Why are they not coming back? A single-center follow-up study on oncological women oocyte’s storing for fertility preservation
IntroductionOocyte cryopreservation is a valid option for female cancer patients to preserve fertility. The number of patients undergoing fertility preservation (FP) cycles has increased over the past years. Nevertheless, the rates of patients returning to use their cryopreserved material have shown...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Endocrinology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.1054123/full |
| _version_ | 1811209265696735232 |
|---|---|
| author | Valentina Immediata Federico Cirillo Annamaria Baggiani Maria Federica Zanagnolo Camilla Ronchetti Emanuela Morenghi Amalia Cesana Cristina Specchia Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti |
| author_facet | Valentina Immediata Federico Cirillo Annamaria Baggiani Maria Federica Zanagnolo Camilla Ronchetti Emanuela Morenghi Amalia Cesana Cristina Specchia Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti |
| author_sort | Valentina Immediata |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | IntroductionOocyte cryopreservation is a valid option for female cancer patients to preserve fertility. The number of patients undergoing fertility preservation (FP) cycles has increased over the past years. Nevertheless, the rates of patients returning to use their cryopreserved material have shown to be considerably low, ranging from 5-8%, but significant data regarding the reasons of such low return rates are scarce.MethodsThis study is a single-center follow-up retrospective study evaluating the return rate of oncological women who underwent FP at a tertiary care Fertility Center and assessing the reasons influencing the patients who did not return. Data about patients who returned to attempt pregnancy were retrieved from internal registries. Non-returned patients were assessed with a standardized phone survey investigating health condition, marital status and family projects, spontaneous conceptions, and the reasons why they had not returned to use their gametes. A univariate analysis between returned and non-returned patients was performed.ResultsOf the 397 patients who received counseling about FP, 171 (43.1%) underwent oocyte cryopreservation between 2001 and 2017. Nine (5%) died, and 17 (10%) were lost at follow-up. A total of 20 patients (11.7%) returned and 125 did not. In the non-returned group, 37 (29.6%) did not have a partner, 10 (8%) had a previous spontaneous conception, and 15 (12%) had recurrent malignancy at the time of follow-up. In the univariate analysis, younger age at freezing (31.8±6.2 vs. 35.2±4.7; p 0.018), lack of a partner (p 0.002), type of cancer (other than breast cancer; p 0.024) were the significant factors in the non-returned group. As for the personal reason for not coming back, patients mainly answered as follows: lack of a partner (29, 23.2%), the desire for spontaneous motherhood (24, 19.2%), previous spontaneous pregnancies after FP procedures (16, 12.8%), and still ongoing hormonal therapy for breast cancer (13, 10.4%). All patients confirmed their will to keep the storage of their oocytes.DiscussionThe impact of a cancer diagnosis on a woman’s maternal desire, sentimental status and life priorities should be studied more thoroughly. Studies investigating hormonal therapy suppression in breast cancer patients seeking pregnancy should be encouraged.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT05223764. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T04:35:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1f8cfed521bd40039fed467405aa3456 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-2392 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T04:35:25Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Endocrinology |
| spelling | doaj.art-1f8cfed521bd40039fed467405aa34562022-12-22T03:47:48ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Endocrinology1664-23922022-12-011310.3389/fendo.2022.10541231054123Why are they not coming back? A single-center follow-up study on oncological women oocyte’s storing for fertility preservationValentina Immediata0Federico Cirillo1Annamaria Baggiani2Maria Federica Zanagnolo3Camilla Ronchetti4Emanuela Morenghi5Amalia Cesana6Cristina Specchia7Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti8Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti9Department of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, ItalyDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, ItalyDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, ItalyDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, ItalyDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, ItalyBiostatistics Unit, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, ItalyDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, ItalyDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, ItalyDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, ItalyIntroductionOocyte cryopreservation is a valid option for female cancer patients to preserve fertility. The number of patients undergoing fertility preservation (FP) cycles has increased over the past years. Nevertheless, the rates of patients returning to use their cryopreserved material have shown to be considerably low, ranging from 5-8%, but significant data regarding the reasons of such low return rates are scarce.MethodsThis study is a single-center follow-up retrospective study evaluating the return rate of oncological women who underwent FP at a tertiary care Fertility Center and assessing the reasons influencing the patients who did not return. Data about patients who returned to attempt pregnancy were retrieved from internal registries. Non-returned patients were assessed with a standardized phone survey investigating health condition, marital status and family projects, spontaneous conceptions, and the reasons why they had not returned to use their gametes. A univariate analysis between returned and non-returned patients was performed.ResultsOf the 397 patients who received counseling about FP, 171 (43.1%) underwent oocyte cryopreservation between 2001 and 2017. Nine (5%) died, and 17 (10%) were lost at follow-up. A total of 20 patients (11.7%) returned and 125 did not. In the non-returned group, 37 (29.6%) did not have a partner, 10 (8%) had a previous spontaneous conception, and 15 (12%) had recurrent malignancy at the time of follow-up. In the univariate analysis, younger age at freezing (31.8±6.2 vs. 35.2±4.7; p 0.018), lack of a partner (p 0.002), type of cancer (other than breast cancer; p 0.024) were the significant factors in the non-returned group. As for the personal reason for not coming back, patients mainly answered as follows: lack of a partner (29, 23.2%), the desire for spontaneous motherhood (24, 19.2%), previous spontaneous pregnancies after FP procedures (16, 12.8%), and still ongoing hormonal therapy for breast cancer (13, 10.4%). All patients confirmed their will to keep the storage of their oocytes.DiscussionThe impact of a cancer diagnosis on a woman’s maternal desire, sentimental status and life priorities should be studied more thoroughly. Studies investigating hormonal therapy suppression in breast cancer patients seeking pregnancy should be encouraged.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT05223764.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.1054123/fullfertility preservationcancercryopreserved oocytesICSI outcomefollow-up |
| spellingShingle | Valentina Immediata Federico Cirillo Annamaria Baggiani Maria Federica Zanagnolo Camilla Ronchetti Emanuela Morenghi Amalia Cesana Cristina Specchia Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti Why are they not coming back? A single-center follow-up study on oncological women oocyte’s storing for fertility preservation Frontiers in Endocrinology fertility preservation cancer cryopreserved oocytes ICSI outcome follow-up |
| title | Why are they not coming back? A single-center follow-up study on oncological women oocyte’s storing for fertility preservation |
| title_full | Why are they not coming back? A single-center follow-up study on oncological women oocyte’s storing for fertility preservation |
| title_fullStr | Why are they not coming back? A single-center follow-up study on oncological women oocyte’s storing for fertility preservation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Why are they not coming back? A single-center follow-up study on oncological women oocyte’s storing for fertility preservation |
| title_short | Why are they not coming back? A single-center follow-up study on oncological women oocyte’s storing for fertility preservation |
| title_sort | why are they not coming back a single center follow up study on oncological women oocyte s storing for fertility preservation |
| topic | fertility preservation cancer cryopreserved oocytes ICSI outcome follow-up |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.1054123/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT valentinaimmediata whyaretheynotcomingbackasinglecenterfollowupstudyononcologicalwomenoocytesstoringforfertilitypreservation AT federicocirillo whyaretheynotcomingbackasinglecenterfollowupstudyononcologicalwomenoocytesstoringforfertilitypreservation AT annamariabaggiani whyaretheynotcomingbackasinglecenterfollowupstudyononcologicalwomenoocytesstoringforfertilitypreservation AT mariafedericazanagnolo whyaretheynotcomingbackasinglecenterfollowupstudyononcologicalwomenoocytesstoringforfertilitypreservation AT camillaronchetti whyaretheynotcomingbackasinglecenterfollowupstudyononcologicalwomenoocytesstoringforfertilitypreservation AT emanuelamorenghi whyaretheynotcomingbackasinglecenterfollowupstudyononcologicalwomenoocytesstoringforfertilitypreservation AT amaliacesana whyaretheynotcomingbackasinglecenterfollowupstudyononcologicalwomenoocytesstoringforfertilitypreservation AT cristinaspecchia whyaretheynotcomingbackasinglecenterfollowupstudyononcologicalwomenoocytesstoringforfertilitypreservation AT paoloemanuelelevisetti whyaretheynotcomingbackasinglecenterfollowupstudyononcologicalwomenoocytesstoringforfertilitypreservation AT paoloemanuelelevisetti whyaretheynotcomingbackasinglecenterfollowupstudyononcologicalwomenoocytesstoringforfertilitypreservation |