Random-start ovarian stimulation in women desiring elective cryopreservation of oocytes

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.

Benefit from luteal phase progestin primed ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate supplementation in young women with diminished ovarian reserve: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the pregnancy outcomes of luteal phase and follicular phase progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol with clomiphene citrate supplementation (LPPOS+CC and FPPOS+CC) in young women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR).

METHODS

A total of 483 women aged ≤35 years with DOR, who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)/embryo transfer (ET) with controlled ovarian stimulation using LPPOS+CC (n=257) or FPPOS+CC (n=226) protocols during June 2018 and December 2021 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, were included in this retrospective study. The baseline characteristics, superovulation results, laboratory related indicators between the two groups, and the pregnancy outcomes of women who achieved at least one high-quality cleavage-stage embryo or good-morphology blastocyst were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were identified between the groups with respect to age, duration of infertility, proportion of secondary infertility, previous failed cycles, body mass index, anti-Müllerian hormone, antral follicle count, basal luteinizing hormone level, basal progesterone level, number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte maturation rate, high-quality cleavage-stage embryo cycle rate, the percentage of women with profound pituitary suppression, live birth rate and preterm birth rate (all P>0.05). The LH levels on the day of trigger [4.0 (2.7, 5.3) vs. 5.1 (3.2, 7.2) IU/L], the percentage of women with LH levels of >10 IU/L on the trigger day (3.13% vs. 10.67%), and the two pronucleus (2PN) rate of ICSI oocytes (72.16% vs. 79.56%) were significantly lower in the LPPOS+CC group than those in the FPPOS+CC group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). The duration of stimulation [11 (9, 12) vs. 9 (8, 11) d], the consumption of total gonadotropin [2213 (1650, 2700) vs. 2000 (1575, 2325) IU], the progesterone levels on the day of trigger [1.3 (0.8, 2.9) vs. 0.9 (0.6, 1.2) ng/mL], the clinical pregnancy rate [61.88% vs. 46.84%], and implantation rate [42.20% vs. 31.07%] in the LPPOS+CC group were significantly higher than those in the FPPOS+CC group (all P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to FPPOS+CC, the LPPOS+CC protocol appears to have better pregnancy outcomes for young women with DOR undergoing IVF/ICSI-ET.

Random-start ovarian stimulation in an oocyte donation programme: a large, single-centre, experience

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do live birth rates differ between recipients matched with donors using conventional ovarian stimulation compared with those using random-start protocols?

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of 891 ovarian stimulations in egg donors (January-December 2018) and clinical outcomes in matched recipients (n = 935). Donors commenced ovarian stimulation on day 1-3 of the menstrual cycle (n = 223) or in the mid/late-follicular (n = 388) or luteal phase (n = 280) under a conventional antagonist protocol. Live birth rate of matched recipients was the main outcome.

RESULTS

Duration of stimulation and total gonadotrophin dose were comparable between conventional versus random-start groups. The number of collected eggs were similar (17.6 ± 8.8 versus 17.2 ± 8.5, P = 0.6, respectively). Sub-group analysis showed that stimulation length (10.2 ± 1.8 versus 9.8 ± 1.7 versus 10.4 ± 1.7, P < 0.001) and gonadotrophin consumption (2041.5 ± 645.3 versus 2003.2 ± 647.3 versus 2158.2 ± 685.7 IU, P = 0.01) differed significantly between the conventional, mid/late follicular and luteal phase groups, respectively. In matched recipients receiving fresh oocytes and undergoing fresh embryo transfer, the biochemical pregnancy (63.8% and 63.3%; P = 0.9), clinical pregnancy (54.6% and 56.1%; P = 0.8) and live birth rates (47.7% and 46.6%; P = 0.7) per embryo-transfer were similar between conventional versus random groups. Similar results were obtained in recipients receiving vitrified eggs. Euploidy rate was also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

No notable variations were found in clinical outcomes using oocytes obtained from random-start protocols and those proceeding from conventional ovarian stimulation in oocyte donation treatments. Luteal-phase stimulation seems to require longer stimulation and higher FSH consumption. Random-start stimulation strategy does not impair the potential of the oocyte yield or clinical outcomes in oocyte donation cycles.

A reappraisal of ovarian stimulation strategies used in assisted reproductive technology

Ovarian stimulation is a fundamental step in assisted reproductive technology (ART) with the intention of inducing ovarian follicle development prior to timed intercourse or intra-uterine insemination and facilitating the retrieval of multiple oocytes during a single in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. The basis of ovarian stimulation includes the administration of exogenous gonadotropins, with or without pre-treatment with oral hormonal therapy. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist is given in addition to the gonadotropins to prevent a premature rise of endogenous luteinizing hormone that would in turn lead to premature ovulation. With the advancement in technology, various stimulation protocols have been devised to cater for different patient needs. However, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its serious complications may occur following ovarian stimulation. It is also evident that suboptimal ovarian stimulation strategies may have a negative impact on oogenesis, embryo quality, endometrial receptivity, and reproductive outcomes over recent years. This review describes the various forms of pre-treatment for ovarian stimulation and stimulation protocols, and aims to provide clinicians with the latest available evidence.

