Oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in European countries: statutory background, practice, storage and use.

STUDY QUESTION: What is known in Europe about the practice of oocyte cryopreservation (OoC), in terms of current statutory background, funding conditions, indications (medical and 'non-medical') and specific number of cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: Laws and conditions for OoC vary in Europe, with just over half the responding countries providing this for medical reasons with state funding, and none providing funding for 'non-medical' OoC. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: The practice of OoC is a well-established and increasing practice in some European countries, but data gathering on storage is not homogeneous, and still sparse for use. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OtC) is only practiced and registered in a few countries. STUDY DESIGN SIZE AND DURATION: A transversal collaborative survey on OoC and OtC, was designed, based on a country questionnaire containing information on statutory or professional background and practice, as well as available data on ovarian cell and tissue collection, storage and use. It was performed between January and September 2015. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING AND METHODS: All ESHRE European IVF Monitoring (EIM) consortium national coordinators were contacted, as well as members of the ESHRE committee of national representatives, and sent a questionnaire. The form included national policy and practice details, whether through current existing law or code of practice, criteria for freezing (age, health status), availability of funding and the presence of a specific register. The questionnaire also included data on both the number of OoC cycles and cryopreserved oocytes per year between 2010 and 2014, specifically for egg donation, fertility preservation for medical disease, 'other medical' reasons as part of an ART cycle, as well as for 'non-medical reasons' or age-related fertility decline. Another question concerning data on freezing and use of ovarian tissue over 5 years was added and sent after receiving the initial questionnaire. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 34 EIM members, we received answers regarding OoC regulations and funding conditions from 27, whilst 17 countries had recorded data for OoC, and 12 for OtC. The specific statutory framework for OoC and OtC varies from absent to a strict frame. A total of 34 705 OoC cycles were reported during the 5-year-period, with a continuous increase. However, the accurate description of numbers was concentrated on the year 2013 because it was the most complete. In 2013, a total of 9126 aspirations involving OoC were reported from 16 countries. Among the 8885 oocyte aspirations with fully available data, the majority or 5323 cycles (59.9%) was performed for egg donation, resulting in the highest yield per cycle, with an average of 10.4 oocytes frozen per cycle. OoC indication was 'serious disease' such as cancer in 10.9% of cycles, other medical indications as 'part of an ART cycle' in 16.1%, and a non-medical reason in 13.1%. With regard to the use of OoC, the number of specifically recorded frozen oocyte replacement (FOR) cycles performed in 2013 for all medical reasons was 14 times higher than the FOR for non-medical reasons, using, respectively, 8.0 and 8.4 oocytes per cycle. Finally, 12 countries recorded storage following OtC and only 7 recorded the number of grafted frozen/thawed tissues. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Not all countries have data regarding OoC collection, and some data came from voluntary collaborating centres, rather than a national authority or register. Furthermore, the data related to use of OoC were not included for two major players in the field, Italy and Spain, where numbers were conflated for medical and non-medical reasons. Finally, the number of cycles started with no retrieval is not available. Data are even sparser for OtC. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There is a need for ART authorities and professional bodies to record precise data for practice and use of OoC (and OtC), according to indications and usage, in order to reliably inform all stakeholders including women about the efficiency of both methods. Furthermore, professional societies should establish professional standards for access to and use of OoC and OtC, and give appropriate guidance to all involved. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by ESHRE. There are no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Fertility preservation in the male pediatric population: factors influencing the decision of parents and children.

