ABSTRACT
RESEARCH QUESTION: Can inadvertent pregnancies go unnoticed when initiating random-start ovarian stimulation (RSOS) despite monitoring? DESIGN: Case series at a university-based tertiary care fertility clinic. RESULTS: Between June 2022 and December 2023, two cases of undetected early pregnancy at the onset of RSOS were identified, both leading to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) with hospitalization. CONCLUSION: RSOS protocols add flexibility in fertility clinics when there is no intention of a fresh embryo transfer, but may be associated with insidious risk of OHSS. The authors advocate for comprehensive consultation and serial monitoring of human chorionic gonadotrophin during ovarian stimulation, while cautioning against over-reliance on baseline hormone concentrations when initiating RSOS. If the benefits of RSOS seem limited, healthcare providers should consider delaying ovarian stimulation to avert health, but also medicolegal and financial, complications.
ABSTRACT
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 (nâ¯=â¯935). Donors commenced ovarian stimulation on day 1-3 of the menstrual cycle (nâ¯=â¯223) or in the mid/late-follicular (nâ¯=â¯388) or luteal phase (nâ¯=â¯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, Pâ¯=â¯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, Pâ¯=â¯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%; Pâ¯=â¯0.9), clinical pregnancy (54.6% and 56.1%; Pâ¯=â¯0.8) and live birth rates (47.7% and 46.6%; Pâ¯=â¯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.
Subject(s)
Fertilization in Vitro , Oocyte Donation , Pregnancy , Female , Humans , Fertilization in Vitro/methods , Retrospective Studies , Embryo Transfer/methods , Ovulation Induction/methods , Gonadotropins , Pregnancy RateABSTRACT
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effect of random start ovarian stimulation (RSOS) compared with conventional start ovarian stimulation (CSOS) in cancer patients before gonadotoxic treatment. The final analytical cohort encompassed 688 RSOS and 1076 CSOS cycles of cancer patients before gonadotoxic treatment. Eleven studies were identified by database searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and cited references. The primary outcomes of interest were the number of oocytes and mature oocytes collected, the number of embryos cryopreserved and the metaphase II (MII)-antral follicle count (AFC) ratio. The studies were rated from medium to high quality (from 6 to 9) according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The two protocols resulted in similar numbers of oocytes collected, MII oocytes, embryos available for cryopreservation and comparable MII-AFC and fertilization rates. The duration of ovarian stimulation was longer (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.61; Pâ¯=â¯0.009) and gonadotrophin consumption was higher (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.40; Pâ¯=â¯0.009) in RSOS compared with CSOS. This systematic review and meta-analysis show that the duration of stimulation is longer, and the total gonadotrophin consumption is higher in cancer patients undergoing RSOS compared with those undergoing CSOS, with no significant effect on mature oocyte yield.
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation , Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Fertility Preservation/methods , Oocyte Retrieval/methods , Cryopreservation/methods , Neoplasms/therapy , Oocytes/physiology , Gonadotropins , Ovulation Induction/methods , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology is traditionally started in the early follicular phase. The essential rationale is to allow timely follicle growth and oocyte retrieval to ensure synchronization of the in-vitro cultured embryos with the receptive period of the endometrium in a fresh transfer cycle. In addition, conventional thought suggested that follicle recruitment happened only once, around menstruation. A deeper understanding of folliculogenesis, advances in cryobiology and an increasing proportion of freeze-all cycles provide a unique opportunity here. Experience from oncofertility patients as well as infertile women and oocyte donors who underwent ovarian stimulation in different phases of the menstrual cycle, dubbed 'random start' cycles, suggests that the number of oocytes collected and their reproductive potential do not depend on the time of starting ovarian stimulation, although the duration of stimulation and gonadotrophin consumption can vary slightly. It may be time to free both patients and clinics from the obsession with starting ovarian stimulation in the early follicular phase in planned freeze-all cycles. The flexibility provided by random start cycles is one aspect of individualizing treatment to patients' needs.
