Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Antral follicle responsiveness to FSH, assessed by the follicular output rate (FORT), is altered in Hodgkin’s lymphoma when compared with breast cancer candidates for fertility preservation

  • Fertility Preservation
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Oocyte and/or embryo cryopreservation after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) represents the most established method for female fertility preservation (FP) before cancer treatment. Whether patients suffering from malignancies, candidates for FP, have a normal ovarian capacity to respond to stimulation is controversial. Reduced responsiveness of antral follicle to exogenous FSH might be at play. The percentage of antral follicles that successfully respond to FSH administration may be estimated by the follicular output rate (FORT), which presumably reflects the health of granulosa cells. The present study aims at investigating whether the FORT differs between Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) and breast cancer (BC) patients.

Methods

Forty-nine BC and 33 HL patient candidates for FP using oocyte vitrification following COH were prospectively studied. FORT was calculated by the ratio between the pre-ovulatory follicle count (16–22 mm) on the day of oocyte triggering × 100/antral follicle count before initiation of the stimulation.

Results

Overall, women in the HL group were younger in comparison with BC patients (26.4 ± 3.9 vs 33.6 ± 3.3 years, p < 0.0001, respectively). The FORT was significantly decreased in patients with HL when compared with BC group (27.0 ± 18.8 vs 39.8 ± 18.9%, p = 0.004, respectively), further leading to a comparable number of oocytes vitrified (10.8 ± 5.9 vs 10.2 ± 7.7 oocytes, p = 0.7, respectively).

Conclusion

The present findings indicate that the percentage of antral follicles that successfully respond to FSH administration is reduced in HL when compared to BC patients, supporting the hypothesis of a detrimental effect of hemopathy on follicular health. In vitro experimentations might provide additional data to confirm this hypothesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:5–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation in patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapy or gonadectomy: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1214–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. ACOG. Committee opinion No. 584: oocyte cryopreservation. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:221–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Friedler S, Koc O, Gidoni Y, Raziel A, Ron-El R. Ovarian response to stimulation for fertility preservation in women with malignant disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:125–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Domingo J, Guillén V, Ayllón Y, Martínez M, Muñoz E, Pellicer A, et al. Ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in cancer patients is diminished even before oncological treatment. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:930–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cardozo ER, Thomson AP, Karmon AE, Dickinson KA, Wright DL, Sabatini ME. Ovarian stimulation and in-vitro fertilization outcomes of cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation compared to age matched controls: a 17-year experience. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:587–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Gallot V, Berwanger da Silva AL, Genro V, Grynberg M, Frydman N, Fanchin R. Antral follicle responsiveness to follicle-stimulating hormone administration assessed by the Follicular Output RaTe (FORT) may predict in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2012;27:1066–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Genro VK, Grynberg M, Scheffer JB, Roux I, Frydman R, Fanchin R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels are negatively related to Follicular Output RaTe (FORT) in normo-cycling women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2011;26:671–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cakmak H, Katz A, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. Effective method for emergency fertility preservation: random-start controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1673–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cobo A, Garcia-Velasco JA, Domingo J, Remohí J, Pellicer AI. vitrification of oocytes useful for fertility preservation for age-related fertility decline and in cancer patients? Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1485–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pal L, Leykin L, Schifren JL, Isaacson KB, Chang YC, Nikruil N, et al. Malignancy may adversely influence the quality and behaviour of oocytes. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 1998;13:1837–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Quintero RB, Helmer A, Huang JQ, Westphal LM. Ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in patients with cancer. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:865–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Klock SC, Zhang JX, Kazer RR. Fertility preservation for female cancer patients: early clinical experience. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:149–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Almog B, Azem F, Gordon D, Pauzner D, Amit A, Barkan G, et al. Effects of cancer on ovarian response in controlled ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:957–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Devesa M, Martínez F, Coroleu B, Rodríguez I, González C, Barri PN. Ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in women with cancer is as expected according to an age-specific nomogram. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:583–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Knopman JM, Noyes N, Talebian S, Krey LC, Grifo JA, Licciardi F. Women with cancer undergoing ART for fertility preservation: a cohort study of their response to exogenous gonadotropins. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1476–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Levin I, Almog B. Effect of cancer on ovarian function in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization for fertility preservation: a reappraisal. Curr Oncol Tor Ont. 2013;20:e1–3.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Michaan N, Ben-David G, Ben-Yosef D, Almog B, Many A, Pauzner D, et al. Ovarian stimulation and emergency in vitro fertilization for fertility preservation in cancer patients. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;149:175–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Quinn MM, Cakmak H, Letourneau JM, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. Response to ovarian stimulation is not impacted by a breast cancer diagnosis. Hum. Reprod. Oxf. Engl. 2017;32:568–74

