoxic therapy.

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.

Genomic Consideration in Chemotherapy-Induced Ovarian Damage and Fertility Preservation

Chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage and fertility preservation in young patients with cancer are emerging disciplines. The mechanism of treatment-related gonadal damage provides important information for targeting prevention methods. The genomic aspects of ovarian damage after chemotherapy are not fully understood. Several studies have demonstrated that gene alterations related to follicular apoptosis or accelerated follicle activation are related to ovarian insufficiency and susceptibility to ovarian damage following chemotherapy. This may accelerate follicular apoptosis and follicle reservoir utilization and damage the ovarian stroma via multiple molecular reactions after chemotherapy. This review highlights the importance of genomic considerations in chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage and multidisciplinary oncofertility strategies for providing high-quality care to young female cancer patients.

Molecular Mechanism and Prevention Strategy of Chemotherapy- and Radiotherapy-Induced Ovarian Damage

Fertility preservation is an emerging discipline, which is of substantial clinical value in the care of young patients with cancer. Chemotherapy and radiation may induce ovarian damage in prepubertal girls and young women. Although many studies have explored the mechanisms implicated in ovarian toxicity during cancer treatment, its molecular pathophysiology is not fully understood. Chemotherapy may accelerate follicular apoptosis and follicle reservoir utilization and damage the ovarian stroma via multiple molecular reactions. Oxidative stress and the radiosensitivity of oocytes are the main causes of gonadal damage after radiation treatment. Fertility preservation options can be differentiated by patient age, desire for conception, treatment regimen, socioeconomic status, and treatment duration. This review will help highlight the importance of multidisciplinary oncofertility strategies for providing high-quality care to young female cancer patients.

A call to action: unified clinical practice guidelines for oncofertility care

By 2030, WHO estimates that 1.4 million reproductive-aged women will be diagnosed with cancer annually. Fortunately, cancer is no longer considered an incurable disease in many cases. From 2008-2014, 85% of women under the age of 45 years diagnosed with cancer survived. This increase in survival rate has shifted attention from focusing exclusively on preserving life to focusing on preserving quality of life after treatment. One aspect of this is preserving the ability to have a biological family. Oncofertility, the field that bridges oncology and reproductive endocrinology with the goal of preserving fertility, offers these patients hope. Though it is clear that ASCO and ASRM recognize the importance of fertility preservation as an aspect of comprehensive oncology care, there are not yet unified guidelines for oncologists and fertility specialists for treating oncofertility patients. First, we identify the need for reproductive counseling prior to cancer treatment, as many patients report that their fertility preservation concerns are not addressed adequately. We then delineate multi-modal fertility preservation options that are available and appropriate for different patients with corresponding outcomes using different treatments. We discuss the unique challenges and considerations, including ethical dilemmas, for delivering timely and comprehensive care specifically for oncofertility patients. Finally, we address the multidisciplinary team that includes oncologists, reproductive endocrinologists, surgeons as well as their staff, nurses, genetic counselors, mental health professionals, and more. Since oncofertility patient care requires the coordination of both physician teams, one set of unified guidelines will greatly improve quality of care.

Male and Female Fertility: Prevention and Monitoring Hodgkin' Lymphoma and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Adult Survivors. A Systematic Review by the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi

BACKGROUND

Adult patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have prolonged survival but face the risk of treatment-induced impaired fertility. This systematic review, conducted by Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL) researchers, aims to evaluate the incidence of treatment-related infertility, fertility preservation options, fertility assessment measures, and the optimal interval between the end of treatment and conception.

METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were systematically searched up to September 2020 for published cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies on fertility issues.

RESULTS

Forty-five eligible studies were identified. Gonadotoxicity was related to sex, type and dosage of treatment, and, in females, to age. After receiving alkylating-agent-containing regimens, less than 30% of males recovered spermatogenesis, and 45% of females ≥30 years in age retained regular menstrual cycles. Sperm cryopreservation was offered to the majority of patients; sperm utilization resulted in a 33-61% pregnancy rate. After ovarian tissue transplantation, the spontaneous pregnancy and live birth rates were 38% and 23%; after IVF, the live birth rate was 38.4%. No data could be extracted on the utilization rate of cryopreserved mature oocytes. The results of studies on GnRH analogs are controversial; therefore, their use should not be considered an alternative to established cryopreservation techniques. Sperm count, FSH, and inhibin-B levels were appropriate measures to investigate male fertility; serum AMH levels and antral follicle count were the most appropriate markers for ovarian reserve. No data could be found regarding the optimal interval between the end of treatment and conception.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of infertility should be discussed with adult lymphoma patients at the time of diagnosis, and fertility preservation options should be proposed before first-line treatment with alkylating-agent-containing regimens.

"Will It Affect Our Chances of Having Children?" and Feeling "Like a Ticking Bomb" -The Fertility Concerns and Fears of Cancer Progression and Recurrence in Cancer Treatment Decision-Making Among Young Women Diagnosed With Gynaecological or Breast Cancer

Objective: Cancer treatment decision making process is particularly fraught with challenges for young women because the treatment can affect their reproductive potential. Among many factors affecting the process, fears of cancer progression and recurrence can also be important psychological factors. Our aim is to apply Common-Sense Model and shared decision-making model to explore experiences of treatment decision-making women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with gynaecological or breast cancer and the influence of fertility issues and fears of cancer progression and recurrence.

Method: We conducted telephone interviews with 24 women who were diagnosed with gynaecological or breast cancer aged 18–45, who finished active treatment within 5 years prior to study enrolment and had no known evidence of cancer recurrence at the time of participation. They were recruited from three NHS oncology clinics in Scotland and online outlets of cancer charities and support organisations. We analysed the data using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis method as it allows for both inductive and deductive analyses.

Results: We identified five main themes pertaining to treatment-related decision-making experiences and fertility issues and fear of progression and recurrence: Becoming aware of infertility as a potential consequence of cancer treatment; Balancing-prioritising cancer and fertility; Decisions about treatments; Evaluation of treatment decisions; and The consequences of treatments. Sub-themes have also been reported. Different factors such as whether the cancer is breast or gynaecological, physicians' willingness of discussing fertility, influence of others in decision-making, childbearing and relationship status as well as fear of cancer recurrence emerged as important.

Conclusion: The importance of physicians directly addressing fertility preservation in the process of treatment decision-making and not treating it as an “add-on” was evident. Satisfaction with treatment decisions depended on both the quality of the process of decision making and its outcome. Fear of recurrence was present in different parts of the adaptation process from illness perceptions to post-treatment evaluation of decisions. Both Common-Sense Model and shared decision-making model were helpful in understanding and explaining young women's experience of treatment decision-making and fertility concerns.

Hot Topics on Fertility Preservation for Women and Girls-Current Research, Knowledge Gaps, and Future Possibilities

Fertility preservation is a novel clinical discipline aiming to protect the fertility potential of young adults and children at risk of infertility. The field is evolving quickly, enriched by advances in assisted reproductive technologies and cryopreservation methods, in addition to surgical developments. The best-characterized target group for fertility preservation is the patient population diagnosed with cancer at a young age since the bulk of the data indicates that the gonadotoxicity inherent to most cancer treatments induces iatrogenic infertility. Since improvements in cancer therapy have resulted in increasing numbers of long-term survivors, survivorship issues and the negative impact of infertility on the quality of life have come to the front line. These facts are reflected in an increasing number of scientific publications referring to clinical medicine and research in the field of fertility preservation. Cryopreservation of gametes, embryos, and gonadal tissue has achieved quality standards for clinical use, with the retrieval of gonadal tissue for cryopreservation being currently the only method feasible in prepubertal children. Additionally, the indications for fertility preservation beyond cancer are also increasing since a number of benign diseases and chronic conditions either require gonadotoxic treatments or are associated with premature follicle depletion. There are many remaining challenges, and current research encompasses clinical health care and caring sciences, ethics, societal, epidemiological, experimental studies, etc.

Live birth rate after use of cryopreserved oocytes or embryos at the time of cancer diagnosis in female survivors: a retrospective study of ten years of experience

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of frozen oocytes or embryos cryopreserved after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) or in vitro maturation (IVM) for female cancer patients who underwent a fertility preservation (FP) prior to gonadotoxic therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study from 2009 to December 2017 was conducted. Among the 667 female cancer patients who underwent oocytes or embryos cryopreservation for FP, 40 (6%) have returned to the fertility clinic between 2011 and 2019 to use their frozen material after being cured. We compared these thaw cycles outcomes according to the techniques used at the time of cryopreservation.

RESULTS

Among the 40 women cancer survivors who used their cryopreserved material, thirty patients have benefited from at least one embryo transfer. Ten patients did not have an embryo transfer since the oocytes did not survive after the thawing process or because no embryo was obtained after fertilization. We related three live births following FP using IVM (two from frozen oocytes and one after embryo cryopreservation). Five live births were obtained when COS was performed at the time of FP (one from frozen oocytes and four after embryo cryopreservation).

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary results, although they are obtained in a small sample, are encouraging and show that different FP techniques can be used in female cancer patients and lead to live births. IVM is one of the options available that does not delay the start of chemotherapy or if ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins is contraindicated.

Contraception in cancer survivors: insights from oncofertility follow-up visits

OBJECTIVE

Current literature suggests that cancer survivors are less likely to receive adequate contraception counseling. However, limited data existed on barriers to contraception usage in this population and on the efficacy of dedicated consultations. This study aims to describe how contraception is perceived by cancer survivors after counseling and acceptance rates of highly effective contraceptives.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical records from 313 consecutive cancer survivors at their first follow-up visit at the Oncofertility Unit of a tertiary hospital, from 2014 to 2019. Contraception acceptance and choice were examined stratified for the type of malignancy (hormone-sensible or not). A multivariate logistic regression model was used to evaluate possible predictors of acceptance.

RESULTS

Thity-three women were excluded from the analysis because trying to conceive or already pregnant. Out of the remaining 280, only 9 (3.2%) asked spontaneously for contraception, in all the other visits the issue was brought up by the physician. After counseling 44.3% of the women without contraindications still opted out effective methods for fear of hormones or refusal of more medications. Age < 33 years and being in a relationship were correlated with acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

Even after a complete counseling in a dedicated service, fears of hormones and refusal of more medications remain strong issues for these patients. Family planning needs to be discussed with cancer survivors, preferably in the context of a long-term healthcare relationship. The Oncofertility Unit should become a privileged place for this type of counseling.

ESHRE guideline: female fertility preservation

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management for women and transgender men with regards to fertility preservation (FP), based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The ESHRE Guideline on Female Fertility Preservation makes 78 recommendations on organization of care, information provision and support, pre-FP assessment, FP interventions and after treatment care. Ongoing developments in FP are also discussed.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The field of FP has grown hugely in the last two decades, driven by the increasing recognition of the importance of potential loss of fertility as a significant effect of the treatment of cancer and other serious diseases, and the development of the enabling technologies of oocyte vitrification and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) for subsequent autografting. This has led to the widespread, though uneven, provision of FP for young women.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 1 November 2019 and written in English were included in the review.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This guideline aims to help providers meet a growing demand for FP options by diverse groups of patients, including those diagnosed with cancer undergoing gonadotoxic treatments, with benign diseases undergoing gonadotoxic treatments or those with a genetic condition predisposing to premature ovarian insufficiency, transgender men (assigned female at birth), and women requesting oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss.The guideline makes 78 recommendations on information provision and support, pre-FP assessment, FP interventions and after treatment care, including 50 evidence-based recommendations-of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 19 as weak-25 good practice points and 3 research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, 1 was supported by high-quality evidence, 3 by moderate-quality evidence, 17 by low-quality evidence and 29 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in the field of female FP, a list of research recommendations is provided.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

Most interventions included are not well studied in FP patients. As some interventions, e.g. oocyte and embryo cryopreservation, are well established for treatment of infertility, technical aspects, feasibility and outcomes can be extrapolated. For other interventions, such as OTC and IVM, more evidence is required, specifically pregnancy outcomes after applying these techniques for FP patients. Such future studies may require the current recommendations to be revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in female FP, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in FP.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. R.A.A. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche Diagnostics, personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, IBSA and Merck Serono, outside the submitted work; D.B. reports grants from Merck Serono and Goodlife, outside the submitted work; I.D. reports consulting fees from Roche and speaker's fees from Novartis; M.L. reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Takeda, and Theramex, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at  www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) ^†ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Advances in the Treatment and Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Ovarian Toxicity

Due to improvements in chemotherapeutic agents, cancer treatment efficacy and cancer patient survival rates have greatly improved, but unfortunately gonadal damage remains a major complication. Gonadotoxic chemotherapy, including alkylating agents during reproductive age, can lead to iatrogenic premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), and loss of fertility. In recent years, the demand for fertility preservation has increased dramatically among female cancer patients. Currently, embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are the only established options for fertility preservation in women. However, there is growing evidence for other experimental techniques including ovarian tissue cryopreservation, oocyte in vitro maturation, artificial ovaries, stem cell technologies, and ovarian suppression. To prevent fertility loss in women with cancer, individualized fertility preservation options including established and experimental techniques that take into consideration the patient's age, marital status, chemotherapy regimen, and the possibility of treatment delay should be provided. In addition, effective multidisciplinary oncofertility strategies that involve a highly skilled and experienced oncofertility team consisting of medical oncologists, gynecologists, reproductive biologists, surgical oncologists, patient care coordinators, and research scientists are necessary to provide cancer patients with high-quality care.

Efficacy and Safety of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation With or Without Letrozole Co-administration for Fertility Preservation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The co-administration of letrozole during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with gonadotropins is used to limit the potentially harmful effects of a supra-physiological rise in estrogen levels on hormone-sensitive cancers. However, the efficacy and safety of adding letrozole to COS remain debated.

Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that compared the efficacy and safety of COS with co-administration of letrozole vs. COS without letrozole in all patient populations. A secondary analysis was done including only the studies in breast cancer patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of retrieved mature Metaphase II (MII) oocytes. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were total number of oocytes, maturation rate, fertilization rate, number of cryopreserved embryos, peak estradiol levels, progesterone levels, and total gonadotropin dose. Data for each endpoint were reported and analyzed thorough mean ratio (MR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: A total of 11 records were selected including 2,121 patients (990 patients underwent COS with letrozole and 1,131 COS without letrozole). The addition of letrozole to COS did not have any negative effect on the number of mature oocytes collected (MR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.87–1.16; P = 0.967) and the other efficacy endpoints. COS with letrozole was associated with significantly decreased peak estradiol levels (MR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.24–0.32; P < 0.001). Similar results were observed in the secondary analysis including only breast cancer patients.

Conclusions: These findings are reassuring on the efficacy and safety of COS with gonadotropins and letrozole and are particularly important for fertility preservation in women with hormone-sensitive cancers.

Beyond fertility preservation: role of the oncofertility unit in the reproductive and gynecological follow-up of young cancer patients

STUDY QUESTION

Are there reasons that motivate young cancer survivors to ask for follow-up visits at an oncofertility unit?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Cancer survivors request oncofertility follow-up visits for the management of treatment-related side effects or ovarian reserve evaluation, even if not (or not yet) wishing for a pregnancy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Personalised oncofertility counselling before gonadotoxic therapies is considered standard of care for young women with newly diagnosed cancer. However, the long-term follow-up of these patients in an oncofertility unit is not described in the literature other than for the use of cryopreserved material.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We retrospectively examined rates and reasons for the first follow-up visits of 154 consecutive young female cancer patients (age range: 18-40 years) who underwent a pre-treatment consultation between January 2012 and June 2017. Demographic and clinical data were collected, as well as information about the chosen fertility preservation method, if any.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Rates and reasons for follow-up visits were collected and expressed as percentages. Different reasons were examined in the whole cohort and stratified for type of malignancy. Possible predictive factors for return to the follow-up visit (age, nulliparity, presence of a partner, neoplasm, having cryopreserved material) were investigated through logistic regression.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Out of 154 patients, 74 returned to the oncofertility unit (48.1%) for a follow-up visit. The first visit was requested mostly at the end of anticancer therapies (51.3% versus 40.5% during therapies and 8.1% after cancer relapse). Among these patients, only 10.8% returned for the first time because they were actively desiring a pregnancy. For the others, the most common reasons for consultations were management of gynecological adverse effects of therapies (29.7%) and evaluation of ovarian reserve not linked to an immediate desire for a pregnancy (39.2%). Other patients asked for contraception (4.1%), menopause counselling (5.4%), or new fertility preservation counselling because of cancer relapse (10.8%). None of the examined factors were significantly predictive of return to the oncofertility unit.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

These findings represent the experience of a single centre. A longer duration of follow-up would be needed to provide more precise information on this regard.

WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS

The role of an oncofertility unit should not be limited to proposing fertility preservation procedures. In the management of young adult cancer patients, the reproductive medical specialist should be considered a key figure not only before but also during and after anticancer treatments to explore salient aspects of gynecological and reproductive health.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research did not receive any specific funding. M.L. served as a consultant for Teva and received honoraria from Theramex outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N.A.

Cryopreservation of human embryos and oocytes for fertility preservation in cancer and non cancer patients: a mini review

The term 'cryopreservation' illustrates the process of freezing cells and storing at very low temperature in liquid nitrogen (-196 °C). Cooling is not a physiological condition for human cells especially due to the high concentration of water in the living matter, whose conversion to ice crystals may be associated with cell death. Human oocytes are particularly sensitive to the freezing process, primarily because of their large size and the presence of the meiotic spindle, which at low temperature can degenerate. In the last decade, the cryopreservation technology has become highly important as an option for fertility preservation (FP) in women with cancer. Anticancer therapy might promote premature ovarian failure and negatively affects the reproductive outcome. Over the years, scientists have proposed different cryopreservation strategies in the effort to maintain the physiological functions of oocytes and embryo. However, despite the first success obtained in the 1980s with frozen oocytes, it was not until recently that a new approach has been proposed: the 'Vitrification' which allowed a breakthrough in this procedure. FP is a major determinant for cancer survivor women in the reproductive age. This article describes the FP options currently available, focusing mainly on oocyte and embryo cryopreservation.

Counseling young women with early breast cancer on fertility preservation

PURPOSE

Women with early-stage breast cancer may still have a future child wish, while chemotherapy may impair fertility. To pursue on fertility preservation shortly after breast cancer diagnosis is complex. This review holds a critical reflection on all topics that need to be counseled to give them the opportunity to make a well-informed decision before starting any oncological treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed on papers published in English language on breast cancer in young women, risk of chemotherapy-induced infertility, fertility preservation techniques, impact of possible mutation carriership, and future pregnancy outcome.

RESULTS

Below 40 years of age, the risk of permanent chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure is approximately 20%, where taxanes do not significantly add to this risk. Overall, 23% of reported women who performed fertility preservation by cryopreserving oocytes or embryos returned for embryo transfer. Of these, 40% gave live birth. Both fertility preservation in women diagnosed with breast cancer and pregnancy after treatment seem safe with respect to breast cancer survival. Women who have a genetic predisposition for breast cancer like BRCA gene mutation should also be informed about the possibility of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with an early stage of breast cancer and a possible future child wish should be referred to an expertise center in breast cancer, fertility preservation, and genetics in this complex decision-making process, shortly after diagnosis.

Fertility preservation in patients with hematologic malignancies and recipients of hematopoietic cell transplants

Patients with hematologic malignancies and those undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) face a complex set of challenges when considering options for fertility preservation (FP). There are no standard options for prepubertal children, and women with hematologic malignancies may not be eligible for standard FP options. Fortunately, initial therapies for most blood cancers are not highly gonadotoxic, affording an important opportunity for postremission counseling and referrals to fertility specialists. These patients face a high risk of relapse, and many will be referred for autologous or allogeneic HCT, which carries an extremely high risk of infertility. The expanding indications for HCT to include benign hematologic disorders as well as autoimmune diseases mandate that all hematologists are familiar with these risks. Oncofertility researchers are continually pushing the boundaries of what may be possible for our patients; in the meantime, communication and shared decision-making between hematologists and patients, as well as program-building, education, and outreach are essential to ensure that these patients, many of whom will be cured, maintain all of their options for a fulfilling life after intensive therapy.

Female fertility preservation: past, present and future

Anti-cancer therapy, particularly chemotherapy, damages ovarian follicles and promotes ovarian failure. The only pharmacological means for protecting the ovaries from chemotherapy-induced injury is gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, but its efficiency remains controversial; ovarian transposition is used to shield the ovary from radiation when indicated. Until the late 1990s, the only option for fertility preservation and restoration in women with cancer was embryo cryopreservation. The development of other assisted reproductive technologies such as mature oocyte cryopreservation andin vitromaturation of oocytes has contributed to fertility preservation. Treatment regimens to obtain mature oocytes/embryos have been modified to overcome various limitations of conventional ovarian stimulation protocols. In the last decades, several centres have begun cryopreserving ovarian samples containing primordial follicles from young patients before anti-cancer therapy. The first live birth following implantation of cryopreserved-thawed ovarian tissue was reported in 2004; since then, the number has risen to more than 130. Nowadays, ovarian tissue cryopreservation can be combined within vitromaturation and vitrification of oocytes. The use of cryopreserved oocytes eliminates the risk posed by ovarian implantation of reseeding the cancer. Novel methods for enhancing follicular survival after implantation are presently being studied. In addition, researchers are currently investigating agents for ovarian protection. It is expected that the risk of reimplantation of malignant cells with ovarian grafts will be overcome with the putative development of an artificial ovary and an efficient follicle class- and species-dependentin vitrosystem for culturing primordial follicles.

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

STUDY QUESTION

What progress has been made in fertility preservation (FP) over the last decade?

SUMMARY ANSWER

FP techniques have been widely adopted over the last decade and therefore the establishment of international registries on their short- and long-term outcomes is strongly recommended.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

FP is a fundamental issue for both males and females whose future fertility may be compromised. Reproductive capacity may be seriously affected by age, different medical conditions and also by treatments, especially those with gonadal toxicity. There is general consensus on the need to provide counselling about currently available FP options to all individuals wishing to preserve their fertility.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

An international meeting with representatives from expert scientific societies involved in FP was held in Barcelona, Spain, in June 2015.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Twenty international FP experts belonging to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, ESHRE and the International Society of Fertility Preservation reviewed the literature up to June 2015 to be discussed at the meeting, and approved the final manuscript. At the time this manuscript was being written, new evidence considered relevant for the debated topics was published, and was consequently included.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Several oncological and non-oncological diseases may affect current or future fertility, either caused by the disease itself or the gonadotoxic treatment, and need an adequate FP approach. Women wishing to postpone maternity and transgender individuals before starting hormone therapy or undergoing surgery to remove/alter their reproductive organs should also be counselled accordingly. Embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are first-line FP methods in post-pubertal women. Metaphase II oocyte cryopreservation (vitrification) is the preferred option. Cumulative evidence of restoration of ovarian function and spontaneous pregnancies after ART following orthotopic transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue supports its future consideration as an open clinical application. Semen cryopreservation is the only established method for FP in men. Testicular tissue cryopreservation should be recommended in pre-pubertal boys even though fertility restoration strategies by autotransplantation of cryopreserved testicular tissue have not yet been tested for safe clinical use in humans. The establishment of international registries on the short- and long-term outcomes of FP techniques is strongly recommended.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Given the lack of studies in large cohorts or with a randomized design, the level of evidence for most of the evidence reviewed was three or below.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Further high quality studies are needed to study the long-term outcomes of FP techniques.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Thirteen years' experience in fertility preservation for cancer patients after in vitro fertilization and in vitro maturation treatments

PURPOSE

This study aims to describe the experience and outcomes of in vitro maturation without ovarian stimulation (IVM-FP) and conventional in vitro fertilization after ovarian stimulation (IVF-FP) in a fertility preservation (FP) program for women with cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study from 2003 to 2015 was conducted. The study population consisted of 353 women with cancer who underwent 394 FP cycles (187 IVF-FP cycles and 207 IVM-FP) for oocytes and/or embryos cryopreservation.

RESULT(S)

Comparatively with IVM-FP, IVF-FP had a higher median [25th-75th percentile] number of oocytes collected-12 [8-18] vs 7 [5-13]; oocytes cryopreserved-10 [6-15] vs 5 [2-8]; and, where applicable, embryos cryopreserved-5 [3-7] vs 3 [2-5] (p < 0.000001). Following FP treatment, 32 patients (9.0%) died, 18 patients (5.6%) conceived spontaneously, and 23 patients (6.5%) returned to attempt pregnancy with a median lapse of returning of 4.6 [3.1-6.1] years. Of these, cryopreserved oocytes or embryos were used in 33 cycles (19 after IVF-FP and 14 after IVM-FP). Overall, the cumulative pregnancy rate (CPR) was 47.6% (10/21) and the live birth rate (LBR) was 38.1% (8/21). Per cycle, CPR and LBR were 37 and 31% following IVF-FP and 14 and 7% following IVM-FP, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. We report the fourth live birth after IVM-FP in cancer, and the first one after IVM embryo warming resulting from in vivo oocyte retrieval and IVM procedure.

CONCLUSION(S)

Both IVF-FP and IVM-FP are possible options for FP women with cancer. Due to minimal data regarding ultimate outcomes, further follow-up is needed.

Recent advances in fertility preservation and counseling for female cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Ensuring quality of life for increasing numbers of women surviving cancer has become a key challenge. Patients need to be counseled on potential fertility loss resulting from gonadotoxic treatments, and referred to fertility specialists to discuss existing options and available results. Areas covered: Fertility preservation options have existed for over twenty years. The proposed fertility preservation approach depends on patient age, the urgency of required chemotherapy, and psychosocial factors such as financial concerns, especially in countries where techniques are not covered by social security. Efficacy in terms of pregnancy rates has been demonstrated with frozen-thawed embryos, oocytes and re-implanted ovarian tissue. Appropriate counseling by oncologists is on the increase, despite persistently low rates of referral to fertility specialists. Expert commentary: Access to oncofertility services is steadily improving, facilitated by the growing involvement of public healthcare systems and sustained efforts all over the world to establish specific oncofertility programs. Early referral to reproductive specialists before initiation of chemo/radiotherapy is crucial to success in the field of female fertility preservation. In the near future, efforts should focus on increasing patient referrals and establishing international registries on short- and long-term outcomes of fertility preservation strategies.

Fertility Preservation in Breast Cancer

As more young women survive breast cancer, fertility preservation (FP) is an important component of care. This review highlights the importance of early pretreatment referral, reviews the risks of infertility associated with breast cancer treatment, and defines existing and emerging techniques for FP. The techniques reviewed include ovarian suppression, embryo cryopreservation, oocyte cryopreservation, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation. The barriers women face, such as not being appropriately referred and the costs of treatment, also are addressed. Multidisciplinary, patient-centered care is essential to discussing FP with patients with breast cancer and ensuring appropriate care that includes quality of life in survivorship.

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

STUDY QUESTION

What progress has been made in fertility preservation (FP) over the last decade?

SUMMARY ANSWER

FP techniques have been widely adopted over the last decade and therefore the establishment of international registries on their short- and long-term outcomes is strongly recommended.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

FP is a fundamental issue for both males and females whose future fertility may be compromised. Reproductive capacity may be seriously affected by age, different medical conditions and also by treatments, especially those with gonadal toxicity. There is general consensus on the need to provide counselling about currently available FP options to all individuals wishing to preserve their fertility.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

An international meeting with representatives from expert scientific societies involved in FP was held in Barcelona, Spain, in June 2015.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Twenty international FP experts belonging to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, ESHRE and the International Society of Fertility Preservation reviewed the literature up to June 2015 to be discussed at the meeting, and approved the final manuscript. At the time this manuscript was being written, new evidence considered relevant for the debated topics was published, and was consequently included.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Several oncological and non-oncological diseases may affect current or future fertility, either caused by the disease itself or the gonadotoxic treatment, and need an adequate FP approach. Women wishing to postpone maternity and transgender individuals before starting hormone therapy or undergoing surgery to remove/alter their reproductive organs should also be counselled accordingly. Embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are first-line FP methods in postpubertal women. Metaphase II oocyte cryopreservation (vitrification) is the preferred option. Cumulative evidence of restoration of ovarian function and spontaneous pregnancies after ART following orthotopic transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue supports its future consideration as an open clinical application. Semen cryopreservation is the only established method for FP in men. Testicular tissue cryopreservation should be recommended in pre-pubertal boys even though fertility restoration strategies by autotransplantation of cryopreserved testicular tissue have not yet been tested for safe clinical use in humans. The establishment of international registries on the short- and long-term outcomes of FP techniques is strongly recommended.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Given the lack of studies in large cohorts or with a randomized design, the level of evidence for most of the evidence reviewed was 3 or below.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Further high quality studies are needed to study the long-term outcomes of FP techniques.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

SEOM Clinical Guideline of fertility preservation and reproduction in cancer patients (2016)

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy often result in reduced fertility in cancer patients. With increasing survival rates, fertility is an important quality-of-life concern for many young cancer patients. Around 70–75% of young cancer survivors are interested in parenthood but the numbers of patients who access fertility preservation techniques prior to treatment are significantly lower. Moreover, despite existing guidelines, healthcare professionals do not address fertility preservation issues adequately. There is a critical need for improvements in clinical care to ensure patients are well informed about infertility risks and fertility preservation options and to support them in their reproductive decision-making prior to cancer treatment.

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.

Fertility Preservation: A Key Survivorship Issue for Young Women with Cancer

Fertility preservation in the young cancer survivor is recognized as a key survivorship issue by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Thus, health-care providers should inform women about the effects of cancer therapy on fertility and should discuss the different fertility preservation options available. It is also recommended to refer women expeditiously to a fertility specialist in order to improve counseling. Women’s age, diagnosis, presence of male partner, time available, and preferences regarding use of donor sperm influence the selection of the appropriate fertility preservation option. Embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are the standard techniques used while ovarian tissue cryopreservation is new, yet promising. Despite the importance of fertility preservation for cancer survivors’ quality of life, there are still communication and financial barriers faced by women who wish to pursue fertility preservation.

Embryo banking among women diagnosed with cancer: a pilot population-based study in New York, Texas, and Illinois

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study is to estimate the proportion of women with cancer who return to use the embryos that they have banked and to compare this proportion to that of women without cancer who bank embryos.

METHODS

This is a cohort study of three groups of women from New York, Texas, and Illinois who used embryo banking in their first assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment cycle: two groups with cancer (222 women without an infertility diagnosis and 48 women with an infertility diagnosis) and a control group without cancer (68 women with the infertility diagnosis of male factor only). Women were included only if their first ART cycle reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) occurred between 2004 and 2009. Cancer cases were identified from each State Cancer Registry from 5 years prior to initiation of ART treatment to 6 months post-initiation; mean follow-up after the first ART cycle was 2.0 years.

RESULTS

Women with cancer without an infertility diagnosis returned for a subsequent ART cycle at a lower rate (10.8 %) than those with an infertility diagnosis (31.3 %, p = 0.0010) or the control group (85.3 %, p < 0.0001). Among those who returned for a subsequent cycle, women with cancer waited a longer time to return (14.3 months without an infertility diagnosis and 8.3 months with an infertility diagnosis, p = 0.13) compared to the control group (2.8 months, p = 0.0007). The live birth rate among women who did not utilize embryo banking in their second cycle did not differ significantly across the three study groups, ranging from 25.0 and 42.9 % for women with cancer with and without an infertility diagnosis, respectively, to 36.2 % for women in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with cancer without an infertility diagnosis are either less likely to return for subsequent treatment or will wait a longer time to return than women with an infertility diagnosis or those that do not have cancer. A longer-term study is necessary to assess whether these women return to use their frozen embryos after cancer treatment or are able to spontaneously conceive and if those subsequent pregnancies are adversely affected by the cancer diagnosis or therapy.