Subject(s)
Infertility, Female , Female , Humans , Infertility, Female/therapy , Ovulation Induction , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted , Oocytes , Ovarian FollicleABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Random start protocols are commonly used for oocyte cryopreservation in women with cancer. However, albeit generally reassuring, available evidence is still insufficient to rule out a sub-optimal cycle outcome. This study aimed to compare follicular steroidogenesis between women initiating the random start protocol in the luteal phase and those initiating in the follicular phase. METHODS: Consecutive women with cancer scheduled for oocyte cryostorage were prospectively recruited. We excluded those requiring a concomitant letrozole assumption. All women received a standardized protocol with recombinant FSH and GnRH antagonists. At the time of oocyte retrieval, follicular fluids were pooled, and a sample was collected and frozen at -80 °C. All samples were assayed concomitantly after thawing by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The concentration of 15 different steroid hormones was determined. RESULTS: Seventy-one women were recruited. Thirty-three initiated the ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase, while the remaining 38 initiated in the follicular phase. Baseline characteristics were generally similar. Cycle outcome did also not differ; the median (interquartile range) number of frozen mature oocytes was 9 (5-14) and 10 (5-21), respectively (p = 0.42). None of the 15 tested steroid hormones differed. CONCLUSIONS: The endocrine microenvironment surrounding oocytes is not markedly influenced by the phase of the menstrual cycle at the initiation of ovarian stimulation. This result further supports the validity of random start protocols.
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation , Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Fertility Preservation/methods , Cryopreservation/methods , Oocytes/physiology , Oocyte Retrieval/methods , Neoplasms/complications , Hormones , Ovulation Induction/methods , Tumor MicroenvironmentABSTRACT
PURPOSE : To compare the cycle characteristics and outcomes of random-start-controlled ovarian stimulation (RSCOS) protocols to the outcomes of standard-start-controlled ovarian stimulation (SSCOS) cycles and to report the utility of PGT-A in these cycles. METHODS: One hundred and seventeen who underwent SSCOS and 39 who underwent RSCOS for oocyte and/or embryo cryopreservation before breast cancer chemotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. Mean number of embryos and blastocyst euploidy rates were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: A majority of RSCOS cycles were initiated in the luteal phase (66.6% luteal vs. 33.3% follicular). While the total dose of gonadotropins was significantly higher in the RSCOS (3720.8 ± 1230.0 vs. 2345.1 ± 803.6 IU; P < 0.001), the mean number of mature oocytes and embryos was similar to SSCOS. However, there was a trend for a higher number of mean embryos with luteal start RSCOS (6.9 ± 2.7 in late follicular start vs. 9.4 ± 4.2 in luteal start, P = 0.08). PGT-A was performed in 48% of the cases that underwent embryo cryopreservation in RSCOS (12 women, mean age = 35.3 ± 4.1; 87 blastocysts), revealing a euploidy rate of 36.2 ± 22.3% per patient. This rate was comparable to a 45% aneuploidy rate from similarly aged published data. Of the 7 RSCOS patients who returned for frozen embryo transfer, 5 delivered and one has an ongoing pregnancy, while in SSCOS, 18 out of 40 cycles resulted in live birth. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests that RSCOS fertility preservation cycle outcomes are similar to those with SSCOS and result in age-appropriate euploidy rates.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Fertility Preservation , Adult , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Cryopreservation , Fertility Preservation/methods , Letrozole , Ovulation Induction/methods , Pregnancy Rate , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Fertility preservation (FP) for hematological malignancies is difficult because immediate chemotherapy is needed after diagnosis. We report two cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and oocyte cryopreservation using DuoStim after first-line chemotherapy. In Cases 1 and 2, COS and oocyte retrieval (OR) were performed using DuoStim 116 and 51 days after first-line chemotherapy, respectively, and 14 and 6 unfertilized oocytes, respectively, were cryopreserved. Another round of COS and OR was performed using the random-start method 82 days after first-line chemotherapy, and 22 unfertilized oocytes were cryopreserved. DuoStim is useful to maximize OR for patients with a short interval for FP. Many oocytes can be retrieved depending on the timing of recruitment from primary to secondary follicles, although ovarian reserve capacity declines immediately after first-line chemotherapy. Aggressive FP should be performed before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation becomes necessary.