Investigation of an efficient method of oocyte retrieval by dual stimulation for patients with cancer

Purpose

To examine the optimal timing of second ovarian stimulation using the dual stimulation method for good ovarian responders with cancer undergoing oocyte retrieval for fertility preservation.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from 69 patients with cancer who underwent oocyte retrieval for fertility preservation at four Japanese institutions during 2010-2021. Twenty-two patients underwent two oocyte retrievals for fertility preservation. We studied the relationship between the initial number of oocytes retrieved via dual stimulation and risk of ovarian enlargement as well as the appropriate waiting interval between the end of the first ovarian stimulation and beginning of the second ovarian stimulation.

Results

The risk of ovarian enlargement was high when the initial number of oocytes retrieved via dual stimulation was ≥5. An 8-day waiting interval may be more effective for performing a second ovarian stimulation oocyte retrieval in these cases, although the difference was not significant.

Conclusions

This study provides one policy for effectively managing ovarian enlargement and timing of second ovarian stimulation during oocyte retrieval via the dual stimulation method for patients with cancer undergoing fertility preservation. If more facilities implement this procedure, more oocytes may be obtained in a short period for fertility preservation purposes.

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).

Is letrozole during ovarian stimulation useful in breast cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation to reduce early luteal progesterone levels following GnRH-agonist trigger?

BACKGROUND

In absence of contraindication, breast cancer patients of reproductive age can undergo fertility preservation with controlled ovarian stimulation for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before the administration of potentially gonadotoxic treatments. High hormonal levels induced by ovarian stimulation might have an adverse impact on hormone-positive breast cancer. Whether letrozole supplementation during ovarian stimulation (COSTLES) reduces serum progesterone levels after GnRHa trigger remains unknown. We aimed to determine whether COSTLES might be useful for breast cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation to reduce early luteal progesterone levels following GnRH-agonist (GnRHa)trigger.

METHODS

All women who underwent COS with GnRH antagonist protocol with GnRHa trigger were included. Serum progesterone level measured 12 h after GnRHa trigger was compared between patients undergoing COS with letrozole supplementation (COSTLES group) and patients undergoing COS without letrozole (Control group) for fertility preservation purposes.

RESULTS

A total of 246 patients were included, of which 84 patients (34.1%) in the COSTLES group and 162 patients (65.6%) in the Control group. All patients in the COSTLES group were BC patients (n = 84, 100%), while the Control group included 77 BC patients (47.5%). Patients in the two groups were comparable. The mean number of oocytes recovered and vitrified at metaphase 2 stage did not significantly differ between the two groups. Serum progesterone levels on the day after GnRHa trigger were significantly lower in the COSTLES group (8.6 ± 0.7 vs. 10.5 ± 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, p < 0.03), as well as serum E2 levels (650.3 ± 57.7 vs. 2451.4.0 ± 144.0 pg/mL, respectively, p < 0.01). However, the GnRHa-induced LH surge was significantly higher in in the COSTLES group (71.9 ± 4.6 vs. 51.2 ± 2.6 UI/L, respectively, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that COSTLES for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients using GnRHa trigger reduces serum progesterone levels compared to ovarian stimulation without letrozole. These findings encourage the use of COSTLES in this context to decrease the potential deleterious effect of elevated hormonal levels on hormone-positive breast cancer.

ART outcomes following ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase:a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of luteal phase ovarian stimulation (LPS) on the outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART) for infertile couples and patients desiring non-urgent egg cryopreservation.

METHODS

We included all studies reported patients who received LPS and that used follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPS) as a comparison group until January 2021. Prior meta-analysis regarding the outcomes of LPS in double stimulation and fertility preservation have already been published, so these studies were excluded. Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions was used to assess the study quality. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD42020183946).

RESULTS

Twelve studies with a total of 4433 patients were included. The regimen employed can be categorized into two groups, but there is currently no evidence to support one over the other. After we excluded the largest study, the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were similar after FPS and LPS. There were significantly more stimulation days and total gonadotropins used in the LPS group. After subgroup analysis, we found that poor responders received significantly more cumulus oocyte complexes (+0.64) in the LPS group.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence indicates that patients in the LPS group could achieve pregnancy outcomes non-inferior to those in the FPS group. Because of current debate over freeze-all policy and the limited data about live birth rate, the universal use of LPS is considered controversial. In the future, more well-designed studies are necessary to investigate the indications for LPS and its cost-effectiveness.

