Next Article in Journal
Biological Characterization and Clinical Relevance of Circulating Tumor Cells: Opening the Pandora’s Box of Multiple Myeloma
Previous Article in Journal
Hyperspectral Imaging for Tissue Classification after Advanced Stage Ovarian Cancer Surgery—A Pilot Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/cancers14061429
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Successful Pregnancies, Births, and Children Development Following Oocyte Cryostorage in Female Cancer Patients During 25 Years of Fertility Preservation

by
Eleonora Porcu
1,2,*,
Linda Cipriani
1,
Maria Dirodi
1,
Pierandrea De Iaco
3,4,
Anna Myriam Perrone
3,4,
Pier Luigi Zinzani
5,
Mario Taffurelli
6,
Claudio Zamagni
7,
Patrizia Maria Ciotti
1,
Leonardo Notarangelo
1,2,
Nilla Calza
1 and
Giuseppe Damiano
1
1
Infertility and IVF Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
2
Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
3
Division of Oncologic Gynecology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
4
Centro di Studio e Ricerca delle Neoplasie Ginecologiche (CSR), University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
5
Institute of Haematology “Seragnoli”, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
6
Breast Unit, Department of Woman and Child, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
7
“Addari” Medical Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(6), 1429; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14061429
Submission received: 24 December 2021 / Revised: 7 March 2022 / Accepted: 8 March 2022 / Published: 10 March 2022
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The study goal is to demonstrate that oocyte cryopreservation is a feasible and efficient option for fertility preservation in cancer patients through the comparison of in vitro fertilization treatments in nononcological patients.

Abstract

The preservation of fertility in cancer patients is a crucial aspect of modern reproductive medicine. Amenorrhea and infertility often occur after cancer therapy, worsening the quality of life. Cryopreservation of oocytes in young cancer patients is a therapeutic option for preserving fertility. A prospective study was conducted on 508 cancer patients who underwent oocyte cryopreservation to preserve fertility between 1996 and 2021 including the COVID-19 pandemic period. Patients underwent ovarian stimulation, followed by egg retrieval, and oocytes were cryopreserved by slow freezing or vitrification. Sixty-four thawing/warming cycles were performed. Survival, fertilization, pregnancy, and birth rate over the thawing/warming cycles were obtained. The data were compared with those from a group of 1042 nononcological patients who cryopreserved supernumerary oocytes. An average of 8.8 ± 6.9 oocytes were retrieved per cycle, and 6.1 ± 4.2 oocytes were cryopreserved. With their own stored oocytes, 44 patients returned to attempt pregnancy. From a total of 194 thawed/warmed oocytes, 157 survived (80%). In total, 100 embryos were transferred in 57 transfer/cycles, and 18 pregnancies were achieved. The pregnancy rate per transfer and pregnancy rate per patient were 31% and 41%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between oncological patients and nononcological patients. A total of 15 babies were born from oncological patients. Children born showed normal growth and development. One minor malformation was detected.

1. Introduction

The preservation of fertility in cancer patients has become mandatory in modern reproductive medicine and oncology. Amenorrhea and infertility often occur after cancer therapy, worsening the quality of life. It is well established that chemotherapy, especially alkylating agents, are gonadotoxic and may induce premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) [1,2]; therefore, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) recommend fertility preservation [3,4].
Oocyte cryopreservation is no longer experimental [5]; thus, egg storage is likely one of the best choices to preserve fertility in cancer patients [6,7,8,9,10,11]. Oocyte cryopreservation can be used alone or in association with GnRH analogue administration to improve patients’ opportunities [12]. Oocyte cryopreservation has a number of safety reports, and more than 3000 live births have been achieved with no evidence of an increase in child anomalies [13,14,15].
Regarding efficiency, cryopreserved oocytes’ fertilization, pregnancy, and live-birth outcomes are similar to those of fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) [10,16].
In the 1990s, researchers at the University of Bologna began investigations into human oocyte cryopreservation [15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28], including its clinical application in cancer patients [1,6,7,9,29,30]; they oversaw the first successful birth from autologous frozen oocytes obtained before ovariectomy from a woman with a borderline ovarian tumor [31]. The present study reports the large number of cancer patients who underwent oocyte cryopreservation to preserve fertility and the follow-up of the 15 children born so far.
The study goal is to demonstrate that oocyte cryopreservation is a feasible and efficient option for fertility preservation in cancer patients through the comparison of in vitro fertilization treatments’ results in nononcological patients.

