Developmental potential of human oocytes after slow freezing or vitrification: a randomized in vitro study based on parthenogenesis

State of the art on oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients: A critical review of the literature

During the last decades, important advances in therapeutic options have led to increased survival rates in cancer patients; however, cancer treatments are associated with several potential adverse effects including infertility in those diagnosed during their reproductive years. A proper discussion about fertility preservation options before the use of therapies with potential gonadotoxicity (i.e. oncofertility counseling) is standard of care and should be offered to all patients of childbearing age. Temporary ovarian suppression with LH-RH analogs, oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservation in female cancer patients. Oocyte cryopreservation should be preferred to embryo cryopreservation when this latter is prohibited by law, avoided for ethical or religious issues and in single women refusing sperm donation. Despite the increasing use of this strategy, data are still lacking about the efficacy and safety of the procedure in female cancer patients, with most of the evidence on this regard deriving from infertile non-oncologic women. This article aims at critically review the available evidence about the success of oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients with the final goal to further improve the oncofertility counseling of these women.

Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance

BACKGROUND

Successful cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is essential not only to maximize the safety and efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles in an IVF treatment, but also to enable fertility preservation. Two cryopreservation methods are routinely used: slow-freezing or vitrification. Slow-freezing allows for freezing to occur at a sufficiently slow rate to permit adequate cellular dehydration while minimizing intracellular ice formation. Vitrification allows the solidification of the cell(s) and of the extracellular milieu into a glass-like state without the formation of ice.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The objective of our study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following slow-freezing/thawing versus vitrification/warming of oocytes and embryos and to inform the development of World Health Organization guidance on the most effective cryopreservation method.

SEARCH METHODS

A Medline search was performed from 1966 to 1 August 2016 using the following search terms: (Oocyte(s) [tiab] OR (Pronuclear[tiab] OR Embryo[tiab] OR Blastocyst[tiab]) AND (vitrification[tiab] OR freezing[tiab] OR freeze[tiab]) AND (pregnancy[tiab] OR birth[tiab] OR clinical[tiab]). Queries were limited to those involving humans. RCTs and cohort studies that were published in full-length were considered eligible. Each reference was reviewed for relevance and only primary evidence and relevant articles from the bibliographies of included articles were considered. References were included if they reported cryosurvival rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live-birth rate (LBR) or delivery rate for slow-frozen or vitrified human oocytes or embryos. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to calculate relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI.

OUTCOMES

One RCT study comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification of oocytes was included. Vitrification was associated with increased ongoing CPR per cycle (RR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.05-7.51; P = 0.039; 48 and 30 cycles, respectively, per transfer (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 0.71-4.67; P = 0.214; 47 and 19 transfers) and per warmed/thawed oocyte (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.28; P = 0.018; 260 and 238 oocytes). One RCT comparing vitrification versus fresh oocytes was analysed. In vitrification and fresh cycles, respectively, no evidence for a difference in ongoing CPR per randomized woman (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87-1.21; P = 0.744, 300 women in each group), per cycle (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.18; P = 0.934; 267 versus 259 cycles) and per oocyte utilized (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.26; P = 0.873; 3286 versus 3185 oocytes) was reported. Findings were consistent with relevant cohort studies. Of the seven RCTs on embryo cryopreservation identified, three met the inclusion criteria (638 warming/thawing cycles at cleavage and blastocyst stage), none of which involved pronuclear-stage embryos. A higher CPR per cycle was noted with embryo vitrification compared with slow-freezing, though this was of borderline statistical significance (RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.00-3.59; P = 0.051; three RCTs; I2 = 71.9%). LBR per cycle was reported by one RCT performed with cleavage-stage embryos and was higher for vitrification (RR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.17-4.44; P =  0.016; 216 cycles; one RCT). A secondary analysis was performed focusing on embryo cryosurvival rate. Pooled data from seven RCTs (3615 embryos) revealed a significant improvement in embryo cryosurvival following vitrification as compared with slow-freezing (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.30-1.93; P < 0.001; I2 = 93%).

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Data from available RCTs suggest that vitrification/warming is superior to slow-freezing/thawing with regard to clinical outcomes (low quality of the evidence) and cryosurvival rates (moderate quality of the evidence) for oocytes, cleavage-stage embryos and blastocysts. The results were confirmed by cohort studies. The improvements obtained with the introduction of vitrification have several important clinical implications in ART. Based on this evidence, in particular regarding cryosurvival rates, laboratories that continue to use slow-freezing should consider transitioning to the use of vitrification for cryopreservation.

Vitrification versus slow freezing for women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation

BACKGROUND

Oocyte cryopreservation is a technique with considerable potential in reproductive medicine, including  fertility preservation, as a way of delaying childbearing and as part of oocyte donation programs. Although the technique was relatively ineffective at first more recently numerous modifications have led to higher success rates.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of vitrification and slow freezing as oocyte cryopreservation techniques for fertility outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproduction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronic databases, trial registers and websites, including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO (date of search 3 March 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitrification and slow freezing for oocyte preservation in women undergoing assisted reproduction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data from eligible studies and assessed their risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by a third review author. Data extracted included study characteristics and outcome data. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs were included in the review (106 participants). Neither study reported live birth rate. Vitrification was associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared to slow freezing (RR 3.86, 95% CI 1.63 to 9.11, P = 0.002, 2 RCTs, 106 women, I(2) = 8%, moderate quality evidence). The effect of vitrification compared to slow freezing on ongoing pregnancy rates was only reported in one small study, with inconclusive findings (RR 6.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 43.04, P = 0.07, one RCT, 28 women, low quality evidence).No data were reported on adverse effects, nor were any other outcomes reported in the included trials. The evidence was limited by imprecision. We assessed the included studies as at low to unclear risk of bias as the methods were not well described.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oocyte vitrification compared to slow freezing probably increases clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. However, the total number of women and pregnancies were low and the imprecision is high which limits applicability. The effect on ongoing pregnancy is uncertain as data were sparse. No data were available on live births or adverse effects.

Effectiveness of slow freezing and vitrification for long-term preservation of mouse ovarian tissue

This study was conducted to evaluate the interaction between cryo-damage and ART outcome after cryopreservation of mouse ovarian tissues with different methods. Either a vitrification or a slow freezing was employed for the cryopreservation of B6CBAF1 mouse ovaries and follicle growth and the preimplantation development of intrafollicular oocytes following parthenogenesis or IVF were monitored. Both cryopreservation protocols caused significant damage to follicle components, including vacuole formation and mitochondrial deformities. Regardless of the cryopreservation protocols employed, a sharp (P < 0.0001) decrease in follicle viability and post-thaw growth was detected. When IVF program was employed, significant (P < 0.05) decrease in cleavage and blastocyst formation was notable in both modes of cryopreservation. However, such retardation was not found when oocytes were parthenogenetically activated. In the IVF oocytes, slow freezing led to better development than vitrification. In conclusion, a close relationship between cryopreservation and ART methods should be considered for the selection of cryopreservation program.