Random-start gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist–treated cycles with GnRH agonist trigger for fertility preservation

Fertility preservation in patients undergoing gonadotoxic treatments: a Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society clinical practice guideline

The management of young patients with cancer presents several unique challenges. In general, these patients are ill prepared for the diagnosis and the impact on their fertility. With the improved survival for all tumour types and stages, the need for adequate fertility counselling and a multidisciplinary approach in the reproductive care of these patients is paramount. Recent advances in cryopreservation techniques allow for the banking of spermatozoa, oocytes, embryos and ovarian tissue without compromising survival. This Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (CFAS) guideline outlines the current understanding of social and medical issues associated with oncofertility, and the medical and surgical technologies available to optimize future fertility.

Early versus late follicular phase ovarian stimulation: a randomized controlled trial

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is late follicular phase stimulation as efficient as early follicular phase stimulation in a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in oocyte donors in terms of the number of oocytes.

DESIGN

In this open label, phase 3, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial using a two-arm design with a 1:1 allocation ratio, 84 oocyte donors were allocated to the early follicular start group (control group, n = 41) or the late follicular start group (study group, n = 43). In the control group, women followed a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol with recombinant FSH (r-FSH) 225 IU. In the study group, r-FSH 225 IU was initiated in the late follicular phase. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes. The secondary outcomes were the number of mature oocytes, consumption of gonadotrophins and GnRH antagonist, and cost of medication.

RESULTS

The number of oocytes did not differ between the control group and the study group (intent-to-treat analysis 15.5 ± 11.0 versus 14.0 ± 10.7, P = 0.52; per-protocol analysis 18.2 ± 9.7 versus 18.8 ± 7.8, P = 0.62). In addition, the number of mature oocytes did not differ between the groups (14.1 ± 8.1 versus 12.7 ± 8.5, P = 0.48). The duration of stimulation was shorter in the control group (10.0 ± 1.4 versus 10.9 ± 1.5 days, P = 0.01). The total amount of r-FSH used was lower in the control group (2240.7 ± 313.9 IU versus 2453.9 ± 330.1 IU, P = 0.008). A GnRH antagonist was used for approximately 6 days in the control group, while a GnRH antagonist was only prescribed for one woman in the study group (6.0 ± 1.4 days versus 0.13±0.7 days, P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the cost of medication per cycle between the groups (1147.9 ± 182.8€ in control group versus 979.9 ± 129.0€ in study group, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Late follicular phase stimulation is as efficient as early follicular phase stimulation in terms of the number of oocytes.

Double stimulation for the management of poor-prognosis patients: where are we going?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The technical improvements in IVF allowed the implementation of nonconventional ovarian stimulation protocols for some specific patients. Where time is crucial, such as with oncologic patients, poor-prognosis patients, patients with low ovarian reserve, and those with advanced maternal age, access to IVF treatment is even more critical. Some of these protocols might start in the late follicular phase, luteal phase, or involve both stimulations within the same ovarian cycle.

RECENT FINDINGS

Until now, published evidence showed that oocytes retrieved from unconventional protocol seem to be developmentally, genetically, and reproductively competent. Second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle after the conventional approach may represent a sound alternative to oocyte accumulation. This can be proposed in progress after careful counselling focused on the patients' chances of finding at least one euploid embryo on account of their age and of the number of blastocysts obtained after the conventional approach.

SUMMARY

The adoption of these new strategies, known as double stimulation protocol, can be conceived as a real full-personalization of ovarian stimulation. Multicentre prospective RCTs are urgently needed to evaluate the efficacy, efficiency, and costs of double stimulation versus two consecutive conventional approaches with standard or mild stimulation and in a different IVF setting.

Comparison of blastocyst euploidy rates following luteal versus follicular phase stimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol: a prospective study with repeated ovarian stimulation cycles

STUDY QUESTION

Is there any difference in the mean number of euploid embryos following luteal phase start (LS) and follicular phase start (FS) of ovarian stimulation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The mean number of euploid blastocysts is equivalent independent of whether the inseminated oocytes are derived from FS or LS.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Starting ovarian stimulation at any time of the cycle ('random-start') is commonly used for emergency fertility preservation in cancer patients. A few retrospective studies have been published evaluating LS in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in the context of IVF, but there is a lack of robust data on the comparative efficacy of LS versus FS.Although 'random start' is commonly used in cancer survivors, few retrospective and uncontrolled studies have been published evaluating luteal phase stimulation in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in the context of IVF. Owing to this evident lack of robust data on the efficacy of LS, guidelines typically recommend the LS approach only for medical reasons and not in the context of IVF.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a prospective, equivalence study, with repeated stimulation cycles, conducted between May 2018 and December 2021. Overall, 44 oocyte donors underwent two identical consecutive ovarian stimulation cycles, one initiated in the FS and the other in the LS. The primary outcome of the study was to evaluate whether FS and LS in the same patient would result in equivalent numbers of euploid embryos following fertilization of oocytes with the same sperm sample.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Overall, 44 oocyte donors underwent two consecutive ovarian stimulation protocols with 150 μg corifollitropin alpha followed by 200 IU recombinant FSH (rFSH) in a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol. The only difference between the two cycles was the day of initiation of ovarian stimulation, which was in the early follicular phase (FS) in one cycle, and in the luteal phase (LS) in the other. Forty-four oocyte recipients participated in the study receiving a mean of six metaphase II (MII) oocytes from each stimulation cycle (FS and LS). All MIIs were inseminated with the corresponding recipient's partner sperm (which had been previously frozen) or donor sperm, in order to safeguard the use of the same sample for either the FS or LS. Following fertilization and blastocyst culture, all generated embryos underwent genetic analysis for aneuploidy screening (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

FS resulted in a significantly shorter duration of ovarian stimulation (difference between means (DBM) -1.05 (95% CI -1.89; -0.20)) and a lower total additional dose of daily rFSH was needed (DBM -196.02 (95% CI -319.92; -72.12)) compared with LS. The donors' hormonal profile on the day of trigger was comparable between the two stimulation cycles, as well as the mean number of oocytes (23.70 ± 10.79 versus 23.70 ± 8.81) (DBM 0.00 (95% CI -3.03; 3.03)) and MII oocytes (20.27 ± 9.60 versus 20.73 ± 8.65) (DBM -0.45 (95% CI -2.82; 1.91)) between FS and LS cycles, respectively. Following fertilization, the overall blastocyst formation rate was 60.70% with a euploid rate of 57.1%. Comparisons between the two stimulation cycles did not reveal any significance differences in terms of fertilization rates (71.9% versus 71.4%), blastocyst formation rates (59.4% versus 62%) and embryo euploidy rates (56.9 versus 57.3%) for the comparison of FS versus LS, respectively. The mean number of euploid blastocysts was equivalent between the FS (1.59 ± 1.30) and the LS (1.61 ± 1.17), (DBM -0.02 (90%CI -0.48; 0.44)).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study was performed in young, potentially fertile oocyte donors who are patients with high blastocyst euploidy rates. Although results may be extrapolated to young infertile women with good ovarian reserve, caution is needed prior to generalizing the results to infertile women of older age.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The current study provides evidence that initiation of ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase in young potentially fertile women may result in a comparable number of oocytes and comparable blastocyst euploidy rates compared with follicular phase stimulation. This may imply that in case of a freeze-all protocol in young patients with good ovarian reserve, clinicians may safely consider initiation of ovarian stimulation during the luteal phase.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from MSD/Organon. N.P.P. has received Research grants and honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, MSD/Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins Intenational, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex, Gedeon Richter. F.M., E.C., M.R. and S.G. declared no conflict of interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered at Clinical Trials Gov (NCT03555942).

