Experiences and intentions of patients undergoing medically indicated oocyte or embryo cryopreservation: a qualitative study.

STUDY QUESTION: What structural (logistical) and psychological challenges do patients who cryopreserve oocytes or embryos for medical reasons face, including possible barriers to using their frozen materials? SUMMARY ANSWER: The majority of women who underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation for medical reasons reported a desire to use their frozen oocytes or embryos but had been impeded by ongoing medical issues, the need for a gestational carrier, or the lack of a partner. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Current data suggest that many women who have frozen oocytes or embryos for medical indications are concerned about the prospect of infertility and have unique emotional and financial needs that differ from patients with infertility. Further, most patients have not returned to use their cryopreserved materials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a qualitative interview study of 42 people who cryopreserved between January 2012 and December 2021. Interviews were conducted between March 2021 and March 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All participants were cisgender women who had undergone oocyte or embryo cryopreservation for medical indications at an academic fertility center. Participants were invited to interview by email if they were younger than 40 years old when their oocytes or embryos were cryopreserved. Interviews were conducted over the internet and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis with the constant comparison method. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Saturation was reached at 42 interviews. The median age of participants was 35 years old (range 28-43) at interview and 31 years old (range 25-39) at cryopreservation. Of the 42 women, 30 had a cancer diagnosis, while 7 had non-cancer chronic medical conditions, and 5 had hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes. There were 12 women who banked embryos and 30 who banked oocytes. The majority of women indicated a desire to use their cryopreserved materials, but many were unsure about how or when. Four had already used their frozen oocytes or embryos, while another four had conceived without assisted reproduction. The cryopreservation experience was described by the majority as highly emotionally challenging because they felt out of place among couples receiving infertility treatment and, for cancer patients, overwhelmed by the complex decisions to be made in a short time period. Common reported barriers to using frozen materials included ongoing medical issues preventing pregnancy, the need for a gestational carrier, the lack of a partner, and the desire for unassisted conception. Some were glad to have frozen oocytes or embryos to allow more time to meet a partner or if they were considering becoming single parents. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The majority of participants had their oocytes or embryos frozen at a single, urban, academic fertility center, which may limit generalizability. We also could not calculate a response rate because the snowball technique was used to identify additional participants, so did not know the total number of people invited to participate. Like other interview studies, our study may be subject to response bias because those who agreed to participate may have particularly positive or negative views about their experiences. Furthermore, the mean follow-up time since freezing was relatively short (3.3 years, median 2.7 years), which may not have been enough time for some patients to use their frozen materials. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Learning about the experiences of patients undergoing medically indicated oocyte and embryo cryopreservation can help clinicians better counsel these patients regarding decisions and hurdles they may encounter. We found that most patients had not returned to use their frozen materials because of ongoing medical issues, the need for a gestational carrier, lack of a partner, or the desire to attempt unassisted reproduction. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study did not receive any funding. The authors of this study have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

A balancing act: sex selection after pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy for first versus second baby.

STUDY QUESTION: How often do patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET) after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) choose to select for sex and do sex selection rates differ before and after successful delivery of a first baby? SUMMARY ANSWER: When a choice was available between male and female embryos, patients selected the sex more frequently when trying to conceive the second child (62%) as compared to the first child (32.4%) and most commonly selected for the opposite sex of the first child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Sex selection is widely available in US fertility clinics. However, the rate of sex selection for patients undergoing FET after PGT-A is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective cohort study of 585 patients that took place between January 2013 and February 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The study took place at a single, urban academic fertility center in the USA. Patients were included if they had a live birth after single euploid FET and returned for at least one subsequent euploid FET. The primary outcomes were the rates of sex selection for first versus second baby. Secondary outcomes were rate of selection for same versus opposite sex as first live birth and overall rate of selection for males versus females. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Five hundred and eighty-five patients underwent a total of 1560 single euploid FETs resulting in either one or two live births. A choice between male and female euploid embryos was available for 919 FETs (first child: 67.5% (519/769) versus second child: 50.6% (400/791), P < 0.01). When a choice was available, patients selected the sex more frequently when trying to conceive the second child (first child: 32.4% (168/519) versus second child: 62.0% (248/400), P < 0.01). When sex was selected after first live birth, the opposite sex of the first child was selected 81.8% (203/248 FETs) of the time. Of transfers that involved sex selection, rates of male and female selection were similar for the first child, but selection for females was greater for the second child (first child: 51.2% (86/168) male versus 48.9% (82/168) female, second child: 41.1% (102/248) male versus 58.9% (146/248) female, P < 0.04). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was performed at one urban academic medical center in the Northeastern US, which may limit generalizability to other settings where PGT-A may be performed less frequently, or sex selection may be limited or not permitted. In addition, we could not reliably account for whether patients or their partners had prior children and if so, of what sex. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Patients undergoing PGT-A with both male and female euploid embryos were more likely to select for sex when attempting a second child and usually selected for the opposite sex of their first child. These findings highlight the potential for family balancing for patients who undergo PGT-A in settings where sex selection is permitted. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study received no funding. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.