Live birth rate with double ovarian stimulation is superior to follicular phase ovarian stimulation per started cycle in poor ovarian responders

AIM

To compare the outcome of double ovarian stimulation (DOS) with follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPS) per started cycle in poor ovarian responders (PORs).

METHODS

A total of 204 PORs who underwent ovulation induction for in vitro fertilization, cryopreservation of all embryos available, and frozen embryo transfer cycle were retrospectively analyzed. Of those, 146 received single FPS, and 58 received DOS. All viable embryos were cryopreserved and subsequently transferred within 1-6 months.

RESULTS

The number of oocytes collected and the number of mature oocytes per started cycle were higher in the DOS group compared to the FPS group (6.0 ± 1.9 vs. 2.8 ± 1.3 and 4.3 ± 1.3 vs. 2.2 ± 1.2, respectively, p = 0.001). Clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate per started cycle were also significantly higher in the DOS group than the FPS group (41.4% vs. 16.4% and 36.2% vs. 15.1%, respectively, p < 0.001). The cancellation rate of embryo transfer due to no viable embryo was significantly lower in the DOS group (10.3%) than the FPS group (40.4%) (p = 0.001). In the DOS group, numbers of oocytes (3.2 ± 1.2 vs. 2.7 ± 1.1, p = 0.006), MII oocytes (2.6 ± 1.0 vs. 2.1 ± 0.8, p = 0.001), and cryopreserved blastocysts (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.1 ± 0.7, p = 0.002) were significantly higher in the luteal ovarian stimulation compared to follicular ovarian stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Live birth per started cycle with DOS is superior to FPS in PORs. Luteal phase stimulation contributes to improving pregnancy rates in these patients.

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.

Late follicular phase progesterone elevation during ovarian stimulation is not associated with decreased implantation of chromosomally screened embryos in thaw cycles

STUDY QUESTION

What is the impact of a late follicular phase progesterone elevation (LFPE) during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) on embryonic competence and reproductive potential in thaw cycles of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) screened embryos?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Our study findings suggest that LFPE, utilizing a progesterone cutoff value of 2.0 ng/ml, is neither associated with impaired embryonic development, increased rate of embryonic aneuploidy, nor compromised implantation and pregnancy outcomes following a euploid frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Premature progesterone elevation during COH has been associated with lower pregnancy rates due to altered endometrial receptivity in fresh IVF cycles. Also, increased levels of progesterone (P) have been suggested to be a marker for ovarian dysfunction, with some evidence to show an association between LFPE and suboptimal embryonic development. However, the effect of LFPE on embryonic competence is still controversial.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Retrospective cohort analysis in a single, academic ART center from September 2016 to March 2020. In total, 5244 COH cycles for IVF/PGT-A were analyzed, of those 5141 were included in the analysis. A total of 23 991 blastocysts underwent trophectoderm biopsy and PGT analysis. Additionally, the clinical IVF outcomes of 5806 single euploid FET cycles were evaluated.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Cohorts were separated in two groups: Group 1: oocytes retrieved from cycles with normal P levels during ovulation trigger (P ≤ 2.0 ng/ml); Group 2: oocytes retrieved after cycles in which LFPE was noted (P > 2.0 ng/ml). Extended culture and PGT-A was performed. Secondly, IVF outcomes after a single euploid FET were evaluated for each cohort.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Four thousand nine hundred and twenty-five cycles in Group 1 were compared with 216 cycles on Group 2. Oocyte maturity rates, fertilization rates and blastulation rates were comparable among groups. A 65.3% (n = 22 654) rate of utilizable blastocysts was found in patients with normal P levels and were comparable to the 62.4% (n = 1337) observed in those with LFPE (P = 0.19). The euploidy rates were 52.8% (n = 11 964) and 53.4% (n = 714), respectively, albeit this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.81). Our multivariate analysis was fitted with a generalized estimating equation (GEE) and no association was found with LFPE and an increased odds of embryo aneuploidy (adjusted odds ratio 1.04 95% CI 0.86-1.27, P = 0.62). A sub-analysis of subsequent 5806 euploid FET cycles (normal P: n = 5617 cycles and elevated P: n = 189 cycles) showed no differences among groups in patient's BMI, Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), endometrial thickness at FET and number of prior IVF cycles. However, a significant difference was found in patient's age and oocyte age. The number of good quality embryos transferred, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate and clinical pregnancy loss rates were comparable among groups. Of the registered live births (normal P group: n = 2198; elevated P group: n = 52), there were no significant differences in gestational age weeks (39.0 ± 1.89 versus 39.24 ± 1.53, P = 0.25) and birth weight (3317 ± 571.9 versus 3 266 ± 455.8 g, P = 0.26) at delivery, respectively.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The retrospective nature of the study and probable variability in the study center's laboratory protocol(s), selected progesterone cutoff value and progesterone assay techniques compared to other ART centers may limit the external validity of our findings.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Based on robust sequencing data from a large cohort of embryos, we conclude that premature P elevation during IVF stimulation does not predict embryonic competence. Our study results show that LFPE is neither associated with impaired embryonic development nor increased rates of aneuploidy. Embryos obtained from cycles with LFPE can be selected for transfer, and patients can be reassured that the odds of achieving a healthy pregnancy are similar to the embryos exposed during COH cycles to physiologically normal P levels.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No funding was received for the realization of this study. Dr A.B.C. is advisor and/or board member of Sema 4 (Stakeholder in data), Progyny and Celmatix. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NA.

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.

Ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since its introduction in the 1980s, oocyte donation (OD) has been largely integrated into ART. Lately, both demand and the indications for OD have increased greatly. Oocyte donors are healthy and potentially fertile women undergoing voluntarily ovarian stimulation (OS). Selection of the optimal type of stimulation is of paramount importance in order to achieve the most favourable outcomes for the oocyte recipients, but most importantly for the safety of the oocyte donors.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This is the first systematic review (SR) with the objective to summarize the current evidence on OS in oocyte donors. The scope of this SR was to evaluate the OD programme by assessing four different aspects: how to assess the ovarian response prior to stimulation; how to plan the OS (gonadotrophins; LH suppression; ovulation trigger; when to start OS); how to control for the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and other complications; and the differences between the use of fresh versus vitrified donated oocytes.

SEARCH METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2020, according to PRISMA guidelines in the databases PubMed and Embase, using a string that combined synonyms for oocytes, donation, banking, freezing, complications and reproductive outcomes. Studies reporting on the safety and/or efficacy of OS in oocyte donors were identified. The quality of the included studies was assessed using ROBINS-I and ROB2. Meta-analysis was performed where appropriate. Data were combined to calculate mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and odd ratios (OR) for binary data with their corresponding 95% CIs. Heterogeneity between the included studies was assessed using I2 and tau statistics.

OUTCOMES

In total, 57 manuscripts were selected for the review, out of 191 citations identified. Antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormone levels correlate with ovarian response to OS in OD but have limited value to discriminate donors who are likely to show either impaired or excessive response. Five randomized controlled trials compared different type of gonadotrophins as part of OS in oocyte donors; owing to high heterogeneity, meta-analysis was precluded. When comparing different types of LH control, namely GnRH antagonist versus agonist, the studies showed no differences in ovarian response. Use of progesterone primed ovarian stimulation protocols has been evaluated in seven studies: the evidence has shown little or no difference, compared to GnRH antagonist protocols, in mean number of retrieved oocytes (MD 0.23, [95% CI 0.58-1.05], n = 2147; 6 studies; I2 = 13%, P = 0.33) and in clinical pregnancy rates among recipients (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.60-1.26], n = 2260, I2 = 72%, P < 0.01). There is insufficient evidence on long-term safety for babies born. GnRH agonist triggering is the gold standard and should be used in all oocyte donors, given the excellent oocyte retrieval rates, the practical elimination of OHSS and no differences in pregnancy rates in recipients (four studies, OR 0.86, 95%CI 0.58-1.26; I2 = 0%). OS in OD is a safe procedure with a low rate of hospitalization after oocyte retrieval. The use of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device or a progestin contraceptive pill during OS does not impact the number of oocytes retrieved or the clinical pregnancy rate in recipients. Ultrasound monitoring seems enough for an adequate follow up of the stimulation cycle in OD. Use of fresh versus vitrified donated oocytes yielded similar pregnancy outcomes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This update will be helpful in the clinical management of OS in OD based on the most recent knowledge and recommendations, and possibly in the management of women under 35 years undergoing oocyte vitrification for social freezing, owing to the population similarities. More clinical research is needed on OS protocols that are specifically designed for OD, especially in term of the long-term safety for newborns, effective contraception during OS, and treatment satisfaction.

Oocyte yield in social, medical and donor oocyte cryopreservation cycles

To determine if oocyte yield in women undergoing cryopreservation for social (SOC), medical (MOC) and oocyte donation (OD) cycles is comparable when matched for age. 315 oocyte retrievals were performed for SOC, 116 for MOC and 392 for OD. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests and Poisson regression were used to assess the impact of age stratification. The median ages of women undergoing SOC, MOC, and OD were 38, 31 and 26 years respectively. The median (IQR) number of oocytes in the three categories was 7, 10, and 12. The oocyte yield was significantly higher in women aged 30-34 years undergoing SOC, compared to the MOC group. For the SOC group, age in years, oestradiol levels per 1000 pmol/and follicle count >12mm on the day of trigger were significant predictors of oocyte yield. Women embarking on SOC are significantly older than those undergoing MOC and OD, and thus oocyte yield is reduced when stratified for age. This study highlights the significant predictors of oocyte yield amongst women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation for specific indications. The findings can be used to optimise the yield and overall chance of successful livebirth.

Fertility preservation does not delay the initiation of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate whether fertility preservation (FP) in adult women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) may impact the time interval between diagnosis and start of chemotherapy in an adjuvant or neo-adjuvant setting.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of breast cancer patients diagnosed between January 2012 and December 2017 undergoing FP at a tertiary-care academic fertility centre before neo-adjuvant (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), and matched control breast cancer patients who had no FP. FP interventions included oocyte vitrification following ovarian stimulation or after in-vitro maturation (IVM) of immature oocytes, and/or ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Controls from the patient database of the affiliated Breast Cancer Clinic were matched for tumour characteristics and type of treatment. Time intervals between cancer diagnosis and the start of chemotherapy were analysed.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine BC patients underwent FP: 29 received NAC and 30 received AC. The average interval between diagnosis and chemotherapy in BC patients with NAC was 28.5 days (27.3 (range: 14.0-44.0) days in cases and 29.6 (range: 14.0-62.0) days in controls (NS)); this interval was 58.9 days in BC patients with AC (57.2 (range: 36.0-106.0) days in cases and 60.7 (range: 31.0-105.0) days in controls (NS)).

CONCLUSION

Fertility preservation does not delay the start of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome following GnRH agonist trigger for final follicular maturation in a patient undergoing random start ovarian stimulation for egg-donation cycle with an inadvertent concomitant early pregnancy

We report the first case of OHSS following GnRH agonist trigger for final follicular maturation in random start ovarian stimulation for egg-donation cycles during inadvertent concomitant early pregnancy. As an additional note, the sustained activity exerted by the increasing endogenous hCG production seemed to be responsible for the suboptimal performance in terms of oocyte yield in the current case. OHSS can occur in random-start stimulations protocols even after the use of a GnRH agonist for triggering in case of concomitant unnoticed early pregnancy especially if stimulation is commenced in the periovulatory/luteal phase. The present case report introduces a note of extreme caution when proceeding with this protocol in an otherwise fertile population (egg-donors, elective or oncologic oocyte cryopreservation).

ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI has been discussed briefly in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline on fertility problems, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has published a statement on ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. There are, to our knowledge, no evidence-based guidelines dedicated to the process of ovarian stimulation.

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 8 November 2018 and written in English were included. The critical outcomes for this guideline were efficacy in terms of cumulative live birth rate per started cycle or live birth rate per started cycle, as well as safety in terms of the rate of occurrence of moderate and/or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

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

The guideline provides 84 recommendations: 7 recommendations on pre-stimulation management, 40 recommendations on LH suppression and gonadotrophin stimulation, 11 recommendations on monitoring during ovarian stimulation, 18 recommendations on triggering of final oocyte maturation and luteal support and 8 recommendations on the prevention of OHSS. These include 61 evidence-based recommendations-of which only 21 were formulated as strong recommendations-and 19 good practice points and 4 research-only recommendations. The guideline includes a strong recommendation for the use of either antral follicle count or anti-Müllerian hormone (instead of other ovarian reserve tests) to predict high and poor response to ovarian stimulation. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for the use of the GnRH antagonist protocol over the GnRH agonist protocols in the general IVF/ICSI population, based on the comparable efficacy and higher safety. For predicted poor responders, GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists are equally recommended. With regards to hormone pre-treatment and other adjuvant treatments (metformin, growth hormone (GH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, aspirin and sildenafil), the guideline group concluded that none are recommended for increasing efficacy or safety.

LIMITATIONS REASON FOR CAUTION

Several newer interventions are not well studied yet. For most of these interventions, a recommendation against the intervention or a research-only recommendation was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

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. F.B. reports research grant from Ferring and consulting fees from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and speaker's fees from Merck. N.P. reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnositics, Theramex and Besins Healthcare; consulting fees from MSD, Ferring and IBSA; and speaker's fees from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, IBSA, Theramex, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter and Roche Diagnostics. A.L.M reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, IBSA, Merck Serono, Gedeon Richter and TEVA and consulting fees from Roche, Beckman-Coulter. G.G. reports consulting fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva and PregLem and speaker's fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Gedeon Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife and Biosilu. E.B. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter; consulting and speaker's fees from MSD, Ferring, Abbot, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics and IBSA; and ownership interest from IVI-RMS Valencia. P.H. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker's fees from MSD, IBSA, Merck and Gedeon Richter. J.U. reports speaker's fees from IBSA and Ferring. N.M. reports research grants from MSD, Merck and IBSA; consulting fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker's fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA, Gedeon Richter and Theramex. M.G. reports speaker's fees from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and MSD. S.K.S. reports speaker's fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring and Pharmasure. E.K. reports speaker's fees from Merck Serono, Angellini Pharma and MSD. M.K. reports speaker's fees from Ferring. T.T. reports speaker's fees from Merck, MSD and MLD. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

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.

The Future of Cryopreservation in Assisted Reproductive Technologies

Societal changes and the increasing desire and opportunity to preserve fertility have increased the demand for effective assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and have increased the range of scenarios in which ART is now used. In recent years, the "freeze-all" strategy of cryopreserving all oocytes or good quality embryos produced in an IVF cycle to transfer later-at a time that is more appropriate for reasons of medical need, efficacy, or desirability-has emerged as an accepted and valuable alternative to fresh embryo transfer. Indeed, improvements in cryopreservation techniques (vitrification) and the development of more efficient ovarian stimulation protocols have facilitated a dramatic increase in the practice of elective frozen embryo transfer (eFET). Alongside these advances, debate continues about whether eFET should be a standard treatment option available to the whole IVF population or if it is important to identify patient subgroups who are most likely to benefit from such an approach. Achieving successful outcomes in ART, whether by fresh or frozen embryo transfer, is influenced by a wide range of factors. As well as the efficiency of IVF and embryo transfer protocols and techniques, factors affecting implantation include maternal aging, sperm quality, the vaginal and endometrial microbiome, and peri-implantation levels of serum progesterone. The safety of eFET, both during ART cycles and on longer-term obstetric and neonatal outcomes, is also an important consideration. In this review, we explore the benefits and risks of freeze-all strategies in different scenarios. We review available evidence on the outcomes achieved with elective cryopreservation strategies and practices and how these compare with more traditional IVF cycles with fresh embryo transfers, both in the general IVF population and in subgroups of special interest. In addition, we consider how to optimize and individualize "freeze-all" procedures to achieve successful reproductive outcomes.

Ovarian stimulation for freeze-all IVF cycles: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Freeze-all IVF cycles are becoming increasingly prevalent for a variety of clinical indications. However, the actual treatment objectives and preferred treatment regimens for freeze-all cycles have not been clearly established.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We aimed to conduct a systematic review of all aspects of ovarian stimulation for freeze-all cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search in Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library was performed. The search strategy included keywords related to freeze-all, cycle segmentation, cumulative live birth rate, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, fertility preservation, oocyte donation and frozen-thawed embryo transfer. We included relevant studies published in English from 2000 to 2018.

OUTCOMES

Our search generated 3292 records. Overall, 69 articles were included in the final review. Good-quality evidence indicates that in freeze-all cycles the cumulative live birth rate increases as the number of oocytes retrieved increases. Although the risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is virtually eliminated in freeze-all cycles, there are certain risks associated with retrieval of large oocyte cohorts. Therefore, ovarian stimulation should be planned to yield between 15 and 20 oocytes. The early follicular phase is currently the preferred starting point for ovarian stimulation, although luteal phase stimulation can be used if necessary. The improved safety associated with the GnRH antagonist regimen makes it the regimen of choice for ovarian stimulation in freeze-all cycles. Ovulation triggering with a GnRH agonist almost completely eliminates the risk of OHSS without affecting oocyte and embryo quality and is therefore the trigger of choice. The addition of low-dose hCG in a dual trigger has been suggested to improve oocyte and embryo quality, but further research in freeze-all cycles is required. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that in freeze-all cycles, a moderate delay of 2–3 days in ovulation triggering may result in the retrieval of an increased number of mature oocytes without impairing the pregnancy rate. There are no high-quality studies evaluating the effects of sustained supraphysiological estradiol (E2) levels on the safety and efficacy of freeze-all cycles. However, no significant adverse effects have been described. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effect of late follicular progesterone elevation in freeze-all cycles.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Ovarian stimulation for freeze-all cycles is different in many aspects from conventional stimulation for fresh IVF cycles. Optimisation of ovarian stimulation for freeze-all cycles should result in enhanced treatment safety along with improved cumulative live birth rates and should become the focus of future studies.

Oocyte donation in donors with levonorgestrel intrauterine device: a good match?

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) influence cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) in oocyte donor cycles?