2. Materials and Methods

In total, 508 cancer patients underwent oocyte cryopreservation at the Infertility and IVF Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy, to preserve fertility before chemotherapy between 1996 and 2021 including the COVID-19 pandemic period. The average age of the patients diagnosed with cancer was 29.4 ± 4.0 (m ± sd), coinciding with the average age at the time of cryopreservation. Immediately after diagnosis and before chemotherapy, the patients were directed to the fertility preservation program. Of the patients, 108 had breast cancer, 83 had gynecological disease, 135 had hematological cancer, and 182 had other cancers (17 meningiomas, 12 ependymoma, 16 craniopharyngiomas, 21 thyroid tumors, 25 colorectal cancers, 7 lung cancers, 21 melanomas, 10 multiple myeloma, 6 Ewing sarcomas, 6 cancers of Wilms, 8 idiopathic myelofibroids, 9 essential thrombocythemia, 6 lymphoepithelioma, 6 sweat gland tumors, and 12 astrocytomas).
Patients were followed up for 1 to 25 years. At the starting visit and at the follow-up, menstrual rhythm was evaluated, and the ovarian reserve was determined by measuring serum AMH, FSH, LH, estradiol, and ultrasound antral follicle count (AFC). The occurrence of spontaneous pregnancy was assessed as well.
Oncological patients were compared with a group of 1042 nononcological infertile patients who underwent IVF procedures and had cryopreserved supernumerary oocytes in the same study period. The infertility causes were as follows: unexplained, 123 (11.8%); tubal occlusion, 83 (8.0%); anovulatory factor, 79 (7.6%); endometriosis, 118 (11.4%); male infertility, 265 (25.4%); and male and female infertility association, 374 (35.8%). Supernumerary oocytes were cryopreserved during the same study period.
In both oncological and nononcological patients, ovarian stimulation was performed with gonadotropins (urinary or follitropin α) associated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist (leuprolide acetate) or antagonist (cetrorelix acetate). Ovulation was triggered with urinary or recombinant hCG.
Patients with hormone-sensitive tumors were stimulated with aromatase inhibitor cotreatment (letrozole 5 mg/die) to mitigate serum estradiol rise [29]. Monitoring of ovarian stimulation was performed with seriated estradiol blood tests and pelvic ultrasounds. When follicles reached a diameter of 16 mm and the estradiol serum levels were considered appropriate, ovulation was triggered with hCG 36 h prior to transvaginal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval.
Two cryopreservation techniques were utilized for oocyte preservation: slow freezing/rapid thawing and vitrification/warming. The first was utilized from 1996 to 2006, while the second one was utilized since 2006 up to today. Of all cycles, 69 were performed utilizing slow freezing and 439 were performed with vitrification. The slow-freezing protocol was previously reported in [17]; vitrification was performed according to Kuwayama’s protocol [32].
Briefly, slow freezing reduces intracellular ice formation and structural damage due to solute concentrations and osmotic stress, since oocytes are slowly cooled to below the freezing point using low concentrations of cryoprotectant agents (e.g., propanediol, sugars). During vitrification procedures, after a brief incubation into a solution containing a high concentration of cryoprotectant agents, oocytes are plunged directly into liquid nitrogen; in this way, they are “vitrified” without forming ice crystals. The term “vitrification” refers to the transformation from a liquid to a solid in the absence of crystallization, resulting in ‘‘glass formation” [33].
Forty-four patients returned to thaw their oocytes after recovery from cancer. They underwent endometrial preparation with 300 mcg/die hemihydrate estradiol patches from the first day of the menstrual cycle and continued until the pregnancy test was performed. Administration of micronized progesterone (1200 mg/die) vaginally was initiated 2 days prior to embryo transfer (day 2). Oocytes were thawed referring to the corresponding freezing protocol of slow freezing or vitrification and rapid thawing or warming, respectively.
If pregnancy was achieved, administration of estradiol and progesterone was maintained until gestational week 10.
In oocyte thawing cycles, all surviving metaphase II oocytes were inseminated through intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryos were cultured 2 days prior to intrauterine transfers.
One patient requiring transmyometrial embryo transfer due to squamous cervix cancer underwent a trachelectomy and lymphadenectomy, and embryo transfer was performed in general anesthesia using a Towako needle set (Cook).
Following successful pregnancies, deliveries and births were carried out by gynecologists and clinical psychologists, who assessed the course and outcome of the pregnancies through a structured questionnaire administered by phone calls [34].
The follow-up duration was in line with the data presented in the national and international registers [35]. In cases where an anomaly was suspected, direct consultations were conducted with family doctors and pediatricians.
Congenital anomalies and stages of psychophysical development were compared with the European guidelines for the surveillance of congenital anomalies (EUROCAT) and the new tables of child growth standards of the World Health Organization, respectively [35].

Statistical Analysis

Data are expressed as mean ± sd (standard deviation).
Student’s t-test was used to compare age; FSH; AMH; AFC; follicle size; E2; oocytes retrieved, cryopreserved, and thawed/warmed; and embryos transferred.
The chi-square test was used for oocyte survival, fertilization, embryo transfer, pregnancy, miscarriage, and newborn rates.
p-Values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
All tests performed were validated through IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27.0).
Among all nononcological patients, comparing with oncological patients was performed by selecting those who cryopreserved supernumerary oocytes on the same day as an oncological patient.

3. Results

Five hundred and eight patients were enrolled in the study, and a flowchart of the follow-up is presented in Figure 1.
Of the patients, 70/508 (14%) did not complete the follow-up required by the study, 6/508 (1.2%) deceased (2 had hematological cancer, 1 had astrocytoma, 1 had ependymoma, and 2 had breast cancer), and 432/508 (85%) completed the follow-up. In total, 276/432 (64%) patients resumed regular menstruation after chemotherapy, 75/432 (17%) conceived spontaneously, and 201/432 (46%) were not yet interested in becoming pregnant. Further, 156/432 (36%) had premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) after gonadotoxic treatment; among them, 44/156 (28%) returned to use their oocytes, while 112/156 (72%) were not yet interested in becoming pregnant.
The average time between oocyte cryopreservation and the last follow-up was 9.3 ± 6.8 years. In patients resuming menses, the cycle reappeared 10.5 ± 3.7 months after antineoplastic treatments ended.
Table 1 describes the characteristics of the oncological patients at the time of cryostorage (t0) and at follow-up (t1). Age was 29.4 ± 4 at cryostorage and 37.6 ± 5 at follow-up. At follow-up, a statistically significant reduction in ovarian reserve was observed, as assessed with AMH (0.7 ± 0.3 vs. 1.6 ±0.8), AFC (2.8 ± 1.6 vs. 7.1 ± 5), and FSH (34.5 ± 17.4 vs. 13.1 ± 8.1).
In Table 1, age and ovarian reserve parameters were also compared between patients who resumed menstruation after chemotherapy (Group a) and those who went into menopause (Group b). In Group a, a further division was made between patients who had a spontaneous conception (a1) and those who postponed the search for pregnancy (a2). In Group b, patients who thawed the oocytes (b1) were compared with those who went into menopause but did not require thawing (b2).
The reduction of ovarian reserve was by far lower in patients resuming normal menses after chemotherapy with respect to POI women.
Patients’ basal characteristic, results of hormonal stimulation, and oocytes’ features were compared with those of a group of nononcological infertile patients who cryopreserved supernumerary oocytes during the study period (Table 2).
No significant differences were seen between cancer and nononcological patients as regards age, ovarian reserve, number of follicles developed, peak estradiol levels, and number of oocytes retrieved and cryopreserved for similar periods of time.
No complications (OHSS, bleeding, infection) occurred after egg retrieval in either group.
Among the 156 women who had premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) after gonadotoxic treatment, 44 patients (28%) returned to use their oocytes and attempt a pregnancy after recovering from their disease and with the agreement of their oncologists. Among these patients, 18 had hematologic cancer, 11 had gynecological disease, 4 had breast cancer, and 11 had other cancers. The results of oocyte thawing/warming cycles were compared with those for the group of nononcological patients who used their supernumerary oocytes cryostored during the study period (Table 3). No significant differences were seen. Pregnancy and birth rates were almost the same in the two groups, as well have normal children growth and development. One single case of minor malformation was seen in the group of oncological patients. No malformations were detected in the nononcological group.
The numbers of oocytes cryostored, used, or still stored in oncological versus nononcological patients are reported in Table 4.
Table 5 shows the long-term follow-up of children conceived with cryopreserved oocytes in cancer patients. One single case of minor malformation (labiopalatoschisis) was registered. All the children had normal growth and development. Two children have already shown regular puberty.
Live birth case reports in cancer patients who preserved fertility through oocyte cryopreservation are presented in Table 6.

4. Discussion

In the field of assisted reproduction, fertility preservation has become a fundamental strategy, as it offers women the possibility of becoming pregnant after gonadotoxic treatments for cancer or age-related fertility decline. Oocyte cryopreservation has produced excellent results by allowing women who have undergone gonadotoxic treatments for cancer to become pregnant with embryos from their own oocytes. International guidelines prescribe that counseling should be offered to fertile women with a cancer diagnosis [46]. In some countries, including Italy, fertility preservation is free of charge for women facing cancer treatment involving the risk of sterility.
It is not so easy to establish a percentage of absolute infertility after antineoplastic treatments. One of the earliest studies was by Sauer et al. (1994) [47], who found that cancer survivors experience high spontaneous abortion rates following oocyte donation embryo transfers. Chow et al. (2016) [48] demonstrate that women who have received chemotherapy have lower pregnancy rates from natural conceptions and reduced live birth weights compared with sibling controls.
According to the results of the present study, the rate of premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) was 36%. On the other hand, in patients resuming regular cycles, only 27% had spontaneous natural pregnancy. Similar results were obtained in a previous study [1] with 29% of patients having menstrual irregularity after chemotherapy. The spontaneous pregnancy rate was 22% with healthy children in patients who resumed menstruation at the end of the treatment.
The low number of POI patients (44/156, 28%) requiring their stored oocytes to achieve a pregnancy is really surprising. The majority of POI women (112/156, 72%) did not attempt to become pregnant, and their oocytes are still stored in our cryobank.
This low rate of return may be related to the nature of cancer, its recovery time, and reproductive desire. Some patients do not survive until their healing. For those surviving, important personal evaluations, such as age and partner status, must be taken into account.
The low rate of patients returning to use their oocytes is consistent with that published in other studies [49,50].
Women’s age plays a crucial role in postchemotherapy infertility. In fact, age at the time of chemotherapy inversely correlates with the likelihood of postchemotherapy amenorrhea [1]. In addition, infertility is closely related to the ovarian reserve at the time of chemotherapy and the type of chemotherapy used.
Chemotherapeutic treatments can be gonadotoxic to primordial follicles, as they cause DNA strand breaks, induce apoptosis, and reduce stromal function within the ovary. The most damaging chemotherapies include alkylating chemotherapies (cyclophosphamide, busulfan, melphalan, procarbazine) and their combinations. In particular, the association of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and (F) 5-fluorouracil causes amenorrhea in 4% to 40% of women aged <35 years and 80% to 100% of women aged >35 years [51].
Radiation therapy may also have an impact on the fertility of cancer survivors depending on the cumulative dose of radiation, location of the treatment, and age of the patient. This reduction in ovarian reserve may cause immediate infertility and menopause after cancer treatment. Prepubescent girls have a better chance of achieving a healthy reproductive future after cancer treatment when compared with older women. Complete ovarian failure occurs with a dose of 20 Gy in women under 40 years of age, while the mean lethal dose for the human oocyte is estimated to be 2 Gy. In addition, pelvic radiation can permanently damage uterine elasticity and the musculature and vasculature of the endometrium, which may result in increased risk of miscarriage, midtrimester pregnancy loss, preterm birth, and low birth weight regardless of the age of exposure. One of the options to prevent POI due to pelvic radiation therapy (PRT) is ovarian transposition (OT), a simple technique in which the ovaries are placed outside the radiation field, thereby reducing the exposure to radiation and total dose of irradiation [2,36].
Centers offering a fertility preservation program should ensure close cooperation between reproductive gynecologists and oncologists to take care of the oncology patient as quickly as possible.
The present study reports a wide clinical experience and long-term follow-up of children after oocyte cryopreservation in cancer patients at risk of premature ovarian failure, supporting its use as an efficient fertility preservation technique.
The first live birth resulting from oocyte cryopreservation was reported by Chen in 1986 [37]. Since then, oocyte cryopreservation technology has significantly improved, making it a viable option for fertility preservation—particularly in oncology.
A total of 22 live births have been reported so far in cancer patients who preserved fertility through oocyte cryopreservation [7,10,11,31,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,50,52,53].
The present study adds 15 children born from cancer patients thanks to their oocytes cryostored before antineoplastic therapy. In addition, follow-up results are reassuring about children’s health.
In the present study, offspring’s main development endpoints—such as the teething, walking, language, and educational stages—were reported. The oldest babies are two female twins who are now nearly 14. The only malformation observed was one case of labiopalatoschisis in a female newborn, which was surgically corrected. All her perinatal scores were normal at birth and followed by normal growth.
In this study, assisted reproduction with cryopreserved oocytes appears to have the same efficient and safe results both in cancer and in nononcological patients.
In cancer patients, ovarian stimulation should be tailored according to age, basal AMH (anti-Müllerian hormone), ultrasound AFC (antral follicle count), and possible hormone-sensitive tumor malignancy type [54].
Aromatase inhibitor cotreatment during ovarian stimulation has been advocated to potentially mitigate the effects of elevated serum estradiol levels [29].
Available data show a substantially unchanged recurrence risk in patients who underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins and an aromatase inhibitor. A prospective controlled study evaluated the recurrence risk in 79 women with breast cancer who underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins and letrozole for embryo or oocyte cryopreservation compared with 136 breast cancer patients who underwent no fertility preservation procedure. The mean follow-up after chemotherapy was 23.4 months in the COS group and 33.05 months in the nononcological group. The recurrence rate and relapse-free survival were not significantly different between the two groups (respectively, p = 0.26 and p = 0.36; hazard ratio = 0.56) [55].
A retrospective cohort study by Turan [56] that involved 78 women aged ≤45 years diagnosed with stage ≤3 breast cancer evaluated the recurrence risk according to the number of ovarian stimulation cycles performed (1 vs. 2). No significant differences in recurrence rates were detected between the groups (0 of 17 in the two cycles vs. 2 of 49 in the single cycles) after a mean follow-up interval of 58.5 ± 13.6 months, whereas the mean numbers of oocytes retrieved and embryos generated were statistically significantly higher in the two-cycle group.
Hence, the ASCO guidelines now support the use of aromatase in women with hormone-sensitive cancers [3].
In accordance with the literature, our studies show that the use of an aromatase inhibitor during ovarian stimulation upholds oocyte cryopreservation as a viable technique for patients with hormone-sensitive tumors as well [29,30].
Timing of fertility preservation treatment in cancer patients is also particularly important as it should be performed before gonadotoxic treatments and after surgery.
Ovarian stimulation can be accomplished in 2–3 weeks, but standard ovulation protocols start within day 3 of the menstrual cycle. Recent data indicate that random stimulation can also be successful when the time to chemotherapy is reduced [3].
This study strengthens the existing literature on oncofertility and supports the importance of oocyte cryopreservation in oncological patients following the correct protocol and timing. Moreover, it provides new information about the long-term growth and development of babies born after oocyte cryopreservation in cancer patients, offering additional and crucial elements to be considered in fertility preservation counselling.
Proposals for future research include a longer follow-up of cancer patients’ offspring’s growth and long-term health.
To our knowledge, this is the first paper analyzing the long-term development of babies born after oocyte cryopreservation in mothers with cancer prior.
While being one of the longest-running studies on the topic, the results might be compromised by the evolution of technologies and protocols over the last 25 years.
Cryopreservation of oocytes has no longer been considered experimental since 2013 [5]. The vitrification technique has led to excellent results in terms of survival rates (80–95%) as well as high fertilization and implantation rates [41,57]. Cryopreservation of oocytes through vitrification is an effective, simple, safe, and efficient technique for fertility preservation in women who are about to start oncological treatments with gonadotoxic impact. Compared with slow freezing, oocyte vitrification provides better results, according to a recent meta-analysis [58].
A limitation to the study might be the small number of pregnancies and births, which, nevertheless, are due to the surprisingly low number of patients (44, i.e., 9%) choosing to use their oocytes stored before oncotherapies.
On the other hand, the numbers of pregnancies and births are not so small in themselves as these are the largest series of this kind ever obtained in a single study setting of cancer patients.
However, further confirmation of the present data in large cohorts is mandatory [59,60].
A limitation to the field could be the lack of a registry for oocyte cryopreservation. It would be useful to collect more data and fill registries with obstetrical outcomes of cancer survivors who used their previously cryopreserved oocytes.

5. Conclusions

Wide safety data regarding oocyte cryopreservation are currently being accumulated to improve counseling of patients desiring pregnancy. Fertility preservation using oocyte cryopreservation appears to be a viable option for cancer patients at risk of ovarian failure, allowing women to achieve pregnancies and births and improve their quality of life [35].
Collaboration among reproductive physicians, biologists, endocrinologists, oncologists, surgeons, psychologists, and gynecologists is necessary to ensure the best fertility preservation program for each patient.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.P., G.D., P.M.C. and L.C.; methodology, E.P., G.D. and L.C.; software, G.D. and L.N.; validation, E.P.; formal analysis, E.P., G.D. and L.C.; investigation, E.P., L.C., M.D., G.D., L.N., N.C., P.M.C., P.D.I., A.M.P., P.L.Z., M.T. and C.Z.; resources, G.D. and L.C.; data curation, E.P., G.D. and L.C.; writing—original draft preparation, E.P., G.D. and L.C.; writing—review and editing, E.P., G.D. and L.C.; visualization, E.P.; supervision, E.P.; project administration, E.P.; funding acquisition, E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health “Fertility Preservation in Gonadotoxic Treatments”, grant number RF-2011-02348826.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi (protocol code: 261/2016/O/Sper, 13 December 2016).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Francesca Sonia Labriola for the precious contribution to the language review and corrections of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Longhi, A.; Porcu, E.; Petracchi, S.; Versari, M.; Conticini, L.; Bacci, G. Reproductive functions in female patients treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for localized osteosarcoma of the extremity. Cancer Am. Cancer Soc. 2000, 89, 1961–1965. [Google Scholar]
  2. Donnez, J.; Dolmans, M.-M. Fertility preservation in women. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 1657–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Loren, A.W.; Mangu, P.B.; Beck, L.N.; Brennan, L.; Magdalinski, A.J.; Partridge, A.H.; Quinn, G.; Wallace, W.H.; Oktay, K. Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 2500–2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation in patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapy or gonadectomy: A committee opinion. Fertil. Steril. 2013, 100, 1214–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Reproductive Technologists. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: A guideline. Fertil. Steril. 2013, 99, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Porcu, E.; Fabbri, R.; Damiano, G.; Giunchi, S.; Fratto, R.; Ciotti, P.; Venturoli, S.; Flamigni, C. Clinical experience and applications of oocyte cryopreservation. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 2000, 169, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Porcu, E.; Fabbri, R.; Damiano, G.; Fratto, R.; Giunchi, S.; Venturoli, S. Oocytes cryopreservation in oncological patients. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2004, 113, S14–S16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Porcu, E.; Venturoli, S. Progress with oocyte cryopreservation. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 18, 273–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Porcu, E.; Bazzocchi, A.; Notarangelo, L.; Paradisi, R.; Landolfo, C.; Venturoli, S. Human oocyte cryopreservation in infertility and oncology. Curr. Opin. Endocrinol. Diabetes Obes. 2008, 15, 529–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Noyes, N.; Labella, P.A.; Grifo, J.; Knopman, J.M. Oocyte cryopreservation: A feasible fertility preservation option for reproductive age cancer survivors. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2010, 27, 495–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Druckenmiller, S.; Goldman, K.N.; Labella, P.A.; Fino, M.E.; Bazzocchi, A.; Noyes, N. Successful Oocyte Cryopreservation in Reproductive-Aged Cancer Survivors. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 127, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cipriani, L.; Porcu, E.; Damiano, G.; Sacilotto, F.; Cillo, G.; Roncarati, I.; Vergine, F. AMH, AFC and FSH long term follow up before and after chemotherapy in patients undergoing temporary ovarian suppression with GnRH analogs. Hum. Reprod. 2019, 34, 356–357. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chian, R.C.; Huang, J.Y.; Tan, S.L.; Lucena, E.; Saa, A.; Rojas, A.; Ruvalcaba Castellón, L.A.; García Amador, M.I.; Montoya Sarmiento, J.E. Obstetric and perinatal outcome in 200 infants conceived from vitrified oocytes. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2008, 16, 608–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wennerholm, U.B.; Soderstrom-Anttila, V.; Bergh, C.; Aittomäki, K.; Hazekamp, J.; Nygren, K.G.; Selbing, A.; Loft, A. Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: A systematic review of outcome data. Hum. Reprod. 2009, 24, 2158–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Noyes, N.; Porcu, E.; Borini, A. Over 900 oocyte cryopreservation babies born with no apparent increase in congenital anomalies. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2009, 18, 769–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Goldman, K.N.; Noyes, N.L.; Knopman, J.M.; McCaffrey, C.; Grifo, J.A. Oocyte efficiency: Does live birth rate differ when analyzing cryopreserved and fresh oocytes on a per-oocyte basis? Fertil. Steril. 