Ovarian stimulation and emergency in vitro fertilization for fertility preservation in cancer patients

Ovarian stimulation and in-vitro fertilization outcomes of cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation compared to age matched controls: a 17-year experience

“…Among all patients, no differences were seen between cancer patients and controls with respect to stimulation parameters and IVF outcomes including total ampules of gonadotropins used, peak estradiol level, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, and number of 2pn embryos obtained. The similarity between cancer patients and controls with respect to mean number of oocytes retrieved [26,[29][30][31][32][33] as well as number of 2pn embryos obtained [26,34] is consistent with the existing literature. However, contrary to our results, the literature to date suggests that cancer patients typically receive a lower mean-dose of gonadotropins [34,35], achieve a lower peak estradiol level [27,[34][35][36], and according to some studies, have a lower mean number of oocytes retrieved [27,34,36] compared to controls.…”

“…We selected age-matched controls with tubal factor infertility undergoing their first IVF cycle, consistent with previously published literature [25][26][27], since in this circumstance, infertility is thought to be primarily mechanical and presumably not due to ovarian dysfunction or other factors that may confound results. Controls were age matched to within 1 year of the cancer patient, as female age is the greatest prognostic indicator of IVF success [28].…”

“…This is in contrast to prior studies, which have shown that live birth and pregnancy rates for cancer patients who undergo cryopreservation of embryos are lower than that of the general population seeking infertility treatment, however these studies are limited by their inclusion of only a small number of cancer patients [41,42]. Michaan et al reported similar clinical pregnancy rates between cancer patients and controls with tubal factor infertility, however their study is limited by small numbers (21 cancer patients) and by the fact that only 4 patients returned for transfer resulting two live births [26]. It should be noted, however, that in the comparison group only high quality blastocysts are cryopreserved, while in cancer patients all 2pn embryos are cryopreserved which may not all be of high quality.…”

Utilization rates and results of long-term embryo cryopreservation before gonadotoxic treatment

“…However, their study published in 2015 on a series of 57 cancer patients who had embryos cryopreserved, showed a similar LBR per transfer between cancer patients and controls [11]. Hence, even if several other studies have reported lower numbers of retrieved oocytes compared to controls [5,7,19,20], this does not appear to have any impact on the pregnancy rate once the patient is cured [11,21].…”

IVF for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients—efficacy and safety issues

“…Current literature offer sparse data on definitive success rates following embryo banking for cancer patients. There are scant reports based on small series which present reassuring live born rates in cancer patients who have returned for thawed embryo transfer [18][19][20][21]. The largest series, which include 21 cancer patients, display that pregnancy and live born rates achieved per transfer of thawed embryos, do not differ between fertility preservation patients and infertile (tubal/male factor) patients [22].…”