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study based on prospectively collected data from 1 May 2009 to 31 December 2017, without attrition, consisting of 491 consecutive cycles of vitrified oocyte donation, none lost to follow-up (unique donor-recipient pairs). All donors underwent ovarian stimulation using gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist co-treatment and GnRH agonist trigger. CLBR was chosen as primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

In total, 103 (21.0%) cycles were carried out in donors carrying a LNG-IUD. In 388 (79.0%) cycles, no LNG-IUD was present. After confounder-adjustment, the use of an LNG-IUD did not have a statistically significant influence on CLBR.

CONCLUSIONS

The LNG-IUD does not negatively affect CLBR.

Oocyte cryopreservation for future fertility: comparison of ovarian response between cancer and non-cancer patients

Objective:

This study aimed to assess whether a diagnosis of cancer interferes with ovarian function prior to the treatment of the disease.

Methods:

This observational retrospective study used data from medical records of ovarian stimulation cycles performed for purposes of oocyte cryopreservation.

Results:

The included patients had a mean age of 35.13±3.72 years and 51.6% of them were aged between 36 and 40 years. More than half of the patients (57.6%) were single and 82.1% had a normal body mass index (BMI). Most women had not become pregnant (85.5%) or had babies (95.1%) or miscarriages (89.6%) prior to cryopreservation. The mean number of oocytes obtained from non-cancer patients was 11.4±8, while for cancer patients the number was 13.8±9. The mean number of frozen mature oocytes was 9.7±7 for the non-cancer group and 11.2±7.2 for the cancer group. The majority (63.1%) of the patients had up to 10 oocytes frozen per cycle. Breast cancer had the highest incidence among the included patients. There was no significant difference in ovarian response between patients with different types of cancer.

Conclusion:

The number of harvested and frozen oocytes from cancer and non-cancer patients indicated that in the two groups response to ovarian stimulation was similar.

Random-start ovarian stimulation with aromatase inhibitor for fertility preservation in women with Japanese breast cancer

PURPOSE

Fertility preservation is an important issue for young cancer patients. Random-start controlled ovarian stimulation and double ovarian stimulation have been proposed for efficient oocyte retrieval within the limited time before cancer therapy. We aimed to clarify the efficacy of these new protocols within the Japanese population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study at a multicenter from February 2012 to August 2017. The study entailed 50 cycles with 34 patients who underwent fertility preservation due to breast cancer. Follicular phase or luteal phase ovarian stimulation with aromatase inhibitor was performed. A second ovarian stimulation was started with or without waiting until the next menstruation. We measured the number of retrieved oocytes and cryopreserved oocytes/embryos, the ratio of mature oocytes, and the fertilization rate.

RESULTS

The numbers of retrieved oocytes and frozen oocytes/embryos were not significantly different between follicular phase and luteal phase ovarian stimulation. The number of retrieved oocytes was not reduced at the second ovum pick up compared to the first ovum pick up in the double ovarian stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Random-start controlled ovarian stimulation and double ovarian stimulation with aromatase inhibitor for breast cancer patients were effective protocols for retrieving a greater number of oocytes within the limited time.

A prospective study of women and girls undergoing fertility preservation due to oncologic and non-oncologic indications in Sweden-Trends in patients' choices and benefit of the chosen methods after long-term follow up

INTRODUCTION

In Scandinavian countries, programs for fertility preservation are offered free of charge at tertiary-care university hospitals to all patients facing treatments with risk of subsequent sterility. In this prospective study we aimed to investigate trends in female patients' choices after counseling and fertility preservation outcomes during follow up in relation to benign vs malignant indications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data on 1254 females including 1076 adults and 178 girls who received fertility preservation counseling for either oncologic (n = 852) or benign indications (n = 402) at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, between 1 October 1998 and 1 December 2018 were analyzed. As appropriate, t tests and chi-square tests were used to compare groups. Logistic regression was used to compare outcomes among groups depending on indications.

RESULTS

Adult women generally elected to undergo oocyte retrieval after controlled ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes (n = 538, 73%), whereas a minor proportion opted for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue retrieved through laparoscopy (n = 221, 27%). More than half of the women with a partner chose either not to fertilize their oocytes aiming at cryopreservation of oocytes or to share obtained oocytes attempting both cryopreservation of oocytes and cryopreservation of embryos. All pre-pubertal (n = 48) and 73% of post-pubertal girls (n = 66) elected cryopreservation of ovarian tissue. In recent years, an increasing number of teenagers have opted for controlled ovarian stimulation aiming at cryopreservation of oocytes, either before (n = 24, 17%) or after completion of cancer treatment (n = 15, 10%). During follow up, 27% of the women returned for a new reproductive counseling, additional fertility preservation or to attempt pregnancy. Utilization rates among individuals who were alive and of childbearing age by December 2018 indicated 29%, 8% and 5% for embryos, oocytes and ovarian tissue with live birth rates of 54%, 46% and 7%, respectively. Women with benign indications were significantly younger than women with previous malignant indications at the time of attempting pregnancy. Although the pregnancy rates were similar among both groups, the live birth rate was significantly higher in women with benign vs previous malignant indications (47% vs 21%, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Trends in fertility preservation choices have changed over time. Women with previous malignancy had lower live birth rates than women with benign fertility preservation indications.