2013, 100, 712–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Porcu, E.; Fabbri, R.; Seracchioli, R.; Ciotti, P.M.; Magrini, O.; Flamigni, C. Birth of a healthy female after intracytoplasmic sperm injection of cryopreserved human oocytes. Fertil. Steril. 1997, 68, 724–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fabbri, R.; Porcu, E.; Marsella, T.; Primavera, M.R.; Seracchioli, R.; Ciotti, P.M.; Magrini, O.; Venturoli, S.; Flamigni, C. Oocyte cryopreservation. Hum. Reprod. 1998, 13 (Suppl. 4), 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Porcu, E.; Fabbri, R.; Petracchi, S.; Seracchioli, R.; Ciotti, P.M.; Flamigni, C. Ongoing pregnancy after ICSI of epididymal spermatozoa into cryopreserved human oocytes. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 1999, 16, 283–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Porcu, E.; Fabbri, R.; Petracchi, S.; Ciotti, P.M.; Flamigni, C. Ongoing pregnancy after intracytoplasmic injection of testicular spermatozoa into cryopreserved human oocytes. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1999, 180, 1044–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Porcu, E. Freezing Of Oocytes. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 1999, 11, 297–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fabbri, R.; Porcu, E.; Marsella, T.; Rocchetta, G.; Venturoli, S.; Flamigni, C. Human oocyte cryopreservation: New perspectives regarding oocyte survival. Hum. Reprod. Mar. 2001, 16, 411–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Porcu, E. Oocyte freezing. Semin. Reprod. Med. 2001, 19, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Porcu, E.; Contro, E.; Damiano, G.; Paradisi, R.; Venturoli, S. Pediatric outcome of childrens born from cryopreserved oocytes, embryos or semen | Niños concebidos mediante embriones, ovocitos o semen criopreservados. Cuad Med. Reprod. 2004, 10, 105–125. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ciotti, P.M.; Porcu, E.; Notarangelo, L.; Magrini, O.; Mazzocchi, A.; Venturoli, S. Meiotic spindle recovery is faster in vitrification of human oocytes compared to slow freezing. Fertil. Steril. 2009, 91, 2399–2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Borini, A.; Setti, P.E.L.; Anserini, P.; De Luca, R.; De Santis, L.; Porcu, E.; La Sala, G.B.; Ferraretti, A.; Bartolotti, T.; Coticchio, G.; et al. Multicenter observational study on slow-cooling oocyte cryopreservation: Clinical outcome. Fertil. Steril. 2010, 94, 1662–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Setti, P.E.L.; Porcu, E.; Patrizio, P.; Vigiliano, V.; de Luca, R.; D’Aloja, P.; Spoletini, R.; Scaravelli, G. Human oocyte cryopreservation with slow freezing versus vitrification. Results from the National Italian Registry data, 2007–2011. Fertil. Steril. 2014, 102, 90–95.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Porcu, E.; Tranquillo, M.L.; Notarangelo, L.; Ciotti, P.M.; Calza, N.; Zuffa, S.; Mori, L.; Nardi, E.; Dirodi, M.; Cipriani, L.; et al. High-security closed devices are efficient and safe to protect human oocytes from potential risk of viral contamination during vitrification and storage especially in the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2021, 38, 681–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Revelli, A.; Porcu, E.; Levi Setti, P.E.; Delle Piane, L.; Merlo, D.F.; Anserini, P. Is letrozole needed for controlled ovarian stimulation in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer? Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2013, 29, 993–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Porcu, E.; Cillo, G.M.; Cipriani, L.; Sacilotto, F.; Notarangelo, L.; Damiano, G.; Dirodi, M. RONCARATII Impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on ovarian reserve and fertility preservation outcomes in young women with breast cancer. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2019, 10, 1007–1108. [Google Scholar]
  31. Porcu, E.; Venturoli, S.; Damiano, G.; Ciotti, P.; Notarangelo, L.; Paradisi, R.; Moscarini, M.; Ambrosini, G. Healthy twins delivered after oocyte cryopreservation and bilateral ovariectomy for ovarian cancer. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2008, 17, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kuwayama, M. Highly efficient vitrification for cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos. Cryotop Method 2007, 67, 73–80. [Google Scholar]
  33. Massarotti, C.; Scaruffi, P.; Lambertini, M.; Remorgida, V.; Del Mastro, L.; Anserini, P. State of the art on oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients: A critical review of the literature. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2017, 57, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Andrei, F.; Salvatori, P.; Cipriani, L.; Damiano, G.; Dirodi, M.; Trombini, E.; Rossi, N.; Porcu, E. Self-efficacy, coping strategies and quality of life in women and men requiring assisted reproductive technology treatments for anatomical or non-anatomical infertility. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2021, 264, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lanzoni, M.; Morris, J.; Garne, E.; Loane, M.; Kinsner-Ovaskainen, A. European Monitoring of Congenital Anomalies: JRC-EUROCAT Report on Statistical Monitoring of Congenital Anomalies (2006–2015); EUR 29010 EN.; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017; ISBN 978-92-79-77305-1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hoekman, E.J.; Broeders, E.A.B.J.; Louwe, L.A.; Nout, R.A.; Jansen, F.W.; de Kroon, C.D. Ovarian function after ovarian transposition and additional pelvic radiotherapy: A systematic review. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 45, 1328–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, C. Pregnancy after Human Oocyte Cryopreservation. Lancet 1986, 1, 884–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, D.; Brown, S.E.; Nguyen, K.; Reddy, V.; Brubaker, C.; Winslow, K.L. Live birth after the transfer of human embryos developed from cryopreserved oocytes harvested before cancer treatment. Fertil. Steril. 2007, 87, 1469.e1–1469.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sánchez-Serrano, M.; Crespo, J.; Mirabet, V.; Cobo, A.C.; Escribá, M.-J.; Simón, C.; Pellicer, A. Twins born after transplantation of ovarian cortical tissue and oocyte vitrification. Fertil. Steril. 2010, 93, 268.e11–268.e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, M.K.; Lee, D.R.; Han, J.E.; Kim, Y.S.; Lee, W.S.; Won, H.J.; Kim, J.W.; Yoon, T.K. Live birth with vitrified-warmed oocytes of a chronic myeloid leukemia patient nine years after allogenic bone marrow transplantation. J. Assist. Reprod. Gen. 2011, 28, 1167–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Garcia-Velasco, J.A.; Domingo, J.; Cobo, A.; Martinez, M.; Carmona, L.; Pellicer, A. Five years’ experience using oocyte vitrification to preserve fertility for medical and nonmedical indications. Fertil. Steril. 2013, 99, 1994–1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Martinez, M.; Rabadan, S.; Domingo, J.; Cobo, A.; Pellicer, A.; Garcia-Velasco, J.A. Obstetric outcome after oocyte vitrification and warming for fertility preservation in women with cancer. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2014, 29, 722–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Da Motta, E.L.A.; Bonavita, M.; Alegretti, J.R.; Chehin, M.; Serafini, P. Live birth after 6 years of oocyte vitrification in a survivor with breast cancer. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2014, 31, 1397–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Alvarez, M.; Solé, M.; Devesa, M.; Fábregas, R.; Boada, M.; Tur, R.; Coroleu, B.; Veiga, A.; Barri, P.N. Live birth using vitrifiedwarmed oocytes in invasive ovarian cancer: Case report and literature review. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2014, 28, 663–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Doyle, J.O.; Richter, K.S.; Lim, J.; Stillman, R.J.; Graham, J.R.; Tucker, M.J. Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil. Steril. 2016, 105, 459–466.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. WHO Child Growth Standards: Growth Velocity Based on Weight, Length and Head Circumference: Methods and Development; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sauer, M.V.; Paulson, R.J.; Ary, B.A.; Lobo, R.A. Three hundred cycles of oocyte donation at the University of Southern California: Assessing the effect of age and infertility diagnosis on pregnancy and implantation rates. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 1994, 11, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chow, E.J.; Stratton, K.L.; Leisenring, W.; Oeffinger, K.C.; Sklar, C.A.; Donaldson, S.S.; Ginsberg, J.P.; Kenney, L.B.; Levine, J.M.; Robison, L.L.; et al. Pregnancy after chemotherapy in male and female survivors of childhood cancer treated between 1970 and 1999: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study cohort. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Cobo, A.; García-Velasco, J.; Domingo, J.; Pellicer, A.; Remohí, J. Elective and Onco-fertility preservation: Factors related to IVF outcomes. Hum. Reprod. 2018, 33, 2222–2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Specchia, C.; Baggiani, A.; Immediata, V.; Ronchetti, C.; Cesana, A.; Smeraldi, A.; Scaravelli, G.; Levi-Setti, P.E. Oocyte Cryopreservation in Oncological Patients: Eighteen Years Experience of a Tertiary Care Referral Center. Front. Endocrinol. 2019, 10, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Waimey, K.E.; Smith, B.M.; Confino, R.; Jeruss, J.S.; Pavone, M.E. Understanding Fertility in Young Female Cancer Patients. J. Women’s Health 2015, 24, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Perrin, J.; Saias-Magnan, J.; Broussais, F.; Bouabdallah, R.; D’Ercole, C.; Courbiere, B. First French live-birth after oocyte vitrification performed before chemotherapy for fertility preservation. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2016, 33, 663–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Alvarez, R.M.; Ramanathan, P. Fertility preservation in female oncology patients: The influence of the type of cancer on ovarian stimulation response. Hum. Reprod. 2018, 33, 2051–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Lefebvre, T.; Mirallie, S.; Leperlier, F.; Reignier, A.; Barriere, P.; Freour, T. Ovarian reserve and response to stimulation in women undergoing fertility preservation according to malignancy type. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2018, 37, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Azim, A.A.; Costantini-Ferrando, M.; Oktay, K. Safety of fertility preservation by ovarian stimulation with letrozole and Gonadotropins in patients with breast cancer: A prospective controlled study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 2630–2635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Turan, V.; Bedoschi, G.; Moy, F.; Oktay, K. Safety and feasibility of performing two consecutive ovarian stimulation cycles with the use of letrozole-gonadotropin protocol for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients. Fertil. Steril. 