Emotions towards potential genetic offspring among oocyte donors: a cross-sectional study

Background The presence of maternal emotions towards the offspring resulting from assisted reproductive techniques (ART) has been previously reported in oocyte donors. However, there is limited information about the presence of these emotions in oocyte donors during the ART process and before pregnancy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the emotions of oocyte donor women towards the potential genetic offspring and to compare them with women treated with ART by using own oocytes. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted on 100 women who were divided into two groups of oocyte donors and those treated with ART and using autologous oocyte. At the time of oocyte retrieval. Using a validated questionnaire, the emotions toward potential offspring (EPO) resulting from ART and its three dimensions (including imagination, sense of ownership, and importance of treatment outcome) were measured and compared in two groups. Results Comparison of the EPO in the two groups showed that the emotions in all three dimensions were lower in oocyte donors than the other group (p < 0.001). Moreover, in oocyte donors, the mean score of the scale of the importance of treatment outcome dimension was higher than the other two scales (p < 0.001). Conclusion The results of the study showed that there is a significant emotion toward the potential offspring in oocyte donors. The presence of these emotions thus should be considered in formulating the ethical charter of ART by using oocyte donation.

Is It Possible to Expand Oocyte Donors by Decreasing Number of Oocytes for Own Use? Insights From a Large Single-Center Study

BackgroundCurrently, in China, only women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles can donate oocytes to others, but at least 15 oocytes must be kept for their own treatment. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether oocyte donation compromises the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of donors and whether it is possible to expand oocyte donors’ crowd.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study from August 2015 to July 2017 including a total of 2,144 patients, in which 830 IVF–embryo transfer (IVF-ET) patients were eligible for oocyte donation and 1,314 patients met all other oocyte donation criteria but had fewer oocytes retrieved (10–17 oocytes). All 830 patients were advised to donate approximately three to five oocytes to others and were eventually divided into two groups: the oocyte donation group (those who donated) and the control group (those who declined). The basic patient parameters and CLBR, as well as the number of supernumerary embryos after achieving live birth, were compared. These two factors were also compared in all patients (2,144) with oocyte ≥10.ResultsIn 830 IVF-ET patients who were eligible for oocyte donation, only the oocyte number was significantly different between two groups, and the donation group had more than the control group (25.49 ± 5.76 vs. 22.88 ± 5.11, respectively; p = 0.09). No significant differences were found between the two groups in other factors. The results indicate that the live birth rate in the donation group was higher than that in the control group (81.31% vs. 82.95%, p = 0.371), without significance. In addition, CLBR can still reach as high as 73% when the oocyte number for own use was 10. Supernumerary embryos also increased as the oocyte number increased in all patients (oocyte ≥10).ConclusionsCurrently, oocyte donation did not compromise CLBR, and oocyte donation can decrease the waste of embryos. In addition, in patients with 10 oocytes retrieved, the CLBR was still good (73%). Thus, it is possible to expand oocyte donors if the number of oocyte kept for own use was decreased from 15 to 10 after enough communication with patients.

P–548 High-risk genetic matching on gamete donors: complete genes analysis or genotyping test?

Study question What carrier screening test is better to reduce the risk of offspring being affected by recessive diseases when genetic matching is performed with gamete donors: complete or targeted genes analysis? Summary answer The use of complete genes analysis in the carrier screening of gamete donors reduces the risk of offspring being affected by recessive diseases. What is known already Legislative measures and scientific societies alike call for more research to be conducted into recessive diseases in gamete donors, in order to reduce reproductive risk. However, it is still unclear which genes should be studied and what type of data analysis, targeted or nontargeted, should be performed. Study design, size, duration This descriptive observational study of 923 oocyte donors and 895 semen donors was conducted from January 2017 to August 2020, at a private gamete bank. Participants/materials, setting, methods 1818 gamete donors screened by NGS and nontargeted analysis of the variants, the pathogenic variants detected were analysed to estimate the probability of high-risk genetic matching and to determine the results that would have been obtained if the three most commonly used genotyping tests for carriers of recessive diseases in ART had been applied. Main results and the role of chance The probability of high-risk genetic matching with gamete donation, screened by NGS and complete genes analysis, was 5.48%, versus the 0.57–2.8% that would have been obtained if the genotyping test had been applied. Of the 1739 total variants found, only 28.69% would have been detected by all three targeted tests considered and 45.66% of the variants would not have been detected by any of them. Limitations, reasons for caution The study was not based in the general population, was limited to a population of Mediterranean ethnic origin. In addition, our study only analysed 302 recessive diseases of the 1,300 plus that have been described. Wider implications of the findings: Our study highlights the considerable heterogeneity of the genotyping tests commonly used in ART, which present significant differences in their ability to detect pathogenic variants. Therefore, the use of genotyping tests for genetic matching is associated with a higher reproductive risk, compared to the use of complete genes analysis. Trial registration number Not applicable