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation , Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute , Humans , Cryopreservation/methods , Fertility Preservation/methods , Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/complications , Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/drug therapy , Oocyte Retrieval/methods , Oocytes/physiology , Ovulation Induction/methods , FemaleABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to compare conventional start in early follicular phase (EFP) with late follicular phase (LFP) and luteal phase (LP) in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation (FP) to assess differences in clinical outcomes. Retrospective study of the first cycles of COS for FP in oncological patients between 2012 and 2020 in a tertiary hospital. Two-hundred forty-eight cycles were classified into 3 groups: 176 cycles in EFP, 8 cycles in LFP, and 52 cycles in LP. Comparing LFP to EFP, there were no differences in number of oocytes (10.0 [6.3-16.0] vs 12.0 [8.0-18.0]; p = 0.253) or number of metaphase II (MII) obtained (7.0 [2.3-13.3] vs 9.0 [6.0-13.0]; p = 0.229). Total number of days needed was higher in LFP (14.5 [12.5-16.0] vs 3.0 vs 10.0 [8.3-11.0 p = 0.000) but without significant differences in number of days of usage of gonadotropins (11.5 [8.3-12.8] vs 10.0 [8.3-11.0] p = 0.308). No differences were found between LP and EFP in number of oocytes (14.5 [9.0-20.0] p = 0.151) or MII (11.5 [7.0-16.0] p = 0.084). Number of days of gonadotropins (11.0 [10.0-12.0] p = 0.00) and total dosing (3000.0 [2475.0-3600.0] p = 0.013) were significantly higher in LP. FORT and FOI were similar in all groups. COS with a random start in fertility preservation has similar outcomes to EFP start. Therefore, we can initiate COS at any phase of the menstrual cycle with optimal results. However, LP may need more days of stimulation.
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation , Female , Animals , Fertility Preservation/methods , Retrospective Studies , Menstrual Cycle , Gonadotropins , Ovulation Induction/methods , CryopreservationABSTRACT
AIM: To determine the impact of aromatase inhibitor (AI) use in oocyte cryopreservation among Japanese adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients for fertility preservation, we evaluated the oocyte cryopreservation outcomes following AI therapy in combination with the follicular phase start (FPS) and random start (RS) protocols. METHODS: This retrospective study included 81 cycles of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) among 73 AYA patients with cancer who underwent oocyte cryopreservation to maintain fertility. The outcome measures were the total number of matured oocytes that were retrieved and cryopreserved, as well as their maturation rates. The AI (+) and AI (-) groups were compared using the RS and FPS protocols. RESULTS: Our results showed that the combined use of AI and COS decreases serum E2 levels and maintains the number of retrieved and cryopreserved mature oocytes. We also confirmed the efficacy of the RS protocol, which was found to have comparable outcomes to that of the FPS protocol in both AI (+) and AI (-) groups. CONCLUSION: The combined use of AI and COS is beneficial for oocyte cryopreservation in patients with estrogen-sensitive cancer, regardless of the menstrual cycle phase of COS initiation.