The euploid blastocysts obtained after luteal phase stimulation show the same clinical, obstetric and perinatal outcomes as follicular phase stimulation-derived ones: a multicenter study

STUDY QUESTION

Are the reproductive outcomes (clinical, obstetric and perinatal) different between follicular phase stimulation (FPS)- and luteal phase stimulation (LPS)-derived euploid blastocysts?

SUMMARY ANSWER

No difference was observed between FPS- and LPS-derived euploid blastocysts after vitrified-warmed single embryo transfer (SET).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Technical improvements in IVF allow the implementation non-conventional controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols for oncologic and poor prognosis patients. One of these protocols begins LPS 5 days after FPS is ended (DuoStim). Although, several studies have reported similar embryological outcomes (e.g. fertilization, blastulation, euploidy) between FPS- and LPS-derived cohort of oocytes, information on the reproductive (clinical, obstetric and perinatal) outcomes of LPS-derived blastocysts is limited to small and retrospective studies.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Multicenter study conducted between October 2015 and March 2019 including all vitrified-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfers after DuoStim. Only first transfers of good quality blastocysts (≥BB according to Gardner and Schoolcraft's classification) were included. If euploid blastocysts obtained after both FPS and LPS were available the embryo to transfer was chosen blindly. The primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR) per vitrified-warmed single euploid blastocyst transfer in the two groups. To achieve 80% power (α = 0.05) to rule-out a 15% difference in the LBR, a total of 366 first transfers were required. Every other clinical, as well as obstetric and perinatal outcomes, were recorded.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Throughout the study period, 827 patients concluded a DuoStim cycle and among them, 339 did not identify any transferable blastocyst, 145 had an euploid blastocyst after FPS, 186 after LPS and 157 after both FPS and LPS. Fifty transfers of poor quality euploid blastocysts were excluded and 49 patients did not undergo an embryo transfer during the study period. Thus, 389 patients had a vitrified-warmed SET of a good quality euploid blastocyst (182 after FPS and 207 after LPS). For 126 cases (32%) where both FPS- and LPS-derived good quality blastocysts were available, the embryo transferred was chosen blindly with a 'True Random Number Generator' function where '0' stood for FPS-derived euploid blastocysts and '1' for LPS-derived ones (n = 70 and 56, respectively) on the website random.org. All embryos were obtained with the same ovarian stimulation protocol in FPS and LPS (GnRH antagonist protocol with fixed dose of rec-FSH plus rec-LH and GnRH-agonist trigger), culture conditions (continuous culture in a humidified atmosphere with 37°C, 6% CO2 and 5% O2) and laboratory protocols (ICSI, trophectoderm biopsy in Day 5-7 without assisted hatching in Day 3, vitrification and comprehensive chromosome testing). The women whose embryos were included had similar age (FPS: 38.5 ± 3.1 and LPS: 38.5 ± 3.2 years), prevalence of male factor, antral follicle count, basal hormonal characteristics, main cause of infertility and previous reproductive history (i.e. previous live births, miscarriages and implantation failures) whether the embryo came from FPS or LPS. All transfers were conducted after warming in an artificial cycle. The blastocysts transferred after FPS and LPS were similar in terms of day of full-development and morphological quality.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The positive pregnancy test rates for FPS- and LPS-derived euploid blastocysts were 57% and 62%, biochemical pregnancy loss rates were 10% and 8%, miscarriage rates were 15% and 14% and LBRs were 44% (n = 80/182, 95% CI 37-51%) and 49% (n = 102/207, 95% CI 42-56%; P = 0.3), respectively. The overall odds ratio for live birth (LPS vs FPS (reference)) adjusted for day of blastocyst development and quality, was 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.0, P = 0.2. Among patients with euploid blastocysts obtained following both FPS and LPS, the LBRs were also similar (53% (n = 37/70, 95% CI 41-65%) and 48% (n = 27/56, 95% CI 35-62%) respectively; P = 0.7). Gestational issues were experienced by 7.5% of pregnant women after FPS- and 10% of women following LPS-derived euploid single blastocyst transfer. Perinatal issues were reported in 5% and 0% of the FPS- and LPS-derived newborns, respectively. The gestational weeks and birthweight were similar in the two groups. A 5% pre-term delivery rate was reported in both groups. A low birthweight was registered in 2.5% and 5% of the newborns, while 4% and 7% showed high birthweight, in FPS- and LPS-derived euploid blastocyst, respectively. Encompassing the 81 FPS-derived newborns, a total of 9% were small and 11% large for gestational age. Among the 102 LPS-derived newborns, 8% were small and 6% large for gestational age. No significant difference was reported for all these comparisons.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The LPS-derived blastocysts were all obtained after FPS in a DuoStim protocol. Therefore, studies are required with LPS-only, late-FPS and random start approaches. The study is powered to assess differences in the LBR per embryo transfer, therefore obstetric and perinatal outcomes should be considered observational. Although prospective, the study was not registered.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study represents a further backing of the safety of non-conventional COS protocols. Therefore, LPS after FPS (DuoStim protocol) is confirmed a feasible and efficient approach also from clinical, obstetric and perinatal perspectives, targeted at patients who need to reach the transfer of an euploid blastocyst in the shortest timeframe possible due to reasons such as cancer, advanced maternal age and/or reduced ovarian reserve and poor ovarian response.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Ovarian follicular waves during the menstrual cycle: physiologic insights into novel approaches for ovarian stimulation

Elucidation of multiple waves of antral ovarian follicular development during the menstrual cycle has challenged traditional concepts of female reproductive physiology and foundations of assisted reproductive therapies. Approximately two-thirds of women develop two follicle waves throughout an interovulatory interval and the remainder exhibit three waves of follicle development. Major and minor waves of follicle development have been observed. Major waves are those in which a dominant follicle develops; dominant follicles either regress or ovulate. In minor waves, physiologic selection of a dominant follicle is not manifest. Knowledge of waves of antral follicular development has led to the global adoption of novel ovarian stimulation strategies in which stimulation can be initiated at various times throughout the cycle. Random-start and luteal-phase ovarian stimulation regimens have had important clinical applications for women requiring urgent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation for fertility preservation prior to chemotherapy. Ovarian stimulation twice in the same cycle, referred to as double stimulation, may be used to optimize clinical outcomes in women with a poor ovarian response to stimulation as well as in those requiring fertility preservation before chemotherapy.

