Cargando…
Comparison of GnRH agonist and hCG for priming in vitro maturation cycles in cancer patients undergoing urgent fertility preservation
In vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes retrieved at germinal vesicle or Metaphase I stage, followed by vitrification of Metaphase II (MII) oocytes, has recently emerged as an option for urgent fertility preservation (FP). Priming is usually achieved with an injection of hCG, 10,000 IU, 36 hours before...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6283534/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30521621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208576 |
_version_ | 1783379176643887104 |
---|---|
author | El Hachem, Hady Sonigo, Charlotte Benard, Julie Presse, Marion Sifer, Christophe Sermondade, Nathalie Grynberg, Michael |
author_facet | El Hachem, Hady Sonigo, Charlotte Benard, Julie Presse, Marion Sifer, Christophe Sermondade, Nathalie Grynberg, Michael |
author_sort | El Hachem, Hady |
collection | PubMed |
description | In vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes retrieved at germinal vesicle or Metaphase I stage, followed by vitrification of Metaphase II (MII) oocytes, has recently emerged as an option for urgent fertility preservation (FP). Priming is usually achieved with an injection of hCG, 10,000 IU, 36 hours before retrieval. This study aimed to assess a new method of priming, using GnRH agonists, and compare it to hCG, in cancer patients undergoing urgent FP. From 2009 to 2015, 373 cancer patients underwent MII oocyte cryopreservation after IVM cycles primed either with GnRHa (triptorelin 0.2 mg) (n = 138) or hCG (10,000 IU) (n = 235). Patients’ characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The number of COC retrieved was significantly higher in the GnRHa group (9.1 ± 6.8 versus 7.7 ± 5.5 oocytes, p = 0.04). However, the maturation rates (59 ±25% versus 64 ±26%, p = 0.07, respectively), and the total number of MII oocytes frozen (5.2 ±4.2 versus 4.9 ±4.0, p = 0.6, respectively) were similar between the GnRha and hCG groups. We did not find any difference between GnRHa and hCG priming for IVM. GnRHa priming is more physiological since it stimulates endogenous FSH and LH activity, and is well suited for FP in hormone-sensitive cancers and urgent cases. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6283534 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62835342018-12-20 Comparison of GnRH agonist and hCG for priming in vitro maturation cycles in cancer patients undergoing urgent fertility preservation El Hachem, Hady Sonigo, Charlotte Benard, Julie Presse, Marion Sifer, Christophe Sermondade, Nathalie Grynberg, Michael PLoS One Research Article In vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes retrieved at germinal vesicle or Metaphase I stage, followed by vitrification of Metaphase II (MII) oocytes, has recently emerged as an option for urgent fertility preservation (FP). Priming is usually achieved with an injection of hCG, 10,000 IU, 36 hours before retrieval. This study aimed to assess a new method of priming, using GnRH agonists, and compare it to hCG, in cancer patients