Heterotopic pregnancy in a cross border oocyte donation patient: the importance of cooperation between centers

Patient and clinician experiences with cross-border reproductive care: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This review analyzes the experiences of patients and clinicians with regards to international cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) for the purpose of conception.

METHODS

Electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched using 'medical tourism' AND 'assisted reproductive technology' from 1978 to 2020.

RESULTS

Predominant patient motivators for CBRC were cost and legality of assisted reproduction technology (ART) in one's home country, followed by cultural factors like shared language, religion, and cultural familiarity. Clinicians suggested global laws for CBRC would reduce the potential for exploitation of vulnerable populations but believed the enactment of international regulations unlikely and, even if enacted, difficult to enforce.

CONCLUSIONS

While patient and clinician experiences with CBRC varied, patients frequently cited financial and legal reasons for pursuing CBRC, while many providers had concern for the patient's safety.

CLINICAL PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This review recommends clinicians involved in family planning counsel patients seeking treatment abroad by: (i) informing patients of the risks and benefits of treatment abroad, (ii) establishing guidelines and standards for clinicians on resuming patient care post-CBRC, and (iii) creating a directory of reputable CBRC clinicians and experts.

Cross-border reproductive care for law evasion: should physicians be allowed to help infertility patients evade the law of their own country?

There are fundamental differences between countries with regard to legislation on assisted reproduction. Many infertility patients are looking to evade the law of their own country and make use of reproductive services abroad. The role of the local physician in cross-border reproductive care for law evasion has been characterized as "channeling local patients to foreign medical establishments" and "against the spirit and essence of the law". The logical view is that by supporting CBRC for law evasion, physicians are essentially supporting immoral behavior. We will tackle this position on two levels. First, we will argue that governments should generally be tolerant toward people with different positions on assisted reproduction. Second, we will show that contributing to cross-border reproductive care for law evasion is not necessarily immoral, because the prima facie wrongness of complicity in law evasion can be outweighed by the fact that physicians should act in the best interest of the patient. Several countries have tried to prevent local physicians from helping patients to make use of reproductive services abroad, but they should rather leave it up to the individual physicians to decide whether or not to support a particular patient.

Live birth using vitrified--warmed oocytes in invasive ovarian cancer: case report and literature review

This article reports the live birth of a healthy newborn using vitrified-warmed oocytes in a young patient with invasive mucinous ovarian carcinoma (stage Ic). Diagnosis was performed after a laparoscopic left adnexectomy. She underwent two cycles of ovarian stimulation, and 14 oocytes were vitrified before fertility-sparing surgery with uterus preservation went ahead. One year later, a transfer of two embryos was performed after insemination of warmed oocytes. Eighteen days after the transfer, she underwent a laparotomy because of abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding and haemoperitoneum. A right cornual ectopic pregnancy in the uterus was diagnosed and a wedge resection was performed to resolve it. One week later, a viable intrauterine pregnancy was confirmed under ultrasound. An elective Caesarean section was performed at week 38 of gestation, resulting in the birth of a healthy boy weighing 2650 g. As far as is known, this is the first live birth reported through vitrified-warmed oocytes in a patient with invasive ovarian cancer. Although oocyte vitrification is an alternative to be considered for fertility preservation in highly selected cases of ovarian cancer, controversial issues are discussed. Fertility preservation is a proven possibility in some cancer patients according to their age, disease and time available until the beginning of their oncological treatment. Although oocyte vitrification is an alternative to be considered for fertility preservation in highly selected cases of ovarian cancer, no live birth has been reported. We report the live birth of a healthy newborn through vitrified-warmed oocytes in a young patient with invasive mucinous ovarian carcinoma (stage Ic). Diagnosis was performed after a laparoscopic left adnexectomy. She underwent two cycles of ovarian stimulation, and 14 oocytes were vitrified before fertility-sparing surgery with uterus preservation went ahead. One year later, a transfer of two embryos was performed after the insemination of the warmed oocytes. Eighteen days after the transfer she underwent a laparotomy because of abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding and haemoperitoneum. A right cornual ectopic pregnancy in the uterus was diagnosed and a wedge resection was performed to resolve it. One week later, a viable intrauterine pregnancy was confirmed under ultrasound. An elective Caesarean section was performed at week 38 of gestation, resulting in the birth of a healthy boy weighing 2650 g. To our knowledge, this is the first live birth reported using vitrified-warmed oocytes in invasive ovarian cancer. Controversial issues are reviewed and discussed.