Comparison of Oocyte and Embryo Quality Between Random Start and Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Cycles in Cancer Patients Undergoing Fertility Preservation

Conventional assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles may delay cancer treatment and compromise survival, and also increase patients' psychological burden as a result of delayed chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the success rates of random start and conventional start GnRH antagonist protocols in terms of oocyte and embryo outputs in cancer patients. Data of 111 patients with a newly diagnosed cancer who underwent ART for fertility preservation at a university-based infertility clinic between January 2010 and September 2019 were reviewed. The study group underwent random start controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (RS-COH) and the control group underwent conventional start COH (CS-COH). The main outcome measures were the number of total oocytes, MII oocytes, and embryo yield. A total of 46 patients (41.5%) underwent RS-COH and 65 (58.5%) underwent CS-COH. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The most common cancer type in both groups was breast cancer (60.9% vs. 52.3%, respectively). The median duration of stimulation was significantly longer in RS-COH than in CS-COH (12 vs. 10 days; P = 0.005). The median number of MII oocytes was significantly higher in RS-COH than in CS-COH (7 vs. 5 oocytes, respectively; P = 0.020). The MII/AFC ratio was significantly higher in the RS-COH group compared to the CS-COH group (74% and 57% respectively; p = 0.02). In the linear regression analyses, RS-COH protocol did not have a significant impact on MII/AFC (standardized ß coefficient - 0.514; P = 0.289 {adjusted R² for the model = 0.779}), oocyte yield (standardized ß coefficient - 0.070; P = 0.829 {adjusted R² for the model = 0.840}), and MII rate (standardized ß coefficient - 0.504; P = 0.596 {adjusted R² for the model = 0.271}). In conclusion, RS-COH protocol is as effective as CS-COH protocols for fertility preservation in cancer patients.

Fertility preservation in borderline ovarian tumor patients and survivors

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) represent around 15% of all epithelial ovarian cancer. Around one third of those patients is under 40 and has not completed childbearing when the tumor is diagnosed. Cancer survivors are more and more concerned about their future fertility since a large proportion of those with BOTs are young. Whatever the tumor stage, information regarding future fertility after treatment and fertility preservation (FP) options must be delivered to all patients before treatment. A multidisciplinary team will discuss and propose personalized treatment and FP strategies. Nowadays, the FP options offered to patients with BOT are the followings: i) minimal invasive conservative surgery, ii) oocyte cryopreservation after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) or in vitro maturation (IVM) and iii) ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Generally, the most common strategy to preserve future fertility is represented by minimal invasive conservative surgery. However, with the remarkable success and evolution of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) - notably progress and efficiency in COS and oocyte vitrification - have led to offer another potential approach for FP consisting in oocyte cryopreservation. Several COS protocols, such as random start or dual stimulation associating tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins provide similar results when compared to standard protocols while providing safety by minimizing the risk of high estrogen exposure. When COS is contraindicated, oocyte cryopreservation can still be possible throw IVM. Even though, oocyte competence after IVM is lower than that obtained after COS. A less used approach is cryopreservation of ovarian tissue, consisting in freezing ovarian cortex fragments for a future thawing and graft. Some concerns and limitations regard the ovarian cortex graft and the risk of reintroducing malignant cells once performed. Nonetheless, the latter it is the only option in prepubertal patients.

Suboptimal response to GnRH-agonist trigger during oocyte cryopreservation: a case series

BACKGROUND

Random-start, controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) has advanced the field of fertility preservation, allowing patients to expedite fertility treatment and avoid further delays to their cancer therapy. This novel approach allows patients to initiate ovarian stimulation at any point, regardless of where they are in their menstrual cycle. Luteal-phase start (LPS) protocols describe treatment cycles where COS is initiated during the luteal-phase of the menstrual cycle. LPS protocols have not been studied or optimized to the same degree as conventional, early-follicular COS. Particularly, there is a paucity of evidence evaluating treatment outcomes using different trigger medications in LPS protocols. The present study aims to evaluate the efficacy of using a GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) trigger in patients undergoing oocyte cryopreservation in LPS protocols.

METHODS

This descriptive case series describes two patients, recently diagnosed with cancer, who underwent oocyte cryopreservation using an LPS protocol and a GnRH-a trigger at a university-affiliated, academic center.

RESULTS

The patients described in our case series both failed to adequately respond to a GnRH-a trigger, based on their serum levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and progesterone 12 h after their GnRH-a trigger. They both required a single rescue dose of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the potential risk of a suboptimal response to a GnRH-a trigger in patients undergoing LPS, controlled ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation. This risk might be attributed to the downregulation of GnRH receptors by elevated serum progesterone levels during the luteal phase. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of a GnRH-a trigger during LPS controlled ovarian stimulation. This case series offers a number of management strategies to mitigate this risk and emphasizes the need for further research in this area.

Luteal phase anovulatory follicles result in the production of competent oocytes: intra-patient paired case-control study comparing follicular versus luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle

STUDY QUESTION

Are the mean numbers of blastocysts obtained from sibling cohorts of oocytes recruited after follicular phase and luteal phase stimulations (FPS and LPS) in the same ovarian cycle similar?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The cohorts of oocytes obtained after LPS are larger than their paired-FPS-derived cohorts and show a comparable competence, thus resulting in a larger mean number of blastocysts.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Three theories of follicle recruitment have been postulated to date: (i) the ‘continuous recruitment’ theory, (ii) the ‘single recruitment episode’ theory and (iii) the ‘wave’ theory. Yet, a clear characterization of this crucial biological process for human reproduction is missing. Recent advances implemented in in vitro fertilization (IVF), such as blastocyst culture, aneuploidy testing and vitrification, have encouraged clinicians to maximize the exploitation of the ovarian reserve through tailored stimulation protocols, which is crucial especially for poor prognosis patients aiming to conceive after IVF. LPS has been already successfully adopted to treat poor prognosis or oncological patients through Duostim, LPS-only or random-start ovarian stimulation approaches. Nevertheless, little, and mainly retrospective, evidence has been produced to support the safety of LPS in general. Feasibility of the LPS approach would severely question the classic ‘single recruitment episode’ theory of follicular development.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This case-control study was conducted with paired follicular phase- and luteal phase-derived cohorts of oocytes collected after stimulations in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) at two private IVF clinics between October 2015 and December 2017.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The study included 188 poor prognosis patients undergoing DuoStim with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). FPS and LPS were performed with the same daily dose of recombinant-gonadotrophins in an antagonist protocol. Blastocyst culture, trophectoderm biopsy, vitrification and frozen-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfers were performed. The primary outcome was the mean number of blastocysts obtained per oocyte retrieval from paired-FPS- and LPS-derived cohorts (required sample size = 165 patients; power = 90%). Mean blastulation and euploidy rates were monitored, along with the number of oocytes, euploid blastocysts and clinical outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Significantly fewer blastocysts were obtained after FPS than LPS (1.2 ± 1.1 vs. 1.6 ± 1.6, P < 0.01), due to fewer oocytes collected (3.6 ± 2.1 vs. 4.3 ± 2.8, P < 0.01) and a similar mean blastocyst rates per retrieval (33.1% ± 30.3% vs. 37.4% ± 30.8%, P = NS). The number of oocytes collected were correlated (R = 0.5, P < 0.01), while the blastocyst rates were uncorrelated among paired-FPS- and LPS-derived cohorts. Overall, a significantly lower chance of producing blastocyst(s) was reported after FPS than after LPS: 67.6% (n = 127/188, 95%CI: 60.3–74.1) vs. 77.1% (n = 145/188, 95%CI: 70.3–82.8; P = 0.05). The mean euploidy rates per retrieval were similar between FPS- and LPS-derived cohorts of oocytes (13.6% ± 22.8% vs. 16.3% ± 23.4%, P = NS). Therefore, on average fewer euploid blastocysts (0.5 ± 0.8 vs. 0.7 ± 1.0, P = 0.02) resulted from FPS. Similar ongoing-pregnancy/delivery rates were reported, to date, after FPS- and LPS-derived euploid single blastocyst transfers: 42.4% (n = 28/66, 95%CI: 30.5–55.2) vs. 53.8% (n = 35/65, 95%CI: 41.1–66.1; P = NS).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

More studies need to be conducted in the future to confirm the safety of LPS, especially in terms of ovarian and follicular environment, as well as the clinical, peri-natal and post-natal outcomes. Here, we showed preliminary data suggesting a similar ongoing implantation/delivery rate (>22 weeks) between FPS- and LPS-derived euploid blastocysts, that need to be extended in the future, to populations other than poor prognosis patients and using approaches other than DuoStim together with a constant monitoring of the related peri-natal and post-natal outcomes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These data, from a paired study design, highlight that LPS-derived oocytes are as competent as FPS-derived oocytes, thereby adding some evidence to support the use of LPS for poor prognosis and oncological patients and to question the ‘single recruitment episode’ theory of follicle recruitment. These findings also encourage additional studies of the basics of folliculogenesis, with direct clinical implications for the management of ovarian stimulation in IVF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

None.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funds were used for this study and there are no conflicts of interest.

Similar miRNomic signatures characterize the follicular fluids collected after follicular and luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle

PURPOSE

To detect putative differences in the miRNomic profile of follicular fluids collected after follicular-phase-stimulation (FPS-FFs) and paired luteal-phase-stimulation (LPS-FFs) in the same ovarian cycles (DuoStim).

METHODS

Exploratory study at a private IVF center and University involving FPS-FFs and paired-LPS-FFs collected from 15 reduced ovarian reserve and advanced maternal age women undergoing DuoStim (n = 30 paired samples). The samples were combined in 6 paired pools (5 samples each) and balanced according to maternal age and number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes. Micro-RNAs were isolated and sequenced. Four miRNAs were then selected for further validation on 6 single pairs of FPS-FFs and LPS-FFs by qPCR.

RESULTS

Forty-three miRNAs were detected in both FPS-FFs and paired-LPS-FFs after sequencing and no statistically significant differences were reported. Thirty-three KEGG pathways were identified as regulated from the detected miRNAs. Four miRNAs (miR-146b, miR-191, miR-320a, and miR-483) were selected for qPCR validation since consistently expressed in our samples and possibly involved in the regulation/establishment of a healthy follicular environment. Again, no significant differences were reported between FPS-FFs and paired-LPS-FFs, also when the analysis was corrected for maternal age and number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes in generalized linear models.

CONCLUSIONS

These data complement the embryological, chromosomal, and clinical evidence of equivalence between FPS and LPS published to date.

Analysis of embryo quality with luteal phase ovarian stimulation after failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with long or ultra-long protocol

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of luteal phase ovarian stimulation on embryo quality after failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with long or ultra-long protocol.

METHODS

In patients who underwent luteal phase ovarian stimulation after failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with long or ultra-long protocol in the reproductive center between January 2015 and October 2017, self-control observations and statistical analyses were carried out for the number of oocytes retrieved, the rate of fertilization, the rate of D3 high-quality embryos, the rate of transplantable blastocyst formation, and the pregnancy rate of transfer cycle between long or ultra-long protocol and luteal phase ovarian stimulation.

RESULTS

The rate of fertilization and blastocyst were significantly increased after luteal phase ovarian stimulation (P < 0.05). However, the difference of the number of oocytes retrieved and the rate of D3 high-quality embryos was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The patients who failed with long protocol or ultra-long protocol due to low quality embryos, the protocol changed over to luteal phase ovarian stimulation. Can significantly improve the rate of fertilization oocytes and the transplantable blastocyst, and improve the outcome of clinical pregnancy. It provides an alternative ovarian stimulation protocol in patients with IVF-ET failure.

What is new in the management of poor ovarian response in IVF?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The management and treatment of patients with poor ovarian response is still a controversial issue in IVF. Increasing evidences demonstrate that the number of oocytes retrieved after a controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) greatly influences the clinical outcome in terms of cumulative live birth per started cycle. For this reason, any COS should aim to optimize the number of oocytes according to the ovarian reserve of the patient. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of new strategies proposed to manage poor responders according to the novel POSEIDON classification.

RECENT FINDINGS

Gonadotrophins cannot compensate for the absence of follicles in the ovary, therefore, COS in poor responders may benefit from the exploitation of multiple follicular waves within a single ovarian cycle, for instance, through luteal phase stimulation or double stimulation (follicular plus luteal) in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) protocols.

SUMMARY

Many strategies have been proposed to manage poor responder patients, however, a consensus upon which is the most beneficial has not been yet reached. DuoStim is the most promising approach to increase the number of oocytes collected in a single ovarian cycle; however, more embryological and clinical data is required, as well as an analysis of its cost-effectiveness.

Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation May Improve Oocyte Retrieval and Oocyte Quality in Poor Ovarian Responders Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: Preliminary Results from a Single-Center Prospective Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Luteal phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) has been proven a feasible protocol for infertile patients. High progesterone level in the luteal phase could physiologically inhibit premature luteinizing hormone surge, from which poor ovarian responders (PORs) could obtain benefits. Therefore, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes between LPOS and follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) protocol in PORs undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).

METHODS

This prospective pilot study was performed at one tertiary center from January 2016 to October 2017. A total of 60 PORs who met Bologna criteria and undergoing IVF were enrolled. Thirty PORs were allocated to the LPOS group and 30 PORs were allocated to the FPOS group. Basic characteristics, cycle characteristics, and pregnancy outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The length of stimulation was significantly longer in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. The numbers of retrieved oocytes, metaphase II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, and day-3 embryos were significantly higher in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. Conversely, we could not find any significant difference for clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and cancellation rate. The multivariate analysis showed that only LPOS (p = 0.007) was significantly associated the possibility to retrieve three or more oocytes, whereas basal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) < 8 IU/l (p = 0.103) and antral follicle count (AFC) ≥ 3 (p = 0.143) did not significantly affect this event.

CONCLUSION

LPOS allows improved oocyte retrieval and oocyte quality in PORs with respect to FPOS, despite comparable pregnancy outcomes. LPOS may be considered a feasible option for oocytes accumulation in PORs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03238833.

No. 356-Egg Freezing for Age-Related Fertility Decline

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive review and evidence based recommendations for Canadian fertility centres that offer social egg freezing.

OUTCOMES

In social egg freezing cycles we evaluated thawed oocyte survival rates, fertilization rates, embryo quality, pregnancy rates, and live birth rates. We also review how these outcomes are impacted by age, ovarian reserve, and the number of eggs cryopreserved. Finally, we discuss the risks of social egg freezing, the alternatives, the critical elements for counselling and informed consent, and future reporting of egg freezing outcome data.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was reviewed through searches of MEDLINE and CINAHL using appropriate vocabulary and using key words ("oocyte cryopreservation," "egg freezing," "egg vitrification," "social egg freezing," and "elective egg freezing"). Results included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Expert opinion based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees was also included to discuss aspects of egg freezing not currently rigorously studied.

VALUES

The evidence obtained was reviewed and evaluated by the Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) Committees of the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (CFAS) under the leadership of the principal authors.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Implementation of this guideline should assist the clinician to develop an optimal approach in providing counselling for egg freezing while minimizing harm and improving patient outcomes during treatment.

VALIDATION

These guidelines have been reviewed and approved by the membership of the CFAS and by the CPG Committees of CFAS and The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC).

SPONSORS

CFAS and SOGC.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Double ovarian stimulation during the follicular and luteal phase in women ≥38 years: a retrospective case-control study

Previous studies have shown that double ovarian stimulation could obtain more oocytes in women with poor ovarian response. This retrospective case-control study aimed to investigate the efficacy of double ovarian stimulation in older women. One hundred and sixteen women aged ≥38 years who received double ovarian stimulation were assigned to the study, with 103 divided into four groups according to follicular-phase ovarian stimulation protocols, including gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist short protocol (n = 27), gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol (n = 32), mild stimulation protocol (n = 21) and medrocyprogesterone acetate (MPA) pituitary down-regulation protocol (n = 23). Numbers of oocytes retrieved and available embryos after double ovarian stimulation were more than double those obtained after follicular-phase ovarian stimulation alone. In total 81.90% of patients had available embryos, and the cancellation rate decreased from 37.07% to 18.10%. Forty-eight cases underwent 50 cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles, with a 22.00% clinical pregnancy rate. The implantation rate (10.53% versus 10.67%) was similar between the embryos derived from first and second stimulations. The results suggest that double ovarian stimulation could increase the chances of achieving pregnancy by accumulating more oocytes/embryos in a short time, which might serve as a useful strategy for older women.

New stimulation regimens: endogenous and exogenous progesterone use to block the LH surge during ovarian stimulation for IVF

BACKGROUND

The advent of embryo and oocyte vitrification today gives reproductive specialists an opportunity to consider new strategies for improving the practice and results of IVF attempts. As the freezing of entire cohorts does not compromise, and may even improve, the results of IVF attempts, it is possible to break away from the standard sequence of stimulation-retrieval-transfer. The constraints associated with ovarian stimulation in relation to the potential harmful effects of the hormonal environment on endometrial receptivity can be avoided.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This review will look at the new stimulation protocols where progesterone is used to block the LH surge. Thanks to 'freeze all' strategies, the increase in progesterone could actually be no longer a cause for concern. There are two ways of using progesterone, whether it be endogenous, as in luteal phase stimulation, or exogenous, as in the use of progesterone in the follicular phase i.e. progestin primed ovarian stimulation.

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search was carried out (until September 2016) on MEDLINE. The following text words were utilized to generate the list of citations: progestin primed ovarian stimulation, luteal phase stimulation, luteal stimulation, duostim, double stimulation, random start. Articles and their references were then examined in order to identify other potential studies. All of the articles are reported in this review.

OUTCOMES

The use of progesterone during ovarian stimulation is effective in blocking the LH surge, whether endogenous or exogenous, and it does not affect the number of oocytes collected or the quality of the embryos obtained. Its main constraint is that it requires total freezing and delayed transfer. A variety of stimulation protocols can be derived from these two methods, and their implications are discussed, from fertility preservation to ovarian response profiles to organization for the patients and clincs. These new regimens enable more flexibility and are of emerging interest in daily practice. However, their medical and economic significance remains to be demonstrated.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The use of luteal phase or follicular phase protocols with progestins could rapidly develop in the context of oocyte donation and fertility preservation not related to oncology. Their place could develop even more in the general population of patients in IVF programs. The strategy of total freezing continues to develop, thanks to technical improvements, in particular vitrification and PGS on blastocysts, and thanks to studies showing improvements in embryo implantation when the transfer take place far removed from the hormonal changes caused by ovarian stimulation.

Toward precision medicine for preserving fertility in cancer patients: existing and emerging fertility preservation options for women

As the number of young cancer survivors increases, quality of life after cancer treatment is becoming an ever more important consideration. According to a report from the American Cancer Society, approximately 810,170 women were diagnosed with cancer in 2015 in the United States. Among female cancer survivors, 1 in 250 are of reproductive age. Anticancer therapies can result in infertility or sterility and can have long-term negative effects on bone health, cardiovascular health as a result of reproductive endocrine function. Fertility preservation has been identified by many young patients diagnosed with cancer as second only to survival in terms of importance. The development of fertility preservation technologies aims to help patients diagnosed with cancer to preserve or protect their fertility prior to exposure to chemo- or radiation therapy, thus improving their chances of having a family and enhancing their quality of life as a cancer survivor. Currently, sperm, egg, and embryo banking are standard of care for preserving fertility for reproductive-age cancer patients; ovarian tissue cryopreservation is still considered experimental. Adoption and surrogate may also need to be considered. All patients should receive information about the fertility risks associated with their cancer treatment and the fertility preservation options available in a timely manner, whether or not they decide to ultimately pursue fertility preservation. Because of the ever expanding number of options for treating cancer and preserving fertility, there is now an opportunity to take a precision medicine approach to informing patients about the fertility risks associated with their cancer treatment and the fertility preservation options that are available to them.

Ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether outcomes are different if controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is started in the luteal phase rather than the follicular phase.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Sixteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and eight studies with a total of 338 women were included in the quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

Cycles initiated in the luteal phase were slightly longer (WMD 1.1 days, 95 % CI 0.39-1.9) and utilized more total gonadotropins (WMD 817 IU, 95 % CI 489-1144). However, no differences were noted in peak estradiol levels (WMD -411 pg/ml, 95 % CI -906-84.7) or in the total number of oocytes retrieved (WMD 0.52 oocytes, 95 % CI -0.74-1.7). There were slightly more mature oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase (WMD 0.77 oocytes, 95 % CI 0.21-1.3), and fertilization rates were significantly higher (WMD 10 %, 95 % CI 0.03-0.18). While only three studies reported pregnancy outcomes, no difference was noted in the FET pregnancy rates after COS in the luteal versus follicular phase (RR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.56-1.7). A post hoc power analysis revealed that a sample of this size was sufficient to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 2 oocytes retrieved with 93 % power.

CONCLUSION

Although initiating COS in the luteal phase requires a longer stimulation and a higher dose of total gonadotropin, these differences are not clinically significant. Furthermore, COS initiated in the luteal phase does not compromise the quantity or quality of oocytes retrieved compared to outcomes of traditional stimulation in the follicular phase.

Cryopreservation of in vitro matured oocytes after ex vivo oocyte retrieval from gynecologic cancer patients undergoing radical surgery

Objective

The aim of this study was to report a case series of in vitro matured (IVM) oocyte freezing in gynecologic cancer patients undergoing radical surgery under time constraints as an option for fertility preservation (FP).

Methods

Case series report. University-based in vitro fertilization center. Six gynecologic cancer patients who were scheduled to undergo radical surgery the next day were referred for FP. The patients had endometrial (n=2), ovarian (n=3), and double primary endometrial and ovarian (n=1) cancer. Ex vivo retrieval of immature oocytes from macroscopically normal ovarian tissue was followed by mature oocyte freezing after IVM or embryo freezing with intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Results

A total of 53 oocytes were retrieved from five patients, with a mean of 10.6 oocytes per patient. After IVM, a total of 36 mature oocytes were obtained, demonstrating a 67.9% maturation rate. With regard to the ovarian cancer patients, seven IVM oocytes were frozen from patient 3, who had stage IC cancer, whereas one IVM oocyte was frozen from patient 4, who had stage IV cancer despite being of a similar age. With regard to the endometrial cancer patients, 15 IVM oocytes from patient 1 were frozen. Five embryos were frozen after the fertilization of IVM oocytes from patient 6.

Conclusion

Immature oocytes can be successfully retrieved ex vivo from macroscopically normal ovarian tissue before radical surgery. IVM oocyte freezing provides a possible FP option in patients with advanced-stage endometrial or ovarian cancer without the risk of cancer cell spillage or time delays.

Random start or emergency IVF/in vitro maturation: a new rapid approach to fertility preservation

There is a need to develop rapid protocols for ovarian stimulation for women who wish to preserve their fertility following diagnosis of cancer. Conventional gonadotropin stimulation protocols are lengthy and are delayed until the start of the next menstrual period, potentially compromising cancer treatments. The development of random start IVF/in vitro maturation has made significant strides for enabling couples undergoing cancer therapy to achieve a family. However, several unanswered questions still remain. What do we know about the endocrinology of stimulating ovarian follicular activity outside the established protocols of stimulation during the follicular phase? This article explores what is known about antral follicle development during the menstrual cycle, novel ovarian stimulation proposals for optimizing assisted reproductive therapies in women, and direction.

Female patients with lymphoma demonstrate diminished ovarian reserve even before initiation of chemotherapy when compared with healthy controls and patients with other malignancies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to investigate if female patients with lymphoma demonstrate diminished ovarian reserve prior to initiation of the lymphoma treatment.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for fertility preservation were compared with 365 healthy controls undergoing elective oocyte cryopreservation (controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH)) and 128 patients with other types of malignancy prompting fertility preservation. The data of all lymphoma patients, all elective, and all the patients with other types of malignancy who met the inclusion criteria and underwent COH for fertility preservation during the study period were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes included serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels (ng/mL) and antral follicle count (AFC).

RESULTS

Patients in the lymphoma group demonstrated significantly lower AMH levels and AFC and had less oocytes harvested and cryopreserved when compared to healthy controls as well as patients with other malignancies.

CONCLUSION

Patients with lymphoma demonstrate diminished ovarian reserve when compared with healthy controls and patients with other malignancies. This should be taken into consideration when deciding on the dose for COH.

Assisted reproductive techniques after fertility-sparing treatments in gynaecological cancers

BACKGROUND

The trend toward late childbearing has made fertility preservation a major issue for women who face gynecological cancer. New techniques in assisted reproductive medicine enable conception after primary treatment of these cancers. Here, we aimed to review the efficacy and safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) after fertility-preserving treatment of gynaecological cancers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of both prospective and retrospective studies in the PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and SciSearch databases. In the retrieved studies, we evaluated live births, clinical pregnancies, overall survival and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

We identified many prospective and retrospective studies on this topic, but no relevant randomized clinical trials. Fertility-sparing treatments with safe oncological outcomes are feasible in endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer cases. After cancer treatment, ART seem safe and show variable obstetrical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

After fertility-preserving treatment for gynaecological cancers, ART can enable pregnancy to be achieved with apparent oncological safety. The success of such procedures should directly impact clinical practice and management of those patients who require fertility-sparing treatment.

Cancer and fertility preservation: international recommendations from an expert meeting

In the last years, thanks to the improvement in the prognosis of cancer patients, a growing attention has been given to the fertility issues. International guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients recommend that physicians discuss, as early as possible, with all patients of reproductive age their risk of infertility from the disease and/or treatment and their interest in having children after cancer, and help with informed fertility preservation decisions. As recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, sperm cryopreservation and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservations in male and female patients, respectively; other strategies (e.g. pharmacological protection of the gonads and gonadal tissue cryopreservation) are considered experimental techniques. However, since then, new data have become available, and several issues in this field are still controversial and should be addressed by both patients and their treating physicians.In April 2015, physicians with expertise in the field of fertility preservation in cancer patients from several European countries were invited in Genova (Italy) to participate in a workshop on the topic of "cancer and fertility preservation". A total of ten controversial issues were discussed at the conference. Experts were asked to present an up-to-date review of the literature published on these topics and the presentation of own unpublished data was encouraged. On the basis of the data presented, as well as the expertise of the invited speakers, a total of ten recommendations were discussed and prepared with the aim to help physicians in counseling their young patients interested in fertility preservation.Although there is a great interest in this field, due to the lack of large prospective cohort studies and randomized trials on these topics, the level of evidence is not higher than 3 for most of the recommendations highlighting the need of further research efforts in many areas of this field. The participation to the ongoing registries and prospective studies is crucial to acquire more robust information in order to provide evidence-based recommendations.

