Cargando…

Fertility preservation outcomes may differ by cancer diagnosis

CONTEXT: Cancer survival has improved significantly and maintaining fertility is both a major concern and an important factor for the quality of life in cancer patients. AIMS: To explore differences in oocyte stimulation for fertility preservation (FP) patients based on cancer diagnosis. SETTINGS AN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pavone, Mary Ellen, Hirshfeld-Cytron, Jennifer, Lawson, Angela K., Smith, Kristin, Kazer, Ralph, Klock, Susan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4150137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25191024
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.138869
_version_ 1782332847886958592
author Pavone, Mary Ellen
Hirshfeld-Cytron, Jennifer
Lawson, Angela K.
Smith, Kristin
Kazer, Ralph
Klock, Susan
author_facet Pavone, Mary Ellen
Hirshfeld-Cytron, Jennifer
Lawson, Angela K.
Smith, Kristin
Kazer, Ralph
Klock, Susan
author_sort Pavone, Mary Ellen
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT: Cancer survival has improved significantly and maintaining fertility is both a major concern and an important factor for the quality of life in cancer patients. AIMS: To explore differences in oocyte stimulation for fertility preservation (FP) patients based on cancer diagnosis. SETTINGS AND DEIGN: Between 2005 and 2011, 109 patients elected to pursue FP at a single institution. MATERIALS AND METHOD: In vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome variables between four cancer diagnostic groups (breast, gynecologic, lymphoma/leukemia and other) and age-matched male factor or tubal factor infertility IVF control group were compared. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: ANOVA and Chi-square analyses were employed to compare variables between the groups that were normally distributed. Kruskal–Wallis with subsequent Mann–Whitney U-test were used for data that were not normally distributed. RESULTS: Women with gynecologic malignancies were significantly older than the women in the other three groups, but tended to have a better ovarian response. Women with hematologic malignancies were most likely to have been exposed to chemotherapy and had the longest stimulations with a similar number of oocytes retrieved. The age-matched IVF controls had higher peak estradiol levels, number of oocytes obtained, and fertilization rates when compared to cancer patients with or without a history of prior chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Factors including age, type of cancer and chemotherapy exposure, can influence response to ovarian stimulation. Discussing these findings with patients presenting for FP may aid in setting realistic treatment expectations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4150137
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41501372014-09-04 Fertility preservation outcomes may differ by cancer diagnosis Pavone, Mary Ellen Hirshfeld-Cytron, Jennifer Lawson, Angela K. Smith, Kristin Kazer, Ralph Klock, Susan J Hum Reprod Sci Original Article CONTEXT: Cancer survival has improved significantly and maintaining fertility is both a major concern and an important factor for the quality of life in cancer patients. AIMS: To explore differences in oocyte stimulation for fertility preservation (FP) patients based on cancer diagnosis. SETTINGS AND DEIGN: Between 2005 and 2011, 109 patients elected to pursue FP at a single institution. MATERIALS AND METHOD: In vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome variables between four cancer diagnostic groups (breast, gynecologic, lymphoma/leukemia and other) and age-matched male factor or tubal factor infertility IVF control group were compared. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: ANOVA and Chi-square analyses were employed to compare variables between the groups that were normally distributed. Kruskal–Wallis with subsequent Mann–Whitney U-test were used for data that were not normally distributed. RESULTS: Women with gynecologic malignancies were significantly older than the women in the other three groups, but tended to have a better ovarian response. Women with hematologic malignancies were most likely to have been exposed to chemotherapy and had the longest stimulations with a similar number of oocytes retrieved. The age-matched IVF controls had higher peak estradiol levels, number of oocytes obtained, and fertilization rates when compared to cancer patients with or without a history of prior chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Factors including age, type of cancer and chemotherapy exposure, can influence response to ovarian stimulation. Discussing these findings with patients presenting for FP may aid in setting realistic treatment expectations. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4150137/ /pubmed/25191024 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.138869 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Pavone, Mary Ellen
Hirshfeld-Cytron, Jennifer
Lawson, Angela K.
Smith, Kristin
Kazer, Ralph
Klock, Susan
Fertility preservation outcomes may differ by cancer diagnosis
title Fertility preservation outcomes may differ by cancer diagnosis
title_full Fertility preservation outcomes may differ by cancer diagnosis
title_fullStr Fertility preservation outcomes may differ by cancer diagnosis
title_full_unstemmed Fertility preservation outcomes may differ by cancer diagnosis
title_short Fertility preservation outcomes may differ by cancer diagnosis
title_sort fertility preservation outcomes may differ by cancer diagnosis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4150137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25191024
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.138869
work_keys_str_mv AT pavonemaryellen fertilitypreservationoutcomesmaydifferbycancerdiagnosis
AT hirshfeldcytronjennifer fertilitypreservationoutcomesmaydifferbycancerdiagnosis
AT lawsonangelak fertilitypreservationoutcomesmaydifferbycancerdiagnosis
AT smithkristin fertilitypreservationoutcomesmaydifferbycancerdiagnosis
AT kazerralph fertilitypreservationoutcomesmaydifferbycancerdiagnosis
AT klocksusan fertilitypreservationoutcomesmaydifferbycancerdiagnosis