2013, 100, 1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Cobo, A.; Garcia-Velasco, J.A.; Domingo, J.; Remohí, J.; Pellicer, A. Is vitrification of oocytes useful for fertility preservation for age-related fertility decline and in cancer patients? Fertil. Steril. 2013, 99, 1485–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cil, A.P.; Bang, H.; Oktay, K. Age-specific probability of live birth with oocyte cryopreservation: An individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2013, 100, 492–499.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Berg, M.V.D.; Van Dijk, M.; Byrne, J.; Campbell, H.; Berger, C.; Borgmann-Staudt, A.; Calaminus, G.; Dirksen, U.; Winther, J.F.; Fossa, S.D.; et al. Fertility Among Female Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer: Protocol for Two Pan-European Studies (PanCareLIFE). JMIR Res. Protoc. 2018, 7, e10824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Dittrich, R.; Kliesch, S.; Schüring, A.; Balcerek, M.; Baston-Büst, D.M.; Beck, R.; Beckmann, M.W.; Behringer, K.; Borgmann-Staudt, A.; Cremer, W.; et al. Fertility Preservation for Patients with Malignant Disease. Guideline of the DGGG, DGU and DGRM (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/082, November 2017)—Recommendations and Statements for Girls and Women. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018, 78, 567–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Cancers 14 01429 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of follow-up in oncological patients enrolled in the study.
Figure 1. Flowchart of follow-up in oncological patients enrolled in the study.
Cancers 14 01429 g001
Table
Table 1. Follow-up of oncological patients: comparison of age and ovarian reserve between the time of cryostorage and follow-up.
Table 1. Follow-up of oncological patients: comparison of age and ovarian reserve between the time of cryostorage and follow-up.
Cryostorage (t0)Follow-Up (t1)p t0 vs. t1
No. of Patients (%)AGEAFCAMHFSHAGEAFCAMHFSH
Total Patients50829.4 ± 4.07.1 ± 5.01.6 ± 0.813.1 ± 8.137.6 ± 5.62.8 ± 1.60.7 ± 0.334.5 ± 17.4Age t0–t1 0.001
AFC t0–t1 0.001
AMH t0–t1 0.001
FSH t0–t1 0.001
Regular menses after chemotherapy 276/432 (64%) (a)27628.5 ± 5.28.7 ± 2.21.6 ± 0.67.8 ± 4.538.1 ± 4.24.3 ± 2.81.3 ± 0.36.8 ± 2.9at t0 Age a vs. b 0.001
AFC a vs. b 0.001
AMH a vs. b 0.001
FSH a vs. b 0.001
Natural conception (a1)75/276 (27%)29 ± 4.89.3 ± 3.81.9 ± 0.67.4 ± 3.239 ± 4.55.3 ± 3.21.5 ± 0.46.7 ± 4.5Age t0–t1 0.001
AFC t0–t1 0.001
AMH t0–t1 0.001
FSH t0–t1 0.274
Not interested in becoming pregnant (a2)201/276 (73%)28.6 ± 6.78.2 ± 4.71.5 ± 0.99.5 ± 6.637.2 ± 4.34.5 ± 2.11.2 ± 0.57.2 ± 3.3Age t0–t1 0.001
AFC t0–t1 0.001
AMH t0–t1 0.001
FSH t0–t1 0.001
POI after chemotherapy 156/432 (36%) (b)15631.5 ± 4.87.2 ± 1.71.1 ± 0.79.1 ± 3.237.2 ± 4.90.4 ± 0.30.2 ± 0.163.2 ± 17.0at t1
Age a vs. b 0.044
AFC a vs. b 0.001
AMH a vs. b 0.001
FSH a vs. b 0.001
Not interested in becoming pregnant (b1)112/156 (72%)32 ± 6.77.2 ± 1.81.3 ± 0.99.02 ± 5.438.5 ± 8.70.7 ± 0.50.03 ± 0.0172.0 ± 43.0Age t0–t1 0.001
AFC t0–t1 0.001
AMH t0–t1 0.001
FSH t0–t1 0.001
Trying to become pregnant with cryostored oocytes (b2)44/156 (28%)29.4 ± 4.07.3 ± 2.11.4 ± 0.89.3 ± 2.836.0 ± 5.10.5 ± 0.30.23 ± 0.1156.0 ± 23.0Age t0–t1 0.001
AFC t0–t1 0.001
AMH t0–t1 0.001
FSH t0–t1 0.001
Lost to follow-up (70) 70/508 (14%)29.7 ± 3.58.6 ± 5.11.8 ± 0.77.7 ± 3.2----
Deceased (6) 6/508 (1.2%)29.3 ± 2.15.1 ± 1.80.9 ± 0.310.1 ± 2.3----
POI—premature ovarian insufficiency; AFC—antral follicle count; AMH—anti-Müllerian hormone.
Table
Table 2. Patients’ basal characteristic and oocyte features in oncological patients vs. nononcological patients.
Table 2. Patients’ basal characteristic and oocyte features in oncological patients vs. nononcological patients.
Oncological PatientsNononcological
Patients		p
Patients (n)5081042
Age (years) (m ± sd)29.4 ± 4.030.0 ± 6.80.066
FSH (IU/L) (m ± sd)13.1 ± 8.112.4 ± 7.70.099
AMH (ng/mL) (m ± sd)1.6± 0.81.6 ± 0.91.000
AFC n (m ± sd)7.1 ± 5.07.3 ± 2.00.263
Length of storage (years) (range) (m ± sd)1–25 (5.6 ± 3.2)1–25 (4.8 ± 3.7)0.210
FSH administrated (IU) (m ± sd)2630 ± 14022750 ± 13050.098
Follicles > 16 mm n (m ± sd)8.0 ± 3.07.7 ± 3.40.091
E2 max (pg/mL) (m ± sd)1280 ± 6451345 ± 10700.207
Oocytes retrieved n (m ± sd)3604 (8.8 ± 6.9)7644 (8.5 ± 6.8)0.067
Oocytes cryopreserved n (m ± sd)2966 (6.1 ± 4.2)5046 (5.9 ± 4.8)0.060
Table
Table 3. Results of oocyte thawing/warming cycles in oncological patients vs. nononcological patients.
Table 3. Results of oocyte thawing/warming cycles in oncological patients vs. nononcological patients.
Oncological PatientsNononcological Patientsp
Patients (n)44870
Age at cryopreservation years (m ± sd)29.4 ± 4.030.0 ± 6.80.562
Age at oocyte thawing/warming years (m ± sd)36.0 ± 5.137.1 ± 4.20.094
Thawing/warming cycles (n)641315
Length of storage years (range) (m ± sd)2–15 (5.0 ± 3.8)2–15 (4.8 ± 3.7)0.146
Thawed/warmed oocytes n (m ± sd)194 (3.7 ±1.9)4208 (3.5 ± 1.8)0.131
Oocytes survived (%)157 (80.9)3172 (75.4)0.094
Oocytes fertilized (%)101/138 (73.2)2172/2793 (77.8)0.249
Embryo transfers (%)57/64 (89.1)1165/1294 (90.0)0.969
Embryo transferred n (m ± sd)100 (1.7 ± 0.7)2044 (1.8 ± 0.6)0.107
Pregnancies n183610.958
Births n13283
Newborns n153020.772
Miscarriages n (%)4 (22)78/361 (21.6)0.817
Pregnancy per patient (%)18/44 (41.0)361/870 (41.4)0.936
Pregnancy per cycle (%)18/64 (28.1)361/1315 (27.4)0.980
Pregnancy per transfer (%)18/57 (31.5)361/1165 (31.0)0.958
Births per patient (%)13/44 (29.9)283/870 (32.5)0.805
Births per cycle (%)13/64 (20.3)283/1315 (21.5)0.941
