Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 30, Issue 11, pp 1407–1413 | Cite as

Fifteen year follow-up of embryos cryopreserved in cancer patients for fertility preservation

  • J. Barcroft
  • N. Dayoub
  • K. J. ThongEmail author
Fertility Preservation

Abstract

Purpose

Determine the outcome of embryo cryopreservation in female oncology patients

Methods

The outcomes of IVF/ICSI cycles in oncology patients over 15 years in a University Teaching Hospital.

Results

Forty-two oncology patients (mean 31.9 ± 3.9 years) underwent embryo cryopreservation treatment (n = 33 IVF, n = 6 ICSI). Controlled ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist protocol (n = 34; 81 %) yielded fewer oocytes than GnRH agonist protocol (n = 8; 19 %) (9.4 ± 6.3 vs. 15.3 ± 8.9; p = 0.04) respectively. There was no significant difference in mean (±SD) duration of ovarian stimulation (11.6 ± 2.6 vs.10.6 ± 2.7), median gonadotrophin dose (1950 vs. 1670 IU), median day 5–6 oestradiol level (1124 vs.1129 pmol/l) or embryo yield (6.2 ± 4.1 vs. 8.8 ± 4.3; p = 0.07) between GnRH antagonist and agonist treatment cycles respectively. Thirty-nine patients cryopreserved embryos and three had their cycle cancelled. During this study period, of those who cryopreserved embryos, 5 patients underwent 9 frozen-thaw cycles (13 %), resulting in 2 live births (1 twin, 1 singleton, live birth rate 22 %). Six patients died (15 %), 3 conceived naturally (8 %) and 2 couples separated (5 %). Fourteen patients discarded their embryos (36 %). Twenty-two patients’ (56 %) have embryos remaining in storage.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that embryo cryopreservation in female oncology patients gives a satisfactory live birth rate. However, there are concerns regarding cost-effectiveness, resulting from high disposal/non-usage of embryos, and further studies are required.

Keywords

IVF Cancer Embryo Fertility Preservation Cryopreservation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Finally, we would like to thank all of the IVF staff at the Edinburgh Reproductive and Endocrine Fertility Centre for their support with this study.

Authors roles

JB contributed to the conception and design, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafted the article. JT and ND contributed to conception and design, acquisition of data and were involved in the critical revision of the intellectual content of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M. GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction: a cochrane review. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:874–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Inany HG, Youssef MAFM, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J, et al. GnRH antagonists are safer than agonists: an update of a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azim Jr HA, Peccatori FA, de Azambuja E, Piccart MJ. Motherhood after breast cancer: searching for la dolce vita. Expert Rev Anticanc. 2011;11:287–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baynosa J, Westphal LM, Madrigrano A, Wapnir I. Timing of breast cancer treatments with oocyte retrieval and embryo cryopreservation. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:603–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berger BM, Ezcurra D, Alper MM. Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (cetrorelix) versus GnRH agonist treatment—an age and gonadotropin matched study in young normal responders. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:S235–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Besse D, Bellavia M, de Ziegler D and Wunder D. Psychological support in young women who contemplate emergency assisted reproductive technologies (ART) prior to chemo- and/or radiation-therapy. Swiss Med Wkly. 2010;140.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brzyski RG. Efficacy of postal communication with patients who have cryopreserved pre-embryos. Fertil Steril. 1998;70:949–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cobo A, Kuwayama M, Pérez S, Ruiz A, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Comparison of concomitant outcome achieved with fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes vitrified by the Cryotop method. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(6):1657–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Das M, Shehata F, Moria A, Holzer H, Son W-Y, Tulandi T. Ovarian reserve, response to gonadotropins, and oocyte maturity in women with malignancy. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:122–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Bree E, Makrigiannakis A, Askoxylakis J, Melissas J, Tsiftsis DD. Pregnancy after breast cancer. A comprehensive review. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101:534–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duffy CM, Allen SM, Clark MA. Discussions regarding reproductive health for young women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:766–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edgar DH, Gook DA. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling vs vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;in press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fasouliotis SJ, Schenker JG. Cryopreservation of embryos: medical, ethical, and legal issues. J Assist Reprod Gen. 1996;13:756–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forbes JF. Long-term effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast-cancer. Acta Oncol. 1992;31:243–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forman EJ, Anders CK, Behera MA. Pilot survey of oncologists regarding treatment-related infertility and fertility preservation in female cancer patients. 2009;54(4):203–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hery C, Ferlay J, Boniol M, Autier P. Changes in breast cancer incidence and mortality in middle-aged and elderly women in 28 countries with Caucasian majority populations. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1009–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holleb AI. Breast cancer and pregnancy. CA Cancer J Clin. 1965;15:182–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janerich DT. The fetal antigen hypothesis: cancers and beyond. Med Hypotheses. 2001;56:101–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kini S, Li HWR, Morrell D, Pickering S, Thong KJ. Anti-mullerian hormone and cumulative pregnancy outcome in in-vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Gen. 2010;27:449–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lohrisch C, Paltiel C, Gelmon K, Speers C, Taylor S, Barnett J, et al. Impact on survival of time from definitive surgery to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4888–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee S, Oktay K. Does higher starting dose of FSH stimulation with letrozole improve fertility cryopreservation outcomes in women with breast cancer? Fert Steril. 2012;98(4):961–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nachtigall RD, Mac Dougall K, Lee M, Harrington J, Becker G. What do patients want? Expectations and perceptions of IVF clinic information and support regarding frozen embryo disposition. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2069–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nagy ZP, Chang CC, Shapiro DB, Bernal DP, Elsner CW, Mitchell-Leef D, et al. Clinical evaluation of the efficiency of an oocyte donation program using egg cryo-banking. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(2):520–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oktay K, Buyuk E, Libertella N, Akar M, Rosenwaks Z. Fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: a prospective controlled comparison of ovarian stimulation with tamoxifen and letrozole for embryo cryopreservation. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4347–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Provoost V, Pennings G, De Sutter P, Gerris J, Van de Velde A, Dhont M. To continue or discontinue storage of cryopreserved embryos? Patients’ decisions in view of their child wish. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:861–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Riggs R, Mayer J, Dowling-Lacey D, Chi T-F, Jones E, Oehninger S. Does storage time influence postthaw survival and pregnancy outcome? An analysis of 11,768 cryopreserved human embryos. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:109–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robertson AD, Missmer SA, Ginsburg ES. Embryo yield after in vitro fertilization in women undergoing embryo banking for fertility preservation before chemotherapy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:588–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sonmezer M, Turkcuoglu I, Coskun U, Oktay K. Random-start controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for emergency fertility preservation in letrozole cycles. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(6):2125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stadtmauer LA, Duran H, Bocca S, Oehninger S. A comparison between gonadotropin releasing hormone (GNRH) agonist and antagonist protocols in women with good ovarian reserve undergoing IVF. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tschudin S, Bitzer J. Psychological aspects of fertility preservation in men and women affected by cancer and other life-threatening diseases. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:587–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Venn A, Watson L, Bruinsma F, Giles G, Healy D. Risk of cancer after use of fertility drugs with in-vitro fertilisation. Lancet. 1999;354:1586–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang D, Brown SE, Nguyen K, Reddy V, Brubaker C, Winslow KL. Live birth after the transfer of human embryos developed from cryopreserved oocytes harvested before cancer treatment. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(6):1469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Edinburgh Assisted Conception ProgrammeRoyal Infirmary of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations