Basal FSH values are positively associated with aneuploidy incidence in pre-advanced maternal age (AMA) but not in AMA patients.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of maternal age on the association between maternal basal FSH and aneuploidy. METHODS: A retrospective study including data from 1749 blastocysts diagnosed as euploid or aneuploid by PGT-A (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy). Aneuploidy incidence was compared between embryos from mothers with high vs. low basal FSH levels (above and below the group median, respectively) in total, pre-AMA (advanced maternal age; < 35 years, 198 embryos) and AMA (≥ 35 years, 1551 embryos) patient groups, separately. To control for the interference of potentially confounding variables, the association between aneuploidy and high basal FSH levels was assessed by multivariate logistic analysis in overall, pre-AMA and AMA patient groups. RESULTS: Overall, aneuploidy rate was 9% higher (p = 0.02) in embryos from patients with high basal FSH (63.7%) compared to those with low basal FSH (58.4%). In the pre-AMA subgroup, aneuploidy incidence was 35% higher (p = 0.04) in embryos from patients with high basal FSH (53.5%) compared to those with low basal FSH (39.4%). Differently, aneuploidy occurrence did not vary between embryos from AMA patients with low (61.0%) and high (64.8%) basal FSH (p = 0.12). The multivariate analysis revealed that, in pre-AMA embryos, the association between aneuploidy occurrence and high basal FSH is independent of potential confounding variables (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Maternal basal FSH values are associated with embryo aneuploidy in pre-AMA but not in AMA patients. The present findings suggest that basal FSH is a useful parameter to assess aneuploidy risk in pre-AMA patients and reinforce the hypothesis that excessive FSH signalling can predispose to oocyte meiotic errors.

A View from the past into our collective future: the oncofertility consortium vision statement.

PURPOSE: Today, male and female adult and pediatric cancer patients, individuals transitioning between gender identities, and other individuals facing health extending but fertility limiting treatments can look forward to a fertile future. This is, in part, due to the work of members associated with the Oncofertility Consortium. METHODS: The Oncofertility Consortium is an international, interdisciplinary initiative originally designed to explore the urgent unmet need associated with the reproductive future of cancer survivors. As the strategies for fertility management were invented, developed or applied, the individuals for who the program offered hope, similarly expanded. As a community of practice, Consortium participants share information in an open and rapid manner to addresses the complex health care and quality-of-life issues of cancer, transgender and other patients. To ensure that the organization remains contemporary to the needs of the community, the field designed a fully inclusive mechanism for strategic planning and here present the findings of this process. RESULTS: This interprofessional network of medical specialists, scientists, and scholars in the law, medical ethics, religious studies and other disciplines associated with human interventions, explore the relationships between health, disease, survivorship, treatment, gender and reproductive longevity. CONCLUSION: The goals are to continually integrate the best science in the service of the needs of patients and build a community of care that is ready for the challenges of the field in the future.

Identification of research priorities in infertility and assisted reproduction: an international, multicentre study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the main research interests among patients of assisted reproductive technologies (ART)? DESIGN: Cross-sectional study consisting of an anonymous online survey sent to 2112 patients from eight centres in four countries in 2018. Patients were asked to identify research questions relevant to them in the field of infertility and ART. Answers were categorized into topics and ranked by frequency. A long list of the top 30 research topics was extracted from the aggregate results, from which a short list of the top 10 research topics was created. Ten research questions were finally formulated. RESULTS: A total of 945 responses were analysed. Main interests were side-effects, success rates, infertility prevention and emotional support. The 10 research questions were: 1. What are the side-effects of drugs used in ART treatments? (51.6%). 2. What are the most effective methods to cope with infertility from the psychological point of view? (35.7%). 3. What effects could diet have on fertility? (25.9%). 4. What are ART success rates per clinical profile? (24.8%). 5. Are there some habits and lifestyle factors that could prevent infertility? (20.0%). 6. What are the long-term risks associated with ART in mother and child? (18.5%). 7. Are alternative therapies such as acupuncture, yoga and meditation effective to treat/prevent infertility? (18.5%). 8. What is the impact of exercise on fertility? (15.4%). 9. How does oocyte quantity and quality affect fertility? (9.5%). 10. What are the genetic patterns or hereditary conditions causing/related to infertility? (9.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and clinicians should keep in mind that, in addition to success rates and safety, patients greatly value research into causes, prevention and emotional aspects of infertility.

Psychosocial benefits of fertility preservation for young cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The risk of ovarian failure after radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy is a concern among oncologic women. There is no doubt regarding the psycho-emotional benefits of fertility preservation (FP) after a cancer diagnosis because concerns about biological conception are a source of anxiety and can even affect the patient's cancer recovery. The aim of this study was to evaluate oncology patients' feelings, concerns, and life quality impacts related to FP. METHODS: This qualitative cross-sectional study was based on a questionnaire administered to a selected group of women diagnosed with cancer who underwent FP. Thirty-four eligible women (23-39 years old) completed this questionnaire. RESULTS: Two of the participants already had a child, and most of them (61.8%) stated a desire to have children at the time of FP. Their feelings primarily involved safety (44.1%) and hope (23.5%). Time and/or financial issues (82.4%) were the main challenge for FP. All of the women noted the importance of FP, with many stating that it is warranted to allow the possibility of a biological pregnancy due to the risk of infertility. Finally, questions about the impact on their lives if they had not undergone FP indicated emotional impairment, low quality of life, relationship problems, and uncertainty about maternity. CONCLUSIONS: FP for oncology patients is a positive strategy. The women in this study felt that FP was a worthwhile process and that the security of having undergone FP brought them peace during oncological treatment and contributed to their quality of life.

Survey of Third-Party Parenting Options Associated With Fertility Preservation Available to Patients With Cancer Around the Globe.

Purpose: In the accompanying article, "Survey of Fertility Preservation Options Available to Patients With Cancer Around the Globe," we showed that specific fertility preservation services may not be offered at various sites around the world because of cultural and legal barriers. We assessed global and regional experiences as well as the legal status of third-party reproduction and adoption to serve as a comprehensive international data set and resource for groups that wish to begin oncofertility interventions. Methods: We provide data on the legalities of third-party assisted reproductive technologies and other family-building options in the 28 oncofertility-practicing countries surveyed. Results: We found regional and country differences that will be important in the development of tailored resources for physicians and for patient brochures that are sensitive to these local restrictions and cultural norms. Conclusion: Because many patients first consult Web-based materials, the formal assessment of the availability of these options provides members of the global oncofertility community with data to which they might otherwise not have ready access to better serve their patients.

Survey of Fertility Preservation Options Available to Patients With Cancer Around the Globe.

Purpose: Oncofertility focuses on providing fertility and endocrine-sparing options to patients who undergo life-preserving but gonadotoxic cancer treatment. The resources needed to meet patient demand often are fragmented along disciplinary lines. We quantify assets and gaps in oncofertility care on a global scale. Methods: Survey-based questionnaires were provided to 191 members of the Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network, a National Institutes of Health-funded organization. Responses were analyzed to measure trends and regional subtleties about patient oncofertility experiences and to analyze barriers to care at sites that provide oncofertility services. Results: Sixty-three responses were received (response rate, 25%), and 40 were analyzed from oncofertility centers in 28 countries. Thirty of 40 survey results (75%) showed that formal referral processes and psychological care are provided to patients at the majority of sites. Fourteen of 23 respondents (61%) stated that some fertility preservation services are not offered because of cultural and legal barriers. The growth of oncofertility and its capacity to improve the lives of cancer survivors around the globe relies on concentrated efforts to increase awareness, promote collaboration, share best practices, and advocate for research funding. Conclusion: This survey reveals global and regional successes and challenges and provides insight into what is needed to advance the field and make the discussion of fertility preservation and endocrine health a standard component of the cancer treatment plan. As the field of oncofertility continues to develop around the globe, regular assessment of both international and regional barriers to quality care must continue to guide process improvements.