Outcomes of female fertility preservation with cryopreservation of oocytes or embryos in the Netherlands: a population-based study.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the reproductive outcomes of patients who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos in the context of fertility preservation in the Netherlands? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study shows that after a 10-year follow-up period, the utilization rate to attempt pregnancy using cryopreserved oocytes or embryos was 25.5% and the cumulative live birth rate after embryo transfer was 34.6% per patient. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fertility preservation by freezing oocytes or embryos is an established treatment for women with a risk of premature ovarian failure (caused by a benign or oncological disease) or physiological age-related fertility decline. Little is known about the success of cryopreservation, the utilization rate of oocytes or embryos, or the live birth rates. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective observational study was performed in the Netherlands. Data were collected between 2017 and 2019 from 1112 women who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos more than 2 years ago in the context of fertility preservation in 10 IVF centers in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 1112 women were included in this study. Medical files and patient databases were used to extract data. Women were categorized based on indication of fertility preservation: oncological, benign, or non-medical. To indicate statistical differences the t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used for time endpoints, and log-rank analyses were used to assess statistical differences. The study protocol was approved by the medical ethics committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Fertility preservation cycles have been performed increasingly over the years in the Netherlands. In the first years, less than 10 cycles per year were performed, increasing to more than 300 cycles per year 10 years later. Initially, embryos were frozen in the context of fertility preservation. In later years, cryopreservation of oocytes became the standard approach. Cryopreservation of oocytes versus embryos resulted in comparable numbers of used embryos (median of 2) for transfer and comparable live birth rates (33.9% and 34.6%, respectively). The 5-year utilization rate was 12.3% and the 10-year utilization rate was 25.5%. The cumulative clinical pregnancy rate was 35.6% and the cumulative live birth rate was 34.6% per patient. Those who had fertility preservation due to benign diseases returned earlier to use their cryopreserved embryos or oocytes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The follow-up period after the fertility preservation procedure varied between patients in this study and not all frozen oocytes or embryos had been used at the end of this study. This might have led to underestimated outcomes reported in this study. Furthermore, intention to treat cannot be fully determined since women who started the fertility preservation procedure without success (cancellation due to low response) were not included in this study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study provides data on the reproductive outcomes after various indications of fertility preservation. This knowledge can be informative for professionals and future patients to improve counseling and informed decision making regarding ovarian stimulation in the context of fertility preservation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was obtained for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare related to this study. V.T.H. received grants paid to the institute for studies outside the present work from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Novartis, Eli Lily, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo. V.T.H. received consulting fees from Eli Lily outside the present work. M.G. received grants paid to the institute for studies outside the present work from Guerbet and Ferring. E.M.E.B. received a grant from The Dutch Network of Fertility Preservation for a study outside the present work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial on various ovarian stimulation protocols.

STUDY QUESTION: Does ovarian stimulation with the addition of tamoxifen or letrozole affect the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) retrieved compared to standard ovarian stimulation in women with breast cancer who undergo fertility preservation? SUMMARY ANSWER: Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols with tamoxifen or letrozole did not affect the number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration in women with breast cancer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced for women with breast cancer who opt for fertility preservation by means of banking of oocytes or embryos. How these ovarian stimulation protocols compare to standard ovarian stimulation in terms of COC yield is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, open-label randomized controlled superiority trial was carried out in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands and 1 hospital in Belgium between January 2014 and December 2018. We randomly assigned women with breast cancer, aged 18-43 years, who opted for banking of oocytes or embryos to one of three study arms; ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, ovarian stimulation plus letrozole or standard ovarian stimulation. Standard ovarian stimulation included GnRH antagonist, recombinant FSH and GnRH agonist trigger. Randomization was performed with a web-based system in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified for oral contraception usage at start of ovarian stimulation, positive estrogen receptor (ER) status and positive lymph nodes. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to the assigned treatment. The primary outcome was number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: During the study period, 162 women were randomly assigned to one of three interventions. Fifty-four underwent ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 53 ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 55 standard ovarian stimulation. Analysis was according to intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: No differences among groups were observed in the mean (±SD) number of COCs retrieved: 12.5 (10.4) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 14.2 (9.4) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 13.6 (11.6) after standard ovarian stimulation (mean difference -1.13, 95% CI -5.70 to 3.43 for tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.58, 95% CI -4.03 to 5.20 for letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation). After adjusting for oral contraception usage at the start of ovarian stimulation, positive ER status and positive lymph nodes, the mean difference was -1.11 (95% CI -5.58 to 3.35) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.30 (95% CI -4.19 to 4.78) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation. There were also no differences in the number of oocytes or embryos banked. There was one serious adverse event after standard ovarian stimulation: one woman was admitted to the hospital because of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The available literature on which we based our hypothesis, power analysis and sample size calculation was scarce and studies were of low quality. Our study did not have sufficient power to perform subgroup analysis on follicular, luteal or random start of ovarian stimulation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study showed that adding tamoxifen or letrozole to a standard ovarian stimulation protocol in women with breast cancer does not impact the effectiveness of fertility preservation and paves the way for high-quality long-term follow-up on breast cancer treatment outcomes and women's future pregnancy outcomes. Our study also highlights the need for high-quality studies for all women opting for fertility preservation, as alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced to clinical practice without proper evidence. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant (2011.WO23.C129) of 'Stichting Pink Ribbon', a breast cancer fundraising charity organization in the Netherlands. M.G., C.B.L. and R.S. declared that the Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (location VUMC) has received unconditional research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. C.B.L. declared a speakers fee for Inmed and Yingming. S.C.L. reports grants and non-financial support from Agendia, grants, non-financial support and other from AstraZeneca, grants from Eurocept-pharmaceuticals, grants and non-financial support from Genentech/Roche and Novartis, grants from Pfizer, grants and non-financial support from Tesaro and Immunomedics, other from Cergentis, IBM, Bayer, and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work; In addition, S.C.L. has a patent UN23A01/P-EP pending that is unrelated to the present work. J.M.J.S. reported payments and travel grants from Merck and Ferring. C.C.M.B. reports her role as unpaid president of the National guideline committee on Fertility Preservation in women with cancer. K.F. received unrestricted grants from Merck Serono, Good Life and Ferring not related to present work. K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. declared former employment from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD). K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. reports grants from MSD, Gedeon Richter and Ferring paid to his institution; consulting fee payments from MSD and Merck Serono paid to his institution; speaker honoraria from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono paid to his institution. D.S. has also received travel and meeting support from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono. No payments are related to present work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4108. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 6 August 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 30 January 2014.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Oocyte or ovarian tissue banking: decision-making in women aged 35 years or older facing age-related fertility decline.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Women who face age-related fertility decline have the option to safeguard future reproductive potential by banking oocytes or ovarian tissue. What are the methods that women prefer and what factors are important in their decision-making? DESIGN: Qualitative interview study, participants were recruited through monthly information sessions at a university hospital on oocyte banking, postings on social media, websites and newsletters and snowball sampling. Women had to be aged 35 years or older, single, childless and with a possible future desire for motherhood. Key concepts of the Health Belief Model were used as framework for the analyses. RESULTS: In total, 15 women participated in this qualitative study. For oocyte banking, they mentioned chances of success, extra time and faith in the technique and healthcare professionals as benefits. Risks for themselves or future children and costs were considered to be barriers in decision making. For ovarian tissue banking, the chances of success, the possibility of natural conception, the time investment and effect on menopausal symptoms were seen as benefits, and lack of experience and lack of information were considered barriers for themselves or their future children. Overall, they considered the procedures involved in oocyte banking as relatively 'easy', whereas ovarian tissue banking was seen as a more invasive procedure. CONCLUSION: Most women preferred oocyte banking over ovarian tissue banking because of its relative convenience. Future quantitative research in a larger cohort is necessary to confirm the findings and provide more insight into the relative importance of the different factors influencing women's decision.

Fertility preservation: a challenge for IVF-clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Acute fertility preservation for women is an interdisciplinary treatment that requires adequate information provision and early referral. This quality management project aimed to improve fertility preservation care by using a practical tool: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Quality management project was executed between May 2011 and July 2013. This project has been executed in a university affiliated IVF-clinic in cooperation with two oncological sites and used a four-step strategy: (1) monitoring baseline referral process, (2) exploring baseline fertility preservation program by Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats' (SWOT)-analysis, (3) setting up a new fertility preservation program and (4) evaluating the new fertility preservation program by means of SWOT-analysis. RESULTS: During the three-months monitoring period, fertility preservation was requested for a total of 126 women. The mean age of the women was 33.8 years old (range 1-42 years old). Most requests came from women who wanted to cryopreserve oocytes because of age-related decline of fertility (n=90; 71%). Most requests for acute fertility preservation concerned women with breast cancer (n=16; 57%). Information leaflets and pre-consultation questionnaires for women improved the quality of first fertility preservation consultation as evaluated by final SWOT-analysis. Collaboration with oncological centres and information about fertility preservation improved the referral process. CONCLUSIONS: SWOT-analysis proved useful for setting up a new fertility preservation-program and can be recommended as a tool to improve the management and organisation of new types of reproductive care.

[Oocyte vitrification: for whom?]. / Eicelvitrificatie: voor wie eigenlijk? Een dwarsdoorsnede-onderzoek.

OBJECTIVE: To study the indications of oocyte vitrification in women who undergo this intervention. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHOD: We collected the indications of oocyte vitrification in women who underwent, or started ovarian stimulation for, this intervention between May 2006 and December 31st 2013. Indications were subcategorized into six groups: no sperm available during IVF or ICSI treatment, planned gonadotoxic therapy, ovarian surgery, risk on premature ovarian insufficiency , previous gonadotoxic therapy, and anticipated gamete exhaustion. RESULTS: During the study period 298 women vitrified oocytes or started with ovarian stimulation for oocyte vitrification. The majority of the women (33%) vitrified oocytes because of anticipated gamete exhaustion. Planned gonadotoxic treatment was for 81 women (27%) the reason for oocyte vitrification. CONCLUSION: With oocyte vitrification women are able to extend the time at which they can conceive. The future will tell whether the benefits of oocyte vitrification outweigh the risks and costs.