STUDY QUESTION: How can the decision process for fertility preservation (FP) in adolescents and prepubertal boys be improved based on patient and parent feelings about FP counseling? SUMMARY ANSWER: The content of information given to patients and parents and hope for future parenthood appeared to positively impact on the decision to preserve fertility in the pediatric population and, therefore, deserves special attention to improve FP care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A vast body of literature on adult cancer patients shows that reproductive capacity is a major quality-of-life issue. Patients also have a strong desire to be informed of available FP options with a view to future parenthood of their own genetic child, considering that <10% chose to adopt or used donated gametes. Furthermore, the quality of fertility counseling provided at the time of cancer diagnosis has been identified as a crucial factor in the decision-making process. By contrast, in the pediatric population, while it was shown that parents were able to make an informed and voluntary decision for their prepubertal sons despite the heavy emotional burden at the time of diagnosis, there is so far very limited information on patient expectations regarding FP. A lack of awareness often equates to suboptimal care by oncologists and FP specialists, and poor access to FP, therefore improving knowledge and identifying the expectations of pediatric patients and their parents are crucial for optimizing multidisciplinary collaborative care pathways (MCCPs), including counseling and access to FP methods, in the youngest population. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A questionnaire survey was posted to an eligible population between May 2005 and May 2013. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 348 prepubertal boys and adolescents aged 0-18 years, diagnosed with cancer in a university hospital setting, were eligible. Three different questionnaires for two age groups of children (<12 and 12-18 years) and parents were established based on information from focus groups. Questions were subsequently reviewed by the institutional ethics board before being sent. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 348 eligible patients, 44 died and 14 were lost to follow-up. Thus, 290 patients (77 aged 12-18 years and 213 aged <12 years) were sent a questionnaire. In total, 120 questionnaires were recovered, 45.5% (n = 35/77) from adolescents and 39.9% (n = 85/213) from children. FP acceptance rates were, respectively, 74 and 78.6% for boys aged <12 and 12-18 years. The content of information provided to patients and parents appeared to positively impact on the decision to preserve fertility (P = 0.04). While the majority of boys aged >12 years considered the information to be clear (72%), complete (80%) and understandable (90.9%), only 33.3% of boys aged <12 years were able to comprehend the information. Pressure from doctors to reduce the delay between diagnosis and cancer treatment increased the number of refusals (P<0.01), while hope for future parenthood favored acceptance (P < 0.01). Family support was considered important for 75% of adolescents and 58% of children, and medical support for 50% of adolescents and 42% of children. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: This single-center survey does not allow extrapolation of the information to other settings. Recall bias and lack of full external validation of the questionnaires are further limitations. Modification of the current MCCP should be further evaluated according to our results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Acknowledging the issues faced and familiarizing oneself with the care of patients undergoing fertility-threatening therapies supply primary care providers with the appropriate quality management tools in the field of FP in centers for reproductive medicine. Expectations reported in the survey allow appropriate support to be included within the MCCP design. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Funding by hospital/clinic(s); Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02411214.

ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 23: medically assisted reproduction in singles, lesbian and gay couples, and transsexual people†.

This Task Force document discusses ethical issues arising with requests for medically assisted reproduction from people in what may be called 'non-standard' situations and relationships. The document stresses that categorically denying access to any of these groups cannot be reconciled with a human rights perspective. If there are concerns about the implications of assisted reproduction on the wellbeing of any of the persons involved, including the future child, a surrogate mother or the applicants themselves, these concerns have to be considered in the light of the available scientific evidence. When doing so it is important to avoid the use of double standards. More research is needed into the psychosocial implications of raising children in non-standard situations, especially with regard to single women, male homosexual couples and transsexual people.

Chromosome analysis in embryos from young patients with previous parity.

This study included 173 young couples of proven fertility who had previously undergone preimplantation genetic screening for chromosomes X and Y for family balancing. Several months later, when the outcome of the pregnancies was already known, the blastomeres from the corresponding embryos transferred were reanalysed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) for chromosomes 13, 16, 18, 21, 22 with the aim of investigating correlation with embryo viability and the level of FISH sensitivity (embryos confirmed to be euploid). According to the results, informative in 152 couples, the proportion of euploid embryos was significantly lower in 53 nonpregnant women when compared with 99 women with term pregnancy (49% versus 75% respectively, P < 0.001). In addition, in 21 nonpregnant patients, all embryos transferred were found to be chromosomally abnormal. The level of FISH sensitivity was calculated in the group of term pregnancies where the number of euploid embryos was expected to exceed or match with the number of babies born. The resulting false-negative rate was 4.0% per patient and 1.9% per embryo. These findings confirmed the limited prediction power of embryo morphology on implantation but also the relevance of chromosomal abnormalities in causing embryo demise.

ESHRE task force on ethics and Law22: preimplantation genetic diagnosis.

This Task Force document discusses some relatively unexplored ethical issues involved in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). The document starts from the wide consensus that PGD is ethically acceptable if aimed at helping at-risk couples to avoid having a child with a serious disorder. However, if understood as a limit to acceptable indications for PGD, this 'medical model' may turn out too restrictive. The document discusses a range of possible requests for PGD that for different reasons fall outwith the accepted model and argues that instead of rejecting those requests out of hand, they need to be independently assessed in the light of ethical criteria. Whereas, for instance, there is no good reason for rejecting PGD in order to avoid health problems in a third generation (where the second generation would be healthy but faced with burdensome reproductive choices if wanting to have children), using PGD to make sure that one's child will have the same disorder or handicap as its parents, is ethically unacceptable.

ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 21: genetic screening of gamete donors: ethical issues.

This Task Force document explores the ethical issues involved in the debate about the scope of genetic screening of gamete donors. Calls for expanded donor screening arise against the background of both occasional findings of serious but rare genetic conditions in donors or donor offspring that were not detected through present screening procedures and the advent of new genomic technologies promising affordable testing of donors for a wide range of conditions. Ethical principles require that all stakeholders' interests are taken into account, including those of candidate donors. The message of the profession should be that avoiding all risks is impossible and that testing should remain proportional.

Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries.

STUDY QUESTION: Do the socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors differ in European countries? SUMMARY ANSWER: The socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors differ considerably across countries. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There have been no other international studies comparing the characteristics of oocyte donors. Regarding their motivations, most studies indicate mixed motives. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The proposed study was a transversal epidemiological study. Data were collected from 63 voluntarily participating assisted reproduction technology centres practising oocyte donation in 11 European countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, UK and Ukraine). The survey was conducted between September 2011 and June 2012 and ran for 1-6 calendar months depending on the number of cycles of oocyte donation performed at the centre. The sample size was computed in order to allow an estimate of the percentage of a relatively rare characteristic (∼2%) with a precision (95% confidence interval) of 1%. The calculation gave 1118 donors. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In total, 1423 forms were obtained from oocyte donors. All consecutive donors in these centres filled out an anonymous questionnaire when they started their hormonal stimulation, asking for their socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics, their motivations and compensation. Population characteristics were described and compared by country of donation. Motives for donation and mean amount of money were compared between countries and according to the donors characteristics. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors varied enormously across European countries. The number of received forms corresponded with a participation rate of 61.9% of the cycles performed by the participating centres. Mean age was 27.4 years. About 49% of donors were fully employed, 16% unemployed and 15% student. The motivation in the total group of donors was 47.8% pure altruism, 33.9% altruism and financial, 10.8% pure financial, 5.9% altruism and own treatment and finally 2% own treatment only. About 15% of the donors were egg sharers (patient donors), mainly from the UK and Poland. Women were donating for the first time in 55.4% of cases, for the second time in 20.3% and for the third time in 12.8%. The motivation to donate was significantly related to being of foreign origin (P < 0.01), age (P < 0.001), living in couple or not (P < 0.01), level of education (P < 0.001) and number of donations (P < 0.001). The amount of compensation differed considerably between centres and/or countries. The general donor profile in this study was a well-educated, 27-year-old woman living with her partner and child who mainly donated to help others. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The selection of clinics in some countries and the limited participation rate may have led to a bias in donor characteristics. A possible effect of social desirability in the answers by the donors should be taken into account. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The diversity of the donor population reflects the differences in European legislation (for example, on anonymity and payment) and economic circumstances. The differences in systems of reimbursement/payment demonstrate the need to have a thorough discussion on the specific meaning of these terms. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. The authors declare no conflicting interests.

ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: sex selection for non-medical reasons.

This Task Force document revisits the debate about the ethics of sex selection for non-medical reasons in the light of relevant new technological developments. First, as a result of improvement of the Microsort® flow cytometry method, there is now a proven technique for preconception sex selection that can be combined both with IVF and IUI. Secondly, the scenario where new approaches that are currently being developed for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) may lead to such screening becoming a routine part of all IVF treatment. In that scenario professionals will more often be confronted with parental requests for transfer of an embryo of a specific sex. Thirdly, the recent development of non-invasive prenatal testing based on cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma allows for easy and safe sex determination in the early stages of pregnancy. While stressing the new urgency that these developments give to the debate, the Task Force did not come to a unanimous position with regard to the acceptability of sex selection for non-medical reasons in the context of assisted reproduction. Whereas some think maintaining the current ban is the best approach, others are in favour of allowing sex selection for non-medical reasons under conditions that take account of societal concerns about the possible impact of the practice. By presenting these positions, the document reflects the different views about this issue that also exist in the field. Specific recommendations include the need for a wider delineation of accepted 'medical reasons' than in terms of avoiding a serious sex-linked disorder, and for a clarification of the legal position with regard to answering parental requests for 'additional sex selection' in the context of medically indicated preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or routine PGS.

Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss.

The recent introduction of oocyte vitrification has significantly advanced the outcome of oocyte cryopreservation, leading to clinical results comparable to those achieved in IVF using fresh oocytes, as reported by experienced centres. This has lead to new debate, both in the professional community and in society at large, about the acceptability of offering this technology to reproductively healthy women who want to cryopreserve their oocytes against the threat of time. Given the many demands calling for simultaneous realization in a relatively short period of their lives, many women who want to have children feel to be under considerable pressure. The option of oocyte cryopreservation may in fact give them more breathing space. In this document, it is concluded that the arguments against allowing this application of the technology are not convincing. The recommendations include the need for adequate information of women interested in oocyte cryopreservation, also in order to avoid raising false hopes. The message must remain that women's best chances of having a healthy child are through natural reproduction at a relative early age. Centres offering this service must have the necessary expertise to employ oocyte cryopreservation efficiently with the so far non-standardized protocols. As data about long-term safety is still lacking, centres also have a responsibility to contribute to the collection of these data.

ESHRE's good practice guide for cross-border reproductive care for centers and practitioners.

This paper outlines ESHRE's guidance for centers and physicians providing fertility treatment to foreign patients. This guide aims to ensure high-quality and safe assisted reproduction treatment, taking into account the patients, their future child and the interests of third-party collaborators such as gametes donors and surrogates. This is achieved by including considerations of equity, safety, efficiency, effectiveness (including evidence-based care), timeliness and patient centeredness.

Intrafamilial medically assisted reproduction.

For different motives, couples in need of third party assisted reproduction sometimes prefer the help of a family member over an unrelated collaborator. Quantitative (frequency) and qualitative (experience) data about this practice are lacking or scarce. Forms of intrafamilial medically assisted reproduction (IMAR) are different with respect to (i) familial closeness between the collaborator and the person whose reproductive contribution he or she replaces and whether assistance would be intra- or intergenerational, (ii) the relationship between the collaborator and the fertile partner (this relationship may or may not be consanguineous) and (iii) with regard to the material (sperm and oocytes) that is donated and the services (surrogacy) that are offered. This document aims at providing guidance to the professional handling of requests for IMAR. It briefly sketches the background of this practice and discusses a variety of relevant normative aspects.

Cross border reproductive care in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: The quantity and the reasons for seeking cross border reproductive care are unknown. The present article provides a picture of this activity in six selected European countries receiving patients. METHODS: Data were collected from 46 ART centres, participating voluntarily in six European countries receiving cross border patients. All treated patients treated in these centres during one calendar month filled out an individual questionnaire containing their major socio-demographic characteristics, the treatment sought and their reasons for seeking treatment outside their country of residence. RESULTS: In total, 1230 forms were obtained from the six countries: 29.7% from Belgium, 20.5% from Czech Republic, 12.5% from Denmark, 5.3% from Slovenia, 15.7% from Spain and 16.3% from Switzerland. Patients originated from 49 different countries. Among the cross border patients participating, almost two-thirds came from four countries: Italy (31.8%), Germany (14.4%), The Netherlands (12.1%) and France (8.7%). The mean age of the participants was 37.3 years for all countries (range 21-51 years), 69.9% were married and 90% were heterosexual. Their reasons for crossing international borders for treatment varied by countries of origin: legal reasons were predominant for patients travelling from Italy (70.6%), Germany (80.2%), France (64.5%), Norway (71.6%) and Sweden (56.6%). Better access to treatment than in country of origin was more often noted for UK patients (34.0%) than for other nationalities. Quality was an important factor for patients from most countries. CONCLUSIONS: The cross border phenomenon is now well entrenched. The data show that many patients travel to evade restrictive legislation in their own country, and that support from their home health providers is variable. There may be a need for professional societies to establish standards for cross border reproductive care.

Lifestyle-related factors and access to medically assisted reproduction.

Lifestyle is increasingly recognized as an outcome-determining factor in assisted reproduction, not only with regard to the cost-effectiveness but also in view of the balance of benefits and risks, including risks related to the welfare of the future child. This document briefly summarizes the evidence concerning the impact of three lifestyle-related factors (obesity, tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption) on both natural and assisted reproduction (IVF) and discusses the implications of this for the practice of medically assisted reproduction in the light of relevant ethical principles. The central question is whether and to what extent fertility treatment of obese, smoking or drinking patients should be made conditional on prior lifestyle changes.

