Exploring the fertility potential of GV-retrieved oocytes for future fertility preservation

Author(s):  
Wai Leng, Jessie Phoon
2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 106-106
Author(s):  
Samantha Rose Dewald ◽  
Loki Natarajan ◽  
Irene Su

106 Background: Fertility is important to many young breast cancer survivors (YBCS), who face difficult decisions on whether to undergo fertility preservation prior to treatment. Because few longitudinal data assessing decisional regret are available, the objectives of this study were to assess longitudinal changes in decisional regret on fertility preservation following breast cancer diagnosis; determine if fertility preservation treatment decisions are related to decreased decisional regret. Methods: From 3 academic breast cancer programs, 169 YBCS younger than age 45 were recruited at diagnosis between 2009 and 2012 and followed prospectively for ovarian function. Participants completed questionnaires on fertility preservation choices and the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS) during study visits every 6 months for up to 5 years. DRS is scored 0 (no regret) to 100 (highest regret). DRS was dichotomized as none versus any decisional regret. Generalized linear models estimated the change in DRS over time and the association between patient characteristics and DRS. Results: Mean age at diagnosis was 38.7 (SD 4.8). Median total follow-up was 176 days (IQR 84 to 1415 days). Enrollment DRS was available for 89 women; 48% reported decisional regret about fertility preservation (median DRS=20). Participants worried about future fertility were more likely to report decisional regret (p=0.009). 31% underwent fertility preservation, but this was not associated with decisional regret (p=0.65). In repeated measures analysis for the entire cohort, no significant change in DRS occurred over this time period (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.7). Worry about future fertility remained significantly associated with DRS over time (OR 55.1, 95% CI 7.7-395.1). Conclusions: In a cohort of YBCS, experiencing decisional regret about fertility preservation persists for years after diagnosis. Those worried about future fertility are more likely to experience decisional regret regarding fertility preservation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind J McDougall ◽  
Lynn Gillam ◽  
Clare Delany ◽  
Yasmin Jayasinghe

Young children with cancer are treated with interventions that can have a high risk of compromising their reproductive potential. ‘Fertility preservation’ for children who have not yet reached puberty involves surgically removing and cryopreserving reproductive tissue prior to treatment in the expectation that strategies for the use of this tissue will be developed in the future. Fertility preservation for prepubertal children is ethically complex because the techniques largely lack proven efficacy for this age group. There is professional difference of opinion about whether it is ethical to offer such ‘experimental’ procedures. The question addressed in this paper is: when, if ever, is it ethically justifiable to offer fertility preservation surgery to prepubertal children? We present the ethical concerns about prepubertal fertility preservation, drawing both on existing literature and our experience discussing this issue with clinicians in clinical ethics case consultations. We argue that offering the procedure is ethically justifiable in certain circumstances. For many children, the balance of benefits and burdens is such that the procedure is ethically permissible but not ethically required; when the procedure is medically safe, it is the parents’ decision to make, with appropriate information and guidance from the treating clinicians. We suggest that clinical ethics support processes are necessary to assist clinicians to engage with the ethical complexity of prepubertal fertility preservation and describe the framework that has been integrated into the pathway of care for patients and families attending the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, Australia.


Author(s):  
Karen Lisa Smith ◽  
Clarisa Gracia ◽  
Anna Sokalska ◽  
Halle Moore

Female patients of reproductive age with cancer often require treatment that can compromise their future fertility. Treatment-related infertility is an important cancer survivorship issue and is associated with depression and diminished quality of life. Recent advances in reproductive health care provide the opportunity to preserve fertility prior to the initiation of cancer therapy. Clinical guidelines recommend that oncology providers counsel patients about the risk of treatment-related infertility and fertility preservation options, and that they refer those who are interested in fertility preservation to fertility specialists. Guidelines endorse the use of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) provided by reproductive endocrinologists to preserve fertility in young female patients with cancer. In addition, ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists may be considered for ovarian protection during chemotherapy. This article reviews currently available and emerging ART for fertility preservation in female patients of reproductive age with cancer and current data supporting the use of ovarian suppression for ovarian protection during chemotherapy in this population. We also review the uptake of fertility services and discuss barriers to fertility preservation in female patients of reproductive age with cancer.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip D Poorvu ◽  
A Lindsay Frazier ◽  
Angela M Feraco ◽  
Peter E Manley ◽  
Elizabeth S Ginsburg ◽  
...  

AbstractCancer treatments may compromise the fertility of children, adolescents, and young adults, and treatment-related infertility represents an important survivorship issue that should be addressed at diagnosis and in follow-up to ensure optimal decision-making, including consideration of pursuing fertility preservation. Risk of infertility varies substantially with patient and treatment factors. The ability to accurately assess fertility risk for many patients is hampered by limitations of the current literature, including heterogeneity in patient populations, treatments, and outcome measures. In this article, we review and synthesize the available data to estimate fertility risks from modern cancer treatments for both children and adult cancer survivors to enable clinicians to counsel patients about future fertility.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chung-Hoon Kim ◽  
Gyun-Ho Jeon

With improved survival rates among cancer patients, fertility preservation is now being recognized as an issue of great importance. There are currently several methods of fertility preservation available in female cancer patients and the options and techniques via assisted reproduction and cryopreservation are increasing, but some are still experimental and continues to be evaluated. The established means of preserving fertility include embryo cryopreservation, gonadal shielding during radiation therapy, ovarian transposition, conservative gynecologic surgery such as radical trachelectomy, donor embryos/oocytes, gestational surrogacy, and adoption. The experimental methods include oocyte cryopreservation, ovarian cryopreservation and transplantation, in vitro maturation, and ovarian suppression. With advances in methods for the preservation of fertility, providing information about risk of infertility and possible options of fertility preservation to all young patients with cancer, and discussing future fertility with them should be also considered as one of the important parts of consultation at the time of cancer diagnosis.


Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (12) ◽  
pp. 1340
Author(s):  
Claudia Mehedintu ◽  
Francesca Frincu ◽  
Andreea Carp-Veliscu ◽  
Ramona Barac ◽  
Dumitru-Cristinel Badiu ◽  
...  

Malignant hematological conditions have recognized an increased incidence and require aggressive treatments. Targeted chemotherapy, accompanied or not by radiotherapy, raises the chance of defeating the disease, yet cancer protocols often associate long-term gonadal consequences, for instance, diminished or damaged ovarian reserve. The negative effect is directly proportional to the types, doses, time of administration of chemotherapy, and irradiation. Additionally, follicle damage depends on characteristics of the disease and patient, such as age, concomitant diseases, previous gynecological conditions, and ovarian reserve. Patients should be adequately informed when proceeding to gonadotoxic therapies; hence, fertility preservation should be eventually regarded as a first-intention procedure. This procedure is most beneficial when performed before the onset of cancer treatment, with the recommendation for embryos or oocytes’ cryopreservation. If not feasible or acceptable, several options can be available during or after the cancer treatment. Although not approved by medical practice, promising results after in vitro studies increase the chances of future patients to protect their fertility. This review aims to emphasize the mechanism of action and impact of chemotherapy, especially the one proven to be gonadotoxic, upon ovarian reserve and future fertility. Reduced fertility or infertility, as long-term consequences of chemotherapy and, particularly, following bone marrow transplantation, is often associated with a negative impact of recovery, social and personal life, as well as highly decreased quality of life.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (22) ◽  
pp. 5247
Author(s):  
Marie-Madeleine Dolmans ◽  
Camille Hossay ◽  
Thu Yen Thi Nguyen ◽  
Catherine Poirot

Chemotherapy, pelvic radiotherapy and ovarian surgery have known gonadotoxic effects that can lead to endocrine dysfunction, cessation of ovarian endocrine activity and early depletion of the ovarian reserve, causing a risk for future fertility problems, even in children. Important determinants of this risk are the patient’s age and ovarian reserve, type of treatment and dose. When the risk of premature ovarian insufficiency is high, fertility preservation strategies must be offered to the patient. Furthermore, fertility preservation may sometimes be needed in conditions other than cancer, such as in non-malignant diseases or in patients seeking fertility preservation for personal reasons. Oocyte and/or embryo vitrification and ovarian tissue cryopreservation are the two methods currently endorsed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, yielding encouraging results in terms of pregnancy and live birth rates. The choice of one technique above the other depends mostly on the age and pubertal status of the patient, and personal and medical circumstances. This review focuses on the available fertility preservation techniques, their appropriateness according to patient age and their efficacy in terms of pregnancy and live birth rates.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 117955811984800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taichi Akahori ◽  
Dori C Woods ◽  
Jonathan L Tilly

Historically, approaches designed to offer women diagnosed with cancer the prospects of having a genetically matched child after completion of their cytotoxic treatments focused on the existing oocyte population as the sole resource available for clinical management of infertility. In this regard, elective oocyte and embryo cryopreservation, as well as autologous ovarian cortical tissue grafting posttreatment, have gained widespread support as options for young girls and reproductive-age women who are faced with cancer to consider. In addition, the use of ovarian protective therapies, including gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and sphingosine-1-phosphate analogs, has been put forth as an alternative way to preserve fertility by shielding existing oocytes in the ovaries in vivo from the side-effect damage caused by radiotherapy and many chemotherapeutic regimens. This viewpoint changed with the publication of now numerous reports that adult ovaries of many mammalian species, including humans, contain a rare population of oocyte-producing germ cells—referred to as female germline or oogonial stem cells (OSCs). This new line of study has fueled research into the prospects of generating new oocytes, rather than working with existing oocytes, as a novel approach to sustain or restore fertility in female cancer survivors. Here, we overview the history of work from laboratories around the world focused on improving our understanding of the biology of OSCs and how these cells may be used to reconstitute “artificial” ovarian tissue in vitro or to regenerate damaged ovarian tissue in vivo as future fertility-preservation options.


2020 ◽  
Vol 105 (10) ◽  
pp. 3335-3345
Author(s):  
Allison C Mayhew ◽  
Veronica Gomez-Lobo

Abstract Comprehensive care for transgender and gender nonbinary patients has been a priority established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Because pubertal suppression, gender-affirming hormone therapy, and antiandrogen therapy used alone or in combination during medical transition can affect gonadal function, understanding the effects these treatments have on fertility potential is important for practitioners caring for transgender and gender nonbinary patients. In this review, we outline the impacts of gender-affirming treatments on fertility potential and discuss the counseling and the treatment approach for fertility preservation and/or family building in transgender and gender nonbinary individuals.


2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (8) ◽  
pp. 739-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyne Noelle Chiniara ◽  
Christine Viner ◽  
Mark Palmert ◽  
Herbert Bonifacio

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the views of young people (YP) with gender dysphoria and their parents concerning fertility preservation and reproductive and life priorities.DesignA cross-sectional questionnaire-based study assessed knowledge of potential effects of treatments for gender dysphoria on fertility, current and future life priorities and preferences regarding future fertility/parenting options among YP and parents.ResultsA total of 79 YP (81% assigned female at birth [AFAB], 19% assigned male at birth [AMAB], aged 12–18 years, 68% between ages 16 years and 18 years) and 73 parents participated. The top current life priority for YP among eight options was being in good health; the least important priority was having children. Anticipated life priorities 10 years from now were ranked similarly. Parents’ rankings paralleled the YP responses; however, parents ranked having children as a significantly higher priority for AFAB compared with AMAB YP in 10 years. The majority of YP (66% AFAB, 67% AMAB) want to be a parent in the future. However, most do not envision having a biological child. A large majority (72% AFAB, 80% AMAB) were open to adoption. None of the YP surveyed pursued fertility preservation.ConclusionFertility is a low current and future life priority for transgender YP. The majority of YP wish to become parents but are open to alternative strategies for building a family. These data may explain in part the reported low rates of fertility preservation among this population. Further studies are needed to assess if life priorities change over time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document