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

2010 ◽  
Vol 149 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadav Michaan ◽  
Gila Ben-David ◽  
Dalit Ben-Yosef ◽  
Beni Almog ◽  
Ariel Many ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Ovarian Stimulation ◽  
Vitro Fertilization

scholarly journals Fertility Preservation Success Subsequent to Concurrent Aromatase Inhibitor Treatment and Ovarian Stimulation in Women With Breast Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (22) ◽  
pp. 2424-2429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kutluk Oktay ◽  
Volkan Turan ◽  
Giuliano Bedoschi ◽  
Fernanda S. Pacheco ◽  
Fred Moy
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Embryo Transfer ◽  
Ovarian Stimulation ◽  
Live Birth Rate ◽  
Embryo Cryopreservation ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Embryo Freezing

Purpose We have previously reported an approach to ovarian stimulation for the purpose of fertility preservation (FP) in women with breast cancer via embryo freezing with the concurrent use of letrozole. The aim of this study was to provide the pregnancy and FP outcomes when embryos generated with the same protocol are used. Patients and Methods In all, 131 women with stage ≤ 3 breast cancer underwent ovarian stimulation and received concurrent letrozole 5 mg per day before receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and cryopreserving embryos. Results Thirty-three of the 131 women underwent 40 attempts to transfer embryos to their own uterus (n = 18) or via the use of a gestational carrier (n = 22) at a mean age of 41.5 ± 4.3 years with a median 5.25 years after embryo cryopreservation. The overall live birth rate per embryo transfer was similar to the US national mean among infertile women of a similar age undergoing in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer (45.0 v 38.2; P = .2). Seven (38.8%) of the 18 pregnancies were twins with no higher-order pregnancies being encountered. No fetal anomalies or malformations were reported in 25 children after a mean follow-up of 40.4 ± 26.4 months. Seventeen of the 33 women attempting pregnancy had at least one child, translating into an FP rate of 51.5% per attempting woman. Conclusion Embryo cryopreservation after ovarian stimulation with the letrozole and follicle-stimulating hormone protocol preserves fertility in women with breast cancer and results in pregnancy rates comparable to those expected in a noncancer population undergoing in vitro fertilization.

Addressing reproductive health needs of cancer patients: The pilot experience of pioneering oncofertility clinic in Saudi Arabia.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 37-37
Author(s):  
Hayat Ahmed Alrabiah ◽  
Nafisa Abdelhafeiz ◽  
Ashwaq Al Olayan ◽  
Abdul-Rahman Jazieh
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Reproductive Health ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Stem Cell Transplant ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Pilot Experience

37 Background: Fertility and reproductive health issues are commonly encountered in cancer patients and survivors and unfortunately, they are not systematically addressed in many cancer care centers. We are reporting the initial experience in our dedicated Oncofertility Clinic that was established to address all reproductive and fertility issues for all oncology patients at our cancer center. Methods: We launched the first dedicated oncofertility clinic in the region on April 2018, staffed by a consultant of obstetrics and gynecology with the help of a team from in vitro fertilization (IVF) unit and a medical oncologist. It is held on a weekly basis and receives referral from medical oncology, hematology, stem cell transplant and radiation oncology. Eligible patients are males and premenopausal females going for chemotherapy or radiation therapy aiming for fertility preservation or cancer survivors who completed treatment and complaining of infertility problems. The clinic provides fertility preservation through the following procedures: Oocytes freezing (OF), in-vitro fertilization (IVF), sperm freezing, and ovarian transposition. Oncofertility care also includes management of sexual and hormonal dysfunction, and contraception methods. We are capturing the demographic, clinical data of all patients who were served in the clinic and the number of interventions and procedures that they underwent. Results: Between April 2018 and April of 2020, the clinic served 100 patients 60% were female, Median age was 35 years (16 -39). Diagnoses were distributed between breast cancer (36%), lymphoma (10%), and sickle cell anemia patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (10%). The table depicts the types and number of procedures performed on these patients. Conclusions: Our pilot experience revealed the critical need of such clinic to help patients in fertility preservation, management of symptoms of gonadal toxicity. Future plans include implementation of systematic screening approach cancer populations who will benefit from the services and monitor the long- term impact of the clinic on the served patients. [Table: see text]

State laws and regulations covering fertility preservation for cancer patients

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9509-9509
Author(s):  
S. T. Vadaparampil ◽  
K. M. Lowrey ◽  
C. A. Miree ◽  
S. S. Eidson ◽  
J. B. Watson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Keyword Search ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
Strong Argument ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
State Laws

9509 Background: Studies suggest up to 90% of cancer patients in their reproductive years may be at risk of permanent infertility. Yet, few utilize fertility preservation (FP) technologies. One barrier identified by patients and providers is the lack of insurance coverage for FP services. The goal of this study was to examine codified state policies related to infertility and assess their implications for cancer patients at risk for infertility due to treatment. Methods: A keyword search string was developed to identify statutes and administrative regulations of insurance coverage for FP in effect as of July 1, 2008, for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Laws addressing a more general population but pertaining to cancer patients (e.g., policies addressing in vitro fertilization), were compiled using Lexis-Nexis. Data were analyzed by reviewing the “plain meaning” of the text, legislative/administrative history, and annotated case law. Legal reasoning and common rules of statutory construction and legislative interpretation were used. Findings were recorded using qualitative and dichotomous, quantitative indicators. Quality assurance reviews of all data were conducted and findings were compared with secondary sources. Results: As of July 1, 2008, 15 states (29.4%) had laws relating to insurance coverage for infertility or in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. Nine states (17.6%) mandated some type of insurance coverage for infertility treatments, 5 of which defined infertility. One state (CA) mandated an offer of coverage for infertility, but did not define it. For laws concerning IVF, 7 states (13.7%) mandated coverage; 1 state (TX) mandated an offer of coverage; and 2 states (CA and IL) specifically excluded IVF from a mandatory offer of coverage. No state laws or regulations addressed insurance coverage for FP methods specific to cancer patients. Conclusions: There is a strong argument for policies that require coverage for infertility of cancer survivors and FP options prior to treatment similar to mandatory coverage requirements for other side effects experienced by cancer patients (e.g., lymphedema, alopecia). No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document