Births per transfer (%)13/57 (22.8)283/1165 (24.2)0.866
Newborns per patient (%)15/44 (34.1)302/870 (34.7)0.938
Newborns per cycle (%)15/64 (23.4)302/1315 (23.9)0.949
Newborns per transfer (%)15/57 (26.3)302/1165 (26.0)0.999
Table
Table 4. Oocytes cryopreserved, thawed, or still stored in oncological vs. nononcological patients.
Table 4. Oocytes cryopreserved, thawed, or still stored in oncological vs. nononcological patients.
Oncological PatientsNononcological Patientsp
Oocytes cryopreserved n (m ± sd)2966 (6.1 ± 4.2)5046 (5.9 ± 4.8)0.060
Thawed/warmed oocytes n (m ± sd)194 (3.7 ± 1.9)4208 (3.5 ± 1.8)0.131
Oocyte still in storage n (m ± sd)2772 (2.5 ± 1.1)838 (2.4 ± 1.4)0.031
Table
Table 5. Long-term follow-up of children conceived with oocytes cryopreserved in cancer patients.
Table 5. Long-term follow-up of children conceived with oocytes cryopreserved in cancer patients.
SexCurrent Age (y/mths) Mother’s Cancer TypeSlow-Freezing/VitrificationLength of Storage (y)Length of Gestation (Weeks)DeliveryTwinsApgar Score 1 minApgar Score 5 minWeight (g)Length (cm)Head Circumference (cm)MalformationsCurrent Height (cm) Current Weight (kg)Teething (mths)Walking (mths)Language (mths)Puberty (y)Educational Stage
M7 y 6 mthsBreast
cancer		Slow3 39CS 101033205232-134298 1224-1°
grade
F7 y 4 mthsBreast
cancer		Vitri2 37CSYes91020504732-1322591020-1° grade
F7 y 4 mthsBreast
cancer		Vitri237CSYes91020454833-1302691118-1°
grade
F10 mthsBreast
cancer		Vitri339CS 8936704834-7012
F6 y
5 mths		BOTVitri338CS 91039005034-11521101013-1° grade
M4 y
1 mths		BOTVitri239CS 101032504833-991561420-Kindergarten
F10 yBOTSlow538CS 91029804832Labiopalatoschisis1403281218-1° grade
F13 y
5 mths		BOTSlow434CSYes91021204833-152488141611 Middle school
F13 y
5 mths		BOTSlow434CSYes91020904832-148508131612 Middle school
M7 yEndometrial
cancer		Slow440CS 101038505034-1333012914-1° grade
M1 y
10 mths		NHLSlow639CS 91031304933-104171212Few words-Kindergarten
M2 yHLVitri738SD 91025754832-8516101212--
M2 y
1 mths		HLVitri539SD 101031254932-8714111114--
F2 y 4 mthsHLVitri440CS 101033205534-881391414--
M1 mthsBOTVitri339SD 91031505033-876
CS—caesarian section; SD—spontaneous delivery; BOT—borderline ovarian tumor; HL—Hodgkin lymphoma; NHL—non-Hodgkin lymphoma; y—years; mths—months.
Table
Table 6. Live birth case reports of the literature in cancer patients who preserved fertility through oocyte cryopreservation.
Table 6. Live birth case reports of the literature in cancer patients who preserved fertility through oocyte cryopreservation.
AuthorsMalignancyAge at CryopreservationCryopreservation TechniqueAge at Thawing/WarmingN MII Oocytes CryopreservedNo. of Embryos TransferredPregnanciesDeliveryNo. of Live BirthsSex
Yang et al., 2007 [36]Hodgkin lymphoma27Slow freezing33133 + 3 + 3 (gestational carrier)Single-1M
Porcu et al., 2008 [31]Borderline ovarian tumor27Slow freezing3173TwinsCS2F, F
Sanchez-Serrano et al., 2010 [37]Breast cancer36Vitrification of oocytes after stimulation of ovarian tissue transplanted 3692TwinsCS2M, M
Kim et al., 2011 [38]Chronic myeloid leukemia 22Vitrification3172SingleCS1M
Garcia Velasco et al., 2013 [39]Hodgkin lymphoma33Vitrification3542SingleVD1M
Martinez et al., 2014 [40]Breast cancer30Vitrification3352SingleCS1M
Martinez et al., 2014 [40]Breast cancer33Vitrification3832SingleVD1F
Martinez et al., 2014 [40]Breast cancer37Vitrification4082SingleCS1M
Martinez et al., 2014 [40]Hodgkin lymphoma33Vitrification3542SingleVD1F
Alvez Da Motta et al., 2014 [41]Breast cancer36Vitrification41283 + 3SingleCS1-
Alvarez et al., 2014 [42]Invasive ovarian cancer28Vitrification29142Heterotopic CS1M
Druckenmiller et al., 2016 [11]Gynecological cancer28Vitrification-82 (gestational carrier)Twins-2-
Druckenmiller et al., 2016 [11]Breast cancer33Slow freezing-82 (gestational carrier)Single-1-
Druckenmiller et al., 2016 [11]Breast cancer39Slow freezing-82Single-1-
Druckenmiller et al., 2016 [11]Breast cancer40Slow freezing-82Single-1-
Perrin et al., 2016 [43]Hodgkin lymphoma29Vitrification3152SingleVD1F
Doyle et al., 2016 [44] -Vitrification---Single-1-
Specchia et al., 2019 [45]Breast cancer35Vitrification4093 + 1Single-1-
Specchia et al., 2019 [45]Breast cancer36Vitrification40132Single-1-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Porcu, E.; Cipriani, L.; Dirodi, M.; De Iaco, P.; Perrone, A.M.; Zinzani, P.L.; Taffurelli, M.; Zamagni, C.; Ciotti, P.M.; Notarangelo, L.; et al. Successful Pregnancies, Births, and Children Development Following Oocyte Cryostorage in Female Cancer Patients During 25 Years of Fertility Preservation. Cancers 2022, 14, 1429. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14061429

AMA Style

Porcu E, Cipriani L, Dirodi M, De Iaco P, Perrone AM, Zinzani PL, Taffurelli M, Zamagni C, Ciotti PM, Notarangelo L, et al. Successful Pregnancies, Births, and Children Development Following Oocyte Cryostorage in Female Cancer Patients During 25 Years of Fertility Preservation. Cancers. 2022; 14(6):1429. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14061429

Chicago/Turabian Style

Porcu, Eleonora, Linda Cipriani, Maria Dirodi, Pierandrea De Iaco, Anna Myriam Perrone, Pier Luigi Zinzani, Mario Taffurelli, Claudio Zamagni, Patrizia Maria Ciotti, Leonardo Notarangelo, and et al. 2022. "Successful Pregnancies, Births, and Children Development Following Oocyte Cryostorage in Female Cancer Patients During 25 Years of Fertility Preservation" Cancers 14, no. 6: 1429. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14061429

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop