Delayed childbearing and female ageing impair assisted reproductive technology outcome in survivors of male haematological cancers

Fertility preservation in adult male patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

Does sperm cryopreservation serve as a feasible and effective method for preserving fertility in adult male patients with cancer?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Sperm cryopreservation is an effective fertility preservation method and may benefit patients with cancer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Sperm cryopreservation is the only way to efficiently preserve male fertility. It is an important procedure in ART. Recently, due to remarkable advances in cancer treatment, an increasing number of studies have reported the outcomes of sperm cryopreservation in patients with cancer.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

We conducted an extensive literature search for relevant studies published through to 31 December 2021, in the following databases: CENTRAL, CNKI, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Web of Science. The search terms used were '(cryopreservation OR freeze OR freezing OR banking OR cryostorage OR storage) AND (sperm OR semen OR spermatozoon) AND (cancer OR tumor OR malignancy OR neoplasm)'.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

We included all studies that reported offering or attempting to cryopreserve sperm before or during cancer treatment in male patients considered at risk of treatment-related fertility impairment. We evaluated the eligibility of all data in each study. The major exclusion criteria were as follows: non-cancer patients; pediatric and adolescent cancer patients; not reporting the use of cryopreserved sperm; use of fresh semen for ART; not reporting the number of patients with cancer offered sperm cryopreservation or attempting to do so before or during treatment; using an experimental fertility preservation technique such as preservation of testicular tissue or spermatogonial stem cells; duplicate data; abstracts, case report, comments, reviews, or editorials; insufficient data reported. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This meta-analysis included 69 non-randomized studies, with 32 234 patients referred for sperm analysis and 23 178 patients cryopreserving at least one sperm sample. The pooled failed-to-cryopreserve rate was 10% (95% CI, 8-12%), and the sperm disposal and sperm use rates were 23% (95% CI, 16-30%) and 9% (95% CI, 8-10%), respectively. The pregnancy, miscarriage, and delivery rates were 28% (95% CI, 22-33%), 13% (95% CI, 10-17%), and 20% (95% CI, 15-25%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed higher pregnancy and delivery rates, as well as a lower failed-to-cryopreserve rate, in recent studies compared to those released a decade ago. The studies from Asia reported higher sperm disposal and pregnancy rates than in other continents. Our analysis showed clinical pregnancy rates per cycle of 34% (27-41%), 24% (14-35%), and 9% (5-15%) and delivery rates per cycle of 23% (17-30%), 18% (11-26%), and 5% (1-9%) for ICSI, IVF, and IUI, respectively.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

As with all meta-analyses, some limitations should be considered. The first limitation of our study is that the data span 36 years. During this time, the World Health Organization has revised its sperm analysis standards, and other important changes have been made. There is also a limitation in that the outcome does not analyze the correlation between the type of cancer and sperm quality. Many of the earlier studies were limited by small sample sizes and a lack of control groups. Furthermore, almost all studies did not consider the severity of the disease, which could potentially have a substantial impact on the results. Consequently, further research should evaluate the effect of the type of cancer and, in particular, the severity of the condition on sperm quality in order to draw more precise conclusions. Similarly, it is inappropriate that most studies failed to differentiate between patients with different types of tumors and instead drew generalized conclusions that are presumed to apply to all patients with cancer. In the present analysis, we did not have in-depth information on patients' disease, and although extensive efforts were made to conduct a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes for patients with various types of tumors, the results must be acknowledged as being subject to bias. However, the use of average results obtained in each study, without the patient-level data, might also represent a source of bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Sperm cryopreservation is an effective fertility preservation method and may benefit patients with cancer. The observed utilization rate of frozen sperm at 9% may underestimate the actual usage, as the short follow-up period is inadequate for obtaining comprehensive data on the use of frozen sperm in young cancer survivors. ART plays an important role in fertility preservation and the achievement of pregnancy, with this meta-analysis showing that ICSI delivers better clinical outcomes than IVF or IUI in patients with cancer undergoing fertility preservation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 82001634, 81960550), and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2019M661521). There are no competing interests to declare.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRID 42022314460.