Comparison between follicular stimulation and luteal stimulation protocols with clomiphene and HMG in women with poor ovarian response

This retrospective study is to compare the follicular mild stimulation and luteal simulation protocols for poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). A total of 131 women were diagnosed as poor responders. Thirty-three women started ovarian stimulation in early-luteal phase and 98 women started in early follicular phase with 100 mg/d clomiphene citrate and 75-150 IU/d HMG. There were more oocytes retrieved (2.8 ± 2.0 versus 2.0 ± 1.2, p < 0.05), more available embryos (1.8 ± 1.4 versus 1.3 ± 1.1, p < 0.05) and top-quality embryos (0.9 ± 0.9 versus 0.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.05), and reduced cycle cancellation rate (12.1% versus 30.6%, p < 0.05) in luteal group than in follicular group. The clinical pregnancy (17.7%, 20.0% and 41.2%) and live-birth rates (10.78%, 20.0% and 29.4%) after transferring embryos obtained from luteal, follicular and mixed stages were comparable (p > 0.05). For poor responders, luteal phase stimulation could be an option because of increasing the chance to obtain competent embryos and reducing the cycle cancellation rate.

Fertility Preservation in Children and Adolescents

Fertility preservation is the process by which either oocytes (eggs) or sperm undergo an intervention to preserve their use for future attempts at conception. Consideration of fertility preservation in the pediatric and adolescent population is important, as future childbearing is usually a central life goal. For postpubertal girls, both oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard of care and for postpubertal boys, sperm cryopreservation continues to be recommended. Although all the risks are unknown, it appears that fertility preservation in most cases does not worsen prognosis, allows for the birth of healthy children, and does not increase the chance of recurrence.

Fertility preservation in reproductive-age women facing gonadotoxic treatments

BACKGROUND

Advancements in the treatments for cancer and autoimmune and other hematologic conditions continue to improve survival and cure rates. Despite those changes, various gonadotoxic agents and other treatments can still compromise the future fertility of many women. Progress in medical and surgical reproductive technologies has helped to offset the reproductive consequences of the use of gonadotoxic therapies, and allows for future fertility and normal pregnancy.

METHODS

A review of the literature was performed to outline the pathophysiology of gonadotoxicity from various treatments. The success of fertility preservation, fertility sparing, and cryopreservation options are reviewed. Barriers and facilitators to referral and oncofertility treatment in Canada are also outlined.

RESULTS

According to the quality of the evidence, recommendations are made for fertility assessment, patient referral, cryopreservation, and other assisted reproductive technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

To ensure ongoing fertility in women undergoing gonadotoxic treatments, assisted reproductive technologies can be combined with a multidisciplinary approach to patient assessment and referral.

IVF for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients--efficacy and safety issues

BACKGROUND

Potential risks on future fertility have become a dominant issue in consultation and management of newly diagnosed young cancer patients. Several fertility preservation strategies are currently available. Of those, ovarian stimulation followed by IVF and embryo cryopreservation is the most established one and is especially applicable in reproductive aged breast cancer patients.

AIM

The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive review on ovarian stimulation and IVF for fertility preservation in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Review of relevant literature is available through PubMed and Google scholar.

RESULTS

The use of IVF for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients raises dilemmas regarding efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian stimulation. Among these are the suggested role of malignancy and BRCA mutation in reducing ovarian response to stimulation, strategies designated to protect against hyper-estrogenic state associated with stimulation (co-treatment with tamoxifen or letrozole), and possible adjustments to accommodate oncologic-related time constraints.

CONCLUSION

Ovarian stimulation followed by IVF forms an important fertility preservation strategy for newly diagnosed young breast cancer patients, though live born rates following thawed embryo transfer in these patients are still lacking. Recent advances in controlled ovarian stimulation protocols provide practical options for some of the challenges that breast cancer patients present.

Preserving fertility when choosing chemotherapy regimens - the role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists

INTRODUCTION

The late effects of cancer treatment have recently gained a worldwide ubiquitous interest among reproductive endocrinologists, oncologists, and all health care providers. Despite many publications on this subject, there are many equivocal issues necessitating summary. The case for and against using GnRH-agonist for fertility preservation is summarized with the rationale that preventing ovarian failure may be better than treating it.

AREAS COVERED

We searched Medline in the last 10 years using terms: 'fertility preservation', 'female chemotherapy', 'Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues', 'GnRH agonists' 'gonadotoxicity', and 'cancer treatment'. We included mainly publications from the past 7 years, but did not exclude previous, commonly referenced publications. Here, we summarize the various methods available for fertility preservation and minimizing chemotherapy induced gonadotoxicity.

EXPERT OPINION

Until now, 20 studies (15 retrospective and 5 randomized controlled trial) have reported on 2038 patients treated with GnRH-a in parallel to chemotherapy, showing a significant decrease in premature ovarian failure (POF) rate in survivors versus 8 studies reporting on 509 patients, with negative results. Patients treated with GnRH-a in parallel to chemotherapy preserved their cyclic ovarian function in 91% of cases as compared to 41% of controls, with a pregnancy rate of 19 - 71% in the treated patients. Furthermore, over 10 recent meta-analyses have concluded that GnRH-a are beneficial and may decrease the risk of POF in survivors. Because most of the methods involving ovarian or egg cryopreservation are not yet clinically established and unequivocally successful, these young patients deserve to be informed with all the various modalities to minimize gonadal damage and preserve ovarian function and future fertility. Combining the various modalities for a specific patient may increase the odds of preservation of future fertility.

Efficacy of random-start controlled ovarian stimulation in cancer patients

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of random-start controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in cancer patients for emergency fertility preservation. In this retrospective comparative study, 22 patients diagnosed with cancer and 44 infertile women undergoing conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) were included. In cancer patients, ovarian stimulation was started on the day of referral, irrespective of their menstrual cycle date. The control group was selected by age matching among women undergoing conventional IVF. COS outcomes were compared between groups. The number of total and mature oocytes retrieved and the oocyte maturity rate were higher in the random-start group than in the conventional-start group. However, duration of ovarian stimulation was longer in the random-start group (11.4 vs. 10.3 days, P = 0.004). The addition of letrozole to lower the estradiol level during COS did not adversely affect total oocytes retrieved. However, oocyte maturity rate was lower in cycles with letrozole than in cycles without letrozole (71.6% vs. 58.2%, P = 0.019). Our study confirms the feasibility and effectiveness of random-start COS in cancer patients.