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation , Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Aromatase Inhibitors , Oocyte Retrieval/methods , Retrospective Studies , Cryopreservation , Fertility Preservation/methods , Oocytes , Ovulation Induction/methodsABSTRACT
STUDY QUESTION: Are the IVF parameters and the steroidogenic luteal characteristics of random-start IVF cycles different from conventional cycles in cancer patients? SUMMARY ANSWER: No; controlled ovarian stimulation cycles randomly started at late follicular phase (LFP) and luteal phase (LP) are totally comparable to those conventional IVF cycles started at early follicular phase (EFP) in terms of the expression of the enzymes involved in cholesterol utilization and steroid hormone biosynthesis pathways, gonadotropin receptor expression and, estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4) production in addition to the similarities in ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation, oocyte yield, fertilization rate and embryo development competency in cancer patients. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Random start ovarian stimulation protocols are commonly employed for oocyte and embryo freezing for fertility preservation in cancer patients with time constraints who do not have sufficient time to undergo ovarian stimulation initiated conventionally at EFP of the next cycle. No data is available regarding the molecular steroidogenic features of these cycles analyzed together with the clinical IVF characteristics in cancer patients. We aimed to address this question in this study to help understand how similar the random start cycles are to the conventional start ones. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A clinical translational research study conducted in 62 cancer patients undergoing IVF for fertility preservation between the years 2017 and 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Sixty-two patients who were diagnosed with different types of cancer and underwent ovarian stimulation for oocyte (n = 41) and embryo (n = 21) cryopreservation using GnRH antagonist protocol and human menopausal gonadotropins before receiving cancer treatment/surgery were enrolled in the study. For patients with breast cancer and endometrial cancer the aromatase inhibitor letrozole was used with gonadotropin stimulation. Ovarian stimulation was initiated conventionally at EFP in 22 patients and served as control while it was started at LFP in 20, and mid-LP in the other 20 patients. The luteinized granulosa cells (GCs) were recovered from follicular aspirates during oocyte retrieval procedure and used for the experiments separately for each individual patient. The expression of the enzymes involved in sex steroid biosynthesis (StAR, 3ß-HSD, Aromatase) and cholesterol synthesis (3-hydroxy 3-methylglutaryl Co-A reductase (HMG-Co-A reductase)), utilization (hormone sensitive lipase (HSL)), and storage (Acetyl-Coenzyme A acetyltransferase 1 (ACAT-1)), and gonadotropin receptor expression status were analyzed using immunoblotting and RT-PCR methods. Laser confocal immunofluorescence imaging was applied to analyze and compare the expression patterns of the steroidogenic enzymes and their relation with mitochondria. In vitro E2 and P4 production by the cells were compared among the groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline demographic and IVF characteristics of the patients undergoing the conventional start and random start IVF cycles were similar. Duration of gonadotropin stimulation was significantly longer in LFP and LP start cycles in comparison to the conventional ones. Ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation, mature and total oocyte yield, fertilization and Day 5 blastulation rates of the embryos were comparable between the conventional versus random start cycles. When the luteal GCs of these random start cycles were analyzed we could not find any gross differences between these cycles in terms of the viability index and gross light microscopic morphologic features. More detailed analysis of the molecular luteal characteristics of the cells using RT-PCR, immunoblotting methods revealed that the expression profiles of the gonadotropin receptors, and the enzymes involved in sex steroid biosynthesis and cholesterol synthesis/utilization, and the steroidogenic activity of the luteal GCs of the random start cycles are almost identical to those of the conventional start cycles. Confocal image analysis demonstrated similar patterns in the signal expression profiles of the steroidogenic enzymes and their co-localization within mitochondria. LARGE SCALE DATA: N/A. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Caution should be exercised when interpreting our data and counseling cancer patients seeking fertility preservation because it is still unclear if previous exposure to cancer drugs, different ovarian pathologies or infertility etiologies, previous ovarian surgery and/or any other underlying diseases that are concomitantly present with cancer may cause a difference between conventional and random start stimulation protocols in terms of IVF parameters, luteal function and reproductive outcome. Relatively low number of patients in each stimulation protocol and pooling of luteal GCs for each patient rather than individual analysis of each follicle and oocyte are additional limitations of our study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings provide reassurance that random start protocol offers cancer patients an equally good prospect of fertility preservation as conventional IVF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funded by the School of Medicine, the Graduate School of Health Sciences of Koc University and Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine (KUTTAM), equally funded by the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development Research Infrastructure Support Program. All authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
Subject(s)
Infertility , Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Fertilization in Vitro/methods , Progesterone/metabolism , Corpus Luteum/metabolism , Ovulation Induction/methods , Oxidoreductases , Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone , Pregnancy RateABSTRACT
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).
Subject(s)
Follicular Phase , Infertility, Female , Male , Pregnancy , Humans , Female , Prospective Studies , Pregnancy Rate , Fertilization in Vitro/methods , Retrospective Studies , Semen , Ovulation Induction/methods , Hormone Antagonists/therapeutic use , Blastocyst/physiology , Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone , AneuploidyABSTRACT
Fertility preservation is emerging in recent years as an important option for various indications many of which being for cancer patients and for certain benign conditions as well. In the present case report, we set out to utilise the same protocol, however, for different indications.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To examine pregnancy outcomes after cryopreserved embryo transfer (ET) in breast cancer patients and to investigate the effect of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) as well as that of aromatase inhibitor (AI) administration and of the random start (RS) ovarian stimulation method. METHODS: This retrospective study covered 126 patients who underwent embryo cryopreservation between 2010 and 2019. Thirty-one patients underwent frozen embryo transfer (FET), and we examined resulting pregnancy rates (PRs) and live birth rates (LBRs) in those who did and did not undergo COH and in relation to the AI and RS methods. RESULTS: PR and LBR per patient were higher among patients who underwent COH than among those who did not. PR per ET did not differ from that documented for non-cancer infertility patients, after adjustment for age. The PR and LBR did not differ between use and non-use of AI (27.8% vs 35.2%). In addition, there was no significant difference in the PR or LBR between RS and conventional start ovarian stimulation (33.3% vs 30.8%). No prenatal fetal abnormalities were observed in 8 cases (including 5 AI cases and 2 RS cases). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the outcome of FET after FP was equivalent to that seen in non-cancer patients. Further, neither use of AI nor the RS method influenced LBR. COH including use of AI and the RS method are useful in FP for collecting and freezing many embryos within a short period and for increasing the per patient LBR after cancer treatment.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome , Cryopreservation , Female , Humans , Japan/epidemiology , Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome/etiology , Ovulation Induction/methods , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Rate , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Random start protocols are commonly used for oocytes cryopreservation in women with cancer. However, evidence to support their effectiveness is yet modest. This study aims to compare the quality of ovarian response between the ovary carrying the dominant follicle or the corpus luteum (active ovary) and the contralateral ovary (resting ovary). Women with a diagnosis of malignancy who underwent oocytes cryopreservation were reviewed. The main inclusion criterion was the presence of a unilateral dominant follicle or a unilateral corpus luteum on the first day of ovarian hyperstimulation. The primary outcome was the number of mature oocytes retrieved. Intra-patient comparisons between the two ovaries were made using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test for paired data. Forty-three women were included. The number of mature oocytes retrieved from the active and the resting ovaries did not differ, the median [interquartile range-IQR] being 4 [2-7] and 5 [2-8], respectively (p = 0.09). The rate [IQR] of mature oocytes per developed follicle was 58% [40-80%] and 65% [33-87%], respectively (p = 0.42). In addition, no significant difference emerged when repeating the analyses separately for women carrying dominant follicles and for those carrying corpora lutea. This study failed to detect any detrimental effect of the presence of a dominant follicle or a corpus luteus on the ovarian response to hyperstimulation, thus supporting the validity of random start protocols.
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation , Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Fertility Preservation/methods , Oocytes , Cryopreservation/methods , Ovarian Follicle/pathology , OvaryABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) using the letrozole-supplemented stimulation protocol in breast cancer (BC) patients prior to their cancer treatment. Sixty-one BC patients (Stages 0-3) who were referred to a university IVF unit for fertility preservation (FP) and underwent embryo and/or oocyte cryopreservation between 2008 - 2020 were included in this retrospective study. Time intervals between breast surgery and initial fertility consultation (IFC)/completion of FP procedures were evaluated. COS outcomes were assessed and compared between the early follicular phase (EFP) and the random-start (RS) protocols. The patients' mean age was 33.3 ± 4.9 years. The mean time interval between breast surgery and IFC was 20.6 ± 11 (day, mean ± SD) and from IFC to completion of FP procedure was 14.7 ± 5.3. Overall, 9.1 ± 5.9 mature oocytes were obtained, with a peak serum oestradiol level of 388 ± 358 pg/mL. The number of oocytes obtained (11.5 ± 9.3 vs. 10.9 ± 6.9, p = .9) and maturation rates (84.3 ± 17.5% vs. 89.2 ± 11.7, p = .5) were not statistically different between the EPF and RS protocols. The study results support that oocyte or embryo freezing can be performed effectively in a limited time period with letrozole-supplemented COS protocols before the initiation of oncological treatments in breast cancer patients.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Currently, embryo and oocyte freezing are considered the most established fertility preservation (FP) methods for newly diagnosed cancer patients.What do the results of this study add? This study reports the COS outcomes of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients for FP over a period of twelve years from a single IVF unit. The results support that a considerable number of oocytes can be harvested with letrozole-supplemented COS protocol, which appears to be an effective protocol for BC patients.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? There is a need for additional studies evaluating long-term follow-up of patients with their pregnancy outcomes.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Fertility Preservation , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Cryopreservation/methods , Female , Fertility Preservation/methods , Fertilization in Vitro/methods , Humans , Oocyte Retrieval , Oocytes , Ovulation Induction/methods , Pregnancy , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of controlled ovarian stimulation in different phases of the menstrual cycle in cancer patients seeking for the preservation of reproductive material before gonadotoxic therapy. METHODS: A total of 140 patients with oncological diseases underwent ovarian stimulation in the standard protocol with GnRH antagonists in the follicular phase of the cycle (n = 68) and in the random-start protocol in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle without prescribing GnRH antagonists (n = 72). RESULTS: All patients included in the study were comparable in age and AMH level. There were no differences in the mean number of oocytes retrieved in the follicular phase group, and luteal phase group. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the number of M II oocytes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study demonstrate the equal effectiveness of stimulation protocols in different phases of the menstrual cycle, which allows us to develop a personalized approach to the implementation of reproductive function both in cancer patients and in the routine practice of ART.
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation/methods , Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone/antagonists & inhibitors , Hormone Antagonists/administration & dosage , Neoplasms , Ovulation Induction/methods , Adult , Cryopreservation , Female , Follicular Phase , Humans , Luteal Phase , Oocyte Retrieval/methods , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Luteal Phase/physiology , Ovulation Induction/methods , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnancy OutcomeABSTRACT
In the present case series our aim is to present seven patients with extremely decreased ovarian reserve and oligomenorrhea, conceived with in vitro fertilization following a very short ovarian stimulation of incidentally detected big antral follicles. The study included women pursuing in vitro fertilization due to premature ovarian failure risk. When an incidental growing antral follicle was detected under ultrasound, immediate ovarian stimulation was initiated if the blood estradiol, luteinizing hormone and progesterone levels were correlated. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone measurements of all patients were consistent with extremely diminished ovarian reserve (ranged between 0.01 and 0.09ng/ml) and FSH levels varied between 13-104IU/l. The mean stimulation length ranged between 2-4 days. A total of 8 oocytes were retrieved; 6 MII, 1 GV and 1 degenerated. All 6 MII oocytes were fertilized with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Two patients conceived after fresh embryo transfer, whereas the one conceived following frozen thawed embryo transfer. The ongoing pregnancy rate was 50% per transfer, and two of them resulted in a healthy live birth. In conclusion, close monitoring of oligoamenorrheic infertile patients who are at high risk of imminent ovarian failure using ultrasound and blood hormone levels is very important. Albeit low, the possibility of having a healthy pregnancy following "a very short ovarian stimulation" in such a specific patient group is emphasized.