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.

Evaluation of Ovarian Stimulation Initiated From the Late Follicular Phase Using Human Menopausal Gonadotropin Alone in Normal-Ovulatory Women for Treatment of Infertility: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective: To investigate the feasibility of ovarian stimulation initiated in the late follicular phase using human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) alone in ovulatory patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments by comparison with that of the short gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) protocol in terms of ovarian response, embryological characteristics, and pregnancy outcomes following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A university-affiliated tertiary hospital. Patients: 135 infertile women undergoing their first IVF/ICSI treatment with the freeze-all strategy. Interventions: In the study group, ovarian stimulation was initiated in the late follicular phase using hMG alone, with the confirmation of dominant follicular diameter ≥ 14 mm, while a short GnRH-a protocol was adopted in the control group. Oocyte maturation was induced by human chorionic gonadotropin in both groups. All good quality embryos were cryopreserved for later transfer. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge. Secondary outcomes were the number of mature oocytes retrieved, good-quality embryo rate per oocyte retrieved, and clinical pregnancy rate following FET cycles. Results: No premature LH surge was detected during ovarian stimulation in the study group. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of mature oocytes between the two groups (10 ± 5.6 in the study group vs. 8.51 ± 5.03 in the control group, P = 0.11). Good-quality embryo rate per oocyte retrieved did not differ between the two groups: 40.18% (313/779) vs. 36.67% (253/690), P = 0.167. Clinical pregnancy rate per transfer following FET was comparable between the two groups (61.33 vs. 52.5%, P = 0.267). Conclusions: Our study shows that ovarian stimulation initiated in the late follicular phase using hMG alone may be a feasible alternative for normal-ovulatory women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment with the freeze-all strategy.

Immature Oocyte for Fertility Preservation

In vitro maturation (IVM) of human immature oocytes has been offered to women who are at risk of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) caused by gonadotropin stimulation, such as PCO(S) patients or who have poor ovarian reserve. Cryopreservation of oocytes matured in vivo obtained in IVF cycles has improved after implementing the vitrification method and many successful results have been reported. Now, this procedure can be successfully offered to fertility preservation programs for patients who are in danger of losing their ovarian function due to medical or social reasons, and to oocyte donation programs. This vitrification technique has also been applied to cryopreserve oocytes obtained from IVM program. Some advantages of oocytes vitrification related with IVM are: (1) eliminating costly drugs and frequent monitoring; (2) completing treatment within 2 to 10 days (3) avoiding the use of hormones in cancer patients with hormone-sensitive tumors; and (4) retrieving oocytes at any point in menstrual cycle, even in the luteal phase. In addition, immature oocytes can also be collected from extracorporeal ovarian biopsy specimens or ovaries during caesarian section. Theoretically, there are two possible approaches for preserving immature oocytes: oocyte cryopreservation at the mature stage (after IVM) and oocyte cryopreservation at the Germinal Vesicle (GV)-stage (before IVM). Both vitrification of immature oocyte before/after IVM is not currently satisfactory. Nevertheless, many IVF centers worldwide are doing IVM oocyte cryopreservation as one of the options to preserve fertility for female cancer. Therefore, more studies are urgently required to improve IVM- and vitrification method to successfully preserve oocytes collected from cancer patients. In this review, present oocyte maturation mechanisms and recent progress of human IVM cycles will be discussed first, followed by some studies of the vitrification of human IVM oocyte.

Female fertility preservation in the pediatric and adolescent cancer patient population

The 5-year survival rate for childhood cancer is over 80%, thereby increasing the number of young women facing infertility in the future because of the gonadotoxic effects of chemotherapy and radiation. The gonadotoxic effects of childhood cancer treatment vary by the radiation regimen and the chemotherapeutic drugs utilized. Although the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend fertility preservation for all patients, there are several barriers and ethical considerations to fertility preservation in the pediatric and adolescent female population. Additionally, the fertility preservation methods for pre- and postpubertal females differ, with only experimental methods available for prepubertal females. We will review the risk of chemotherapy and radiation on female fertility, the approach to fertility preservation in the pediatric and adolescent female population, methods of fertility preservation for both pre- and postpubertal females, barriers to fertility preservation, cost, and psychological and ethical considerations.