Random-start GnRH antagonist for emergency fertility preservation: a self-controlled trial

The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of random-start controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for emergency fertility preservation, regardless of the phase of the menstrual cycle. A self-controlled pilot clinical trial (NCT01385332) was performed in an acute-care teaching hospital and in two private reproductive centers in Barcelona, Spain. Eleven egg donors participated in the study. Two random-start gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols were assessed in which ganirelix was initiated on either day 10 (protocol B) or on day 20 (protocol C) of the menstrual cycle and was continued until estradiol levels were below 60 pg/dL. These protocols were compared with a standard protocol (protocol A). The main outcome of interest was the number of metaphase 2 oocytes retrieved. Results from this study show that the number of mature oocytes retrieved was comparable across the different protocols (14.3±4.6 in the standard protocol versus 13.0±9.1 and 13.2±5.2 in protocols B and C, respectively; values expressed as mean ± standard deviation). The mean number of days needed for a GnRH antagonist to lower estradiol levels, as well as the ongoing pregnancy rates, were also similar when protocols B (stimulation in follicular phase) and C (stimulation on luteal phase) were compared with protocol A (standard stimulation). GnRH antagonists can be effectively used for random-start controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with an ovarian response similar to that of standard protocols, and the antagonists appear suitable for emergency fertility preservation in cancer patients.

Fertility preservation in young females with hematological malignancies

Impaired reproductive function and possible infertility are major concerns in long-term survivors of hematological malignancies. The ongoing increase in the survival rates of these patients is therefore accompanied with a growing demand for effective, safe and specifically tailored fertility preservation options. When approaching patients facing hematological malignancy, an individual evaluation of potential infertility risks and possible preventive or preserving measures should be performed. This review aims to provide up-to-date knowledge on female reproductive risks, and ovarian, uterine and genital injuries associated with therapy regimens currently used in hemato-oncological disorders. Recent progress in fertility preservation methods including ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation, egg and embryo freezing, ovarian transposition and their specific role in hematological disorders are presented. The efficacy of these methods, possible risks and future challenges are critically discussed.

Ovarian tissue cryopreservation followed by controlled ovarian stimulation and pick-up of mature oocytes does not impair the number or quality of retrieved oocytes

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of fertility preservation in cancer patients by combined bilateral ovarian cortex cryopreservation and embryo freezing.

Methods

This was a cohort-controlled study in a university hospital center. Sixteen patients with a recent cancer diagnosis were included in the study. They all consented to fertility preservation by a combined technique: ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) followed by ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo freezing. The control group included 100 women of the same age undergoing IVF for male factor infertility.

Results

The mean number of metaphase II oocytes was 8.3 per patient (±7.7) and was not statistically different from the control group (8.1 ± 5.6). The mean number of good quality embryos obtained was not statistically different in the 2 groups (4.2 versus 4.4).

Conclusion

OTC before embryo freezing does not impair the number or quality of cryopreserved embryos, but increases fertility preservation potential.

Oncofertility in Canada: cryopreservation and alternative options for future parenthood

BACKGROUND

Cancer can be a devastating diagnosis. In particular, malignancy and its indicated treatments have profoundly negative effects on the fertility of young cancer patients. Oncofertility has emerged as a new interdisciplinary field to address the issue of gonadotoxicity associated with cancer therapies and to facilitate fertility preservation. In Canada, these fertility issues are often inadequately addressed despite the availability of resources. The goal of this four-part series is to facilitate systemic improvements in fertility preservation for adolescent and young adult Canadians with a new diagnosis of cancer.

METHODS

This article reviews fertility preservation options that use cryopreservation techniques. It also outlines some of the alternative options for future parenthood.

RESULTS

Cryopreservation of a woman's gametes and gonadal tissue may involve embryo, oocyte, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation with or without ovarian stimulation. Similarly, male gametes and gonadal tissue may be cryopreserved. Techniques and success rates continue to improve. Third-party assistance through gamete donation, gestational carriers, and adoption are also alternative options for parenthood.

CONCLUSIONS

Cryopreservation techniques are especially feasible options for fertility preservation in the newly diagnosed cancer patient.

Emergency IVF versus ovarian tissue cryopreservation: decision making in fertility preservation for female cancer patients

Hundreds of thousands of women in their reproductive years are diagnosed with cancer each year. As the number of female patients who survive cancer increases, the demand for effective and individualized fertility preservation options grows. Currently there are limited clinical options for fertility preservation, and the paucity of publications describing clinical experience and outcomes data has limited accessibility to these options. Decision making for patients diagnosed with cancer requires up-to-date knowledge of the efficacy and safety of available techniques. This article describes a step-by-step approach to evaluation of the cancer patient and presents an accumulation of clinical experience with challenges unique to patients with breast cancer and leukemia. Current data on reproductive outcomes of fertility preservation techniques are examined, demonstrating increasing evidence that these techniques are becoming effective enough to offer routinely to patients facing gonadotoxic cancer therapies, including those still considered to be "experimental."

Concise review: fertility preservation: an update

Fertility preservation is an emerging field in medicine that enables men, women, and children to maintain reproductive health when it is threatened by gonadotoxic treatment. Patients affected by other nononcologic malignancies that can impair spermatogenesis and ovogenesis can also benefit from fertility preservation treatments. Age-related infertility can also be overcome by cryopreserving gametes or embryos. The only established methods for fertility preservation in male patients are sperm cryopreservation in postpubertal age and experimental testicular tissue cryopreservation in prepubertal age. In adult women, oocyte cryopreservation is the preferred option, whereas ovarian tissue cryopreservation is the only possibility for prepubertal girls. Fertility preservation treatments must be addressed through a multidisciplinary approach that involves gynecologists, urologists, oncologists, pediatricians, and professionals in the field of medically assisted reproduction to work in coordination to provide patients with counseling and comprehensive information about fertility issues.

Applicability of adult techniques for ovarian preservation to childhood cancer patients

PURPOSE

To appraise the feasibility of current adult medical and surgical techniques for ovarian preservation in pre-pubertal and adolescent girls with cancer.

METHODS

Literature search using PubMed and SCOPUS up to February 2012. In addition, the reference lists of selected studies and all identified systematic and narrative reviews were scanned for relevant references. Inclusion criteria were ovarian preservation and cancer. Exclusion criteria were non-English publications, letters, personal communications, and ovarian preservation for conditions other than cancer.

RESULTS

Data from the selected publications was interpreted and discussed in the relevant sections. Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue followed by autologous transplant represents the only surgical option available for pre-pubertal girls and adolescents who cannot delay the start of chemotherapy. Few studies report on pre-pubertal and adolescent girls undergoing ovarian preservation surgeries with good harvesting, and no follow-up has been conveyed, to date. Outcomes of ovarian function after ovarian suppression with GnRH-analogs in adults have been controversial and no reports are available for pre-pubertal girls.

CONCLUSIONS

Autologous transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian cortex probably represents the best option for preservation of fertility and hormonal function in childhood cancer females; however, future research needs to address the safety of this technique, especially in patients with blood-borne cancers. Ovarian suppression with GnRH-analogs at the time of chemotherapy treatment has not proven to be superior to non-suppression for fertility preservation purposes in adults. Not enough evidence is presently available in childhood cancer patients.