The impact of cross-border reproductive care or 'fertility tourism' on NHS maternity services.

High order multiple pregnancies have substantial morbidity and mortality. Fertility treatment is commonly responsible for their conception and is available globally with variable regulation. We investigated cross-border fertility treatment in these pregnancies in a UK fetal medicine unit, recording mode of conception, country of fertility treatment, reason for non-UK treatment and fetal reduction. Over an 11-year period, 109 women had a high order multiple pregnancy. Ninety-four women (86%) conceived with fertility treatment of whom 24 (26%) had this performed overseas. Cross-border fertility treatment poses an increasing challenge to obstetricians. National data on its occurrence is urgently needed.

Providing infertility treatment in resource-poor countries.

Recently, several initiatives were started to introduce medically assisted reproduction in developing countries. Infertility is a major problem in these countries and causes extensive social and psychological suffering. This article analyses the main ethical arguments pro and contra the provision of infertility treatment in resource-poor countries. It is concluded that infertility treatment should be part of an integrated reproductive care programme including family planning and motherhood care. Education, empowerment of women and economic prosperity are the most effective solutions to most problems related to both population growth and infertility. Simultaneously, investments in low-cost interventions are justified.

ESHRE task force on ethics and law 15: cross-border reproductive care.

This paper analyses the ethical aspects of cross-border reproductive care. Ethical questions are raised by some of the main reasons of cross-border travelling, i.e. law evasion and unequal access to treatment. The phenomenon also generates possible conflicts linked to the responsibility of the professionals. Three points are discussed: the moral obligation of the physician to refer the patient, his/her duty to provide information and counselling and the acceptability of fee-splitting. The recommendations focus on measures to reduce or limit the number of patients that have to travel abroad and on steps to guarantee the safety and quality of the treatment wherever it is provided.

ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 14: equity of access to assisted reproductive technology.

Justice and access are among the most urgent questions for medically assisted reproduction. This paper analyses this question not only for people suffering from infertility, but also for people who need assistance to prevent the birth of a child with a specific genetic disorder. Based on the impact of not being able to have a child on the quality of life of a person, the position is defended that infertility treatment should be at least partially reimbursed. Simultaneously, the medical professionals have an obligation towards their patients and the health care system to bring down the costs as far as reasonably possible.

ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 13: the welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction.

The analysis of the welfare of the child in the context of medically assisted reproduction is divided in two parts: the first part addresses the risks associated with the would-be parent(s), the second part focuses on possible risks inherent in the technologies and treatments themselves. The risk factors connected with the intended parents may be medical and psychosocial. Two important considerations are raised here: the necessity to avoid discrimination and respect for the privacy of the patients. The second part concerns the ethical questions involved in the rapid dissemination of new technologies in assisted conception. Technology and research must always be subordinate to the welfare of the future offspring. The different steps involved in the responsible application of medical technologies to treat infertility are analysed.

ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 12: oocyte donation for non-reproductive purposes.

The present paper focuses on oocyte donation for non-reproductive purposes, i.e. research and future therapy. The general principles of research ethics apply to these interventions. The proportionality principle demands that any possible harms to the oocyte donors should be proportionate to the possible benefits for society. The non-maleficence principle states that every reasonable effort should be made to minimize risks for donors. The position is adopted that, mutatis mutandis, women who donate oocytes for research should be treated similarly to research participants in clinical trials. This implies, among other things, that oocyte donors for research should receive reimbursement for all costs of the procedure and should get compensation for the time lost and inconvenience suffered during the treatment. In order to avoid malpractice and exploitation of poor women, a number of measures are proposed such as a ban on the import of oocytes.

ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 11: Posthumous assisted reproduction.

This article analyses the different ethical aspects of posthumous assisted reproduction. Two situations are distinguished: cases in which the gametes or embryos are used by the surviving partner and cases in which the gametes or embryos are made available for third persons. The moral evaluation of the procedure depends on whether the act is restricted to the existing parental project. A major difficulty for the moral evaluation is the inconclusiveness of the empirical data on the psychosocial development of children born after this procedure. The Task Force concluded that posthumous reproduction by a partner is acceptable if the following conditions are met: written consent has been given by the deceased person, the partner received extensive counselling and a minimum waiting period of 1 year is imposed before a treatment can be started. For use by third parties, the usual conditions for gamete and embryo donation apply.