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tulandi T, Holzer H. Effects of malignancies on the gonadal function. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:813–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Druckenmiller S, Goldman KN, Labella PA, Fino ME, Bazzocchi A, Noyes N. Successful oocyte cryopreservation in reproductive-aged cancer survivors. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:474–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pavone ME, Hirshfeld-Cytron J, Lawson AK, Smith K, Kazer R, Klock S. Fertility preservation outcomes may differ by cancer diagnosis. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2014;7:111–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lawrenz B, Fehm T, von Wolff M, Soekler M, Huebner S, Henes J, et al. Reduced pretreatment ovarian reserve in premenopausal female patients with Hodgkin lymphoma or non-Hodgkin-lymphoma—evaluation by using antimüllerian hormone and retrieved oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:141–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hamdine O, Eijkemans MJC, Lentjes EWG, Torrance HL, Macklon NS, Fauser BCJM, et al. Ovarian response prediction in GnRH antagonist treatment for IVF using anti-Müllerian hormone. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2015;30:170–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Iliodromiti S, Nelson SM. Ovarian response biomarkers: physiology and performance. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27:182–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang N, Hao C-F, Zhuang L-L, Liu X-Y, HF G, Liu S, et al. Prediction of IVF/ICSI outcome based on the follicular output rate. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27:147–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shima K, Kitayama S, Nakano R. Gonadotropin binding sites in human ovarian follicles and corpora lutea during the menstrual cycle. Obstet Gynecol. 1987;69:800–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gougeon A. Regulation of ovarian follicular development in primates: facts and hypotheses. Endocr Rev. 1996;17:121–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nakamura K, Sheps S, Arck PC. Stress and reproductive failure: past notions, present insights and future directions. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25:47–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Schenker JG, Meirow D, Schenker E. Stress and human reproduction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1992;45:1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fanchin R, Schonäuer LM, Cunha-Filho JS, Méndez Lozano DH, Frydman R. Coordination of antral follicle growth: basis for innovative concepts of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Semin Reprod Med. 2005;23:354–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cakmak H, Rosen MP. Random-start ovarian stimulation in patients with cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27:215–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Reproductive Medicine and Fertility Preservation, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Avenue du 14 Juillet, 93140, Bondy, France

    Charlotte Sonigo, Marjorie Comtet, Solene Duros & Michaël Grynberg

  2. Inserm U1185 Univ Paris-Sud, Université Paris Saclay, 94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France

    Charlotte Sonigo

  3. Department of Cytogenetic and Reproductive Biology, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Avenue du 14 Juillet, 93140, Bondy, France

    Christophe Sifer & Nathalie Sermondade

  4. University Paris XIII, 93000, Bobigny, France

    Michaël Grynberg

  5. Unité Inserm U1133, Université Paris-Diderot, 75013, Paris, France

    Michaël Grynberg

Authors
  1. Charlotte Sonigo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marjorie Comtet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Solene Duros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christophe Sifer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nathalie Sermondade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michaël Grynberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michaël Grynberg.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sonigo, C., Comtet, M., Duros, S. et al. Antral follicle responsiveness to FSH, assessed by the follicular output rate (FORT), is altered in Hodgkin’s lymphoma when compared with breast cancer candidates for fertility preservation. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 91–97 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1059-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1059-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation