ART outcomes following ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase:a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of aromatase inhibitor on controlled ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation in adolescent and young cancer patients

“…Von Wolff et al first reported in 2009 that ovarian stimulation of cryopreserved oocytes in patients with cancer can be initiated in the luteal phase 10 . Since then, there have been many controversial reports on the effectiveness of the RS protocol, mainly on the quality and quantity of follicle growth 10,11,13,22 .…”

“…Multiple regression analysis of the RS protocol by İsrafilova et al 11 showed no significant positive or negative effects on the RS protocol in terms of oocyte yields and maturation rate. According to a review of RS protocols by Lu et al, 10 the number of stimulation days and uFSH dose is predominantly increased in RS compared with FPS protocols 24 . As a reason for the longer ovarian stimulation period in the RS group, Nazarenko et al 24 considered that FSH is suppressed during the luteal phase owing to the negative feedback effect of the steroid hormones.…”

“…Von Wolff et al first reported in 2009 that ovarian stimulation of cryopreserved oocytes in patients with cancer can be initiated in the luteal phase. 10 Since then, there have been many controversial reports on the effectiveness of the RS protocol, mainly on the quality and quantity of follicle growth. 10,11,13,22 Filippi et al 23 found that follicle growth using the RS protocol was not inhibited by the presence of predominant follicles or the corpus luteum in the previous cycle.…”

“…This method can shorten the time required for fertility preservation to 2 weeks 9 . Several case series and comparative studies on the application of RS protocols have been published in recent years 10–13 . The majority of these studies have supported the feasibility and effectiveness of the RS protocol.…”

The earlier the initiation of gonadotropin in poor responders in luteal phase stimulation protocols, the better

“…According to previous studies, normal responders did not benefit significantly from the LPS. Normal responders had significantly longer days of stimulation and more gonadotropins with the LPS protocol compared to FPS protocol, but the mean number of oocytes retrieved, the number of M II oocytes, the cycle cancellation rates and clinical pregnancy rates were similar between the two protocols ( 10 , 11 ). However, for poor responders, more oocytes,MII oocytes, fertilized oocytes, embryos, clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate achieved during LPS than FPS ( 12 ).…”