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.

Why are they not coming back? A single-center follow-up study on oncological women oocyte's storing for fertility preservation

INTRODUCTION

Oocyte cryopreservation is a valid option for female cancer patients to preserve fertility. The number of patients undergoing fertility preservation (FP) cycles has increased over the past years. Nevertheless, the rates of patients returning to use their cryopreserved material have shown to be considerably low, ranging from 5-8%, but significant data regarding the reasons of such low return rates are scarce.

METHODS

This study is a single-center follow-up retrospective study evaluating the return rate of oncological women who underwent FP at a tertiary care Fertility Center and assessing the reasons influencing the patients who did not return. Data about patients who returned to attempt pregnancy were retrieved from internal registries. Non-returned patients were assessed with a standardized phone survey investigating health condition, marital status and family projects, spontaneous conceptions, and the reasons why they had not returned to use their gametes. A univariate analysis between returned and non-returned patients was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 397 patients who received counseling about FP, 171 (43.1%) underwent oocyte cryopreservation between 2001 and 2017. Nine (5%) died, and 17 (10%) were lost at follow-up. A total of 20 patients (11.7%) returned and 125 did not. In the non-returned group, 37 (29.6%) did not have a partner, 10 (8%) had a previous spontaneous conception, and 15 (12%) had recurrent malignancy at the time of follow-up. In the univariate analysis, younger age at freezing (31.8±6.2 vs. 35.2±4.7; p 0.018), lack of a partner (p 0.002), type of cancer (other than breast cancer; p 0.024) were the significant factors in the non-returned group. As for the personal reason for not coming back, patients mainly answered as follows: lack of a partner (29, 23.2%), the desire for spontaneous motherhood (24, 19.2%), previous spontaneous pregnancies after FP procedures (16, 12.8%), and still ongoing hormonal therapy for breast cancer (13, 10.4%). All patients confirmed their will to keep the storage of their oocytes.

DISCUSSION

The impact of a cancer diagnosis on a woman's maternal desire, sentimental status and life priorities should be studied more thoroughly. Studies investigating hormonal therapy suppression in breast cancer patients seeking pregnancy should be encouraged.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT05223764.

Oocyte Cryopreservation in Oncological Patients: Eighteen Years Experience of a Tertiary Care Referral Center

Objective: The aim of the present study is to report our experience on elective women fertility preservation before cancer treatment. Study Design: This is a single-center retrospective observational study, including all patients who underwent elective fertility preservation before oncological treatment between January 2001 and March 2019 at our Institute. Results: Of a total of 568 women who received fertility counseling, 244 (42.9%) underwent 252 oocyte retrieval cycles after controlled ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation. The majority of patients were diagnosed with breast cancer (59.9%), followed by women affected by Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (27.4%). A minority comprised patients diagnosed with other malignancies that affected soft tissues (2.8%), ovary borderline type (2.4%), digestive system (1.6%), leukemia (1.6%), uterine cervix (1.2%). The remaining 3.1% were affected by other cancer types. The mean age of the cohort was 31.3 ± 6.4 years and the mean oocyte retrieval was 13.5± 8.4. Of 11 women who returned to attempt a pregnancy, three performed two thawed cycles. We obtained four pregnancies from 24 embryo transfers (Pregnancy Rate 36.4% for couple): two miscarriages and two live births. Overall, 95.7% of oocytes are still in storage. Conclusions: A close collaboration between Cancer and Fertility Center in a tertiary care hospital is essential to provide a good health service in oncological patients. Offering fertility preservation is no longer considered optional and must be included in every therapeutic program for women who receive an oncological diagnosis in their reproductive age. Oocyte cryopreservation appears to be a good opportunity for fertility preservation. Our results, although they are obtained in a small sample, are encouraging, even if only 4.5% of patients returned to use their gametes.