Subject(s)
Ovarian Reserve , Female , Fertilization in Vitro , Humans , Live Birth , Ovarian Follicle/diagnostic imaging , Ovulation Induction , Pregnancy , Sperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicABSTRACT
Conventional assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles may delay cancer treatment and compromise survival, and also increase patients' psychological burden as a result of delayed chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the success rates of random start and conventional start GnRH antagonist protocols in terms of oocyte and embryo outputs in cancer patients. Data of 111 patients with a newly diagnosed cancer who underwent ART for fertility preservation at a university-based infertility clinic between January 2010 and September 2019 were reviewed. The study group underwent random start controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (RS-COH) and the control group underwent conventional start COH (CS-COH). The main outcome measures were the number of total oocytes, MII oocytes, and embryo yield. A total of 46 patients (41.5%) underwent RS-COH and 65 (58.5%) underwent CS-COH. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The most common cancer type in both groups was breast cancer (60.9% vs. 52.3%, respectively). The median duration of stimulation was significantly longer in RS-COH than in CS-COH (12 vs. 10 days; P = 0.005). The median number of MII oocytes was significantly higher in RS-COH than in CS-COH (7 vs. 5 oocytes, respectively; P = 0.020). The MII/AFC ratio was significantly higher in the RS-COH group compared to the CS-COH group (74% and 57% respectively; p = 0.02). In the linear regression analyses, RS-COH protocol did not have a significant impact on MII/AFC (standardized ß coefficient - 0.514; P = 0.289 {adjusted R2 for the model = 0.779}), oocyte yield (standardized ß coefficient - 0.070; P = 0.829 {adjusted R2 for the model = 0.840}), and MII rate (standardized ß coefficient - 0.504; P = 0.596 {adjusted R2 for the model = 0.271}). In conclusion, RS-COH protocol is as effective as CS-COH protocols for fertility preservation in cancer patients.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Fertility Preservation/methods , Oocyte Retrieval/methods , Oocytes/cytology , Ovulation Induction/methods , Adult , Cryopreservation , Female , Humans , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of starting the ovarian stimulation on the early follicular phase ("Conventional") with the newer range of non-conventional approaches starting in the luteal phase ("Luteal"), random-start, and studies implementing them in DuoStim ("Conventional"+"Luteal"). METHODS: Systematic review. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase, on March 2020. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that compared "Luteal," random-start ovarian stimulation or DuoStim with "Conventional"; we analyzed them by subgroups: oocyte freezing and patients undergoing ART treatments, both, in the general infertile population and among poor responders. RESULTS: The following results come from a sensitivity analysis that included only the low/moderate risk of bias studies. When comparing "Luteal" to "Conventional," clinically relevant differences in MII oocytes were ruled out in all subgroups. We found that "Luteal" probably increases the COH length both, in the general infertile population (OR 2.00 days, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.19, moderate-quality evidence) and in oocyte freezing cycles (MD 0.85 days, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18, moderate-quality evidence). When analyzing DuoStim among poor responders, we found that it appears to generate a higher number of MII oocytes in comparison with a single "Conventional" (MD 3.35, 95%CI 2.54-4.15, moderate-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Overall, this systematic review of the available data demonstrates that in poor responders, general infertile population and oocyte freezing for cancer stimulation in the late follicular and luteal phases can be utilized in non-conventional approaches such as random-start and DuoStim cycles, offering similar outcomes to the conventional cycles but potentially with increased flexibility, within a reduced time frame. However, more well-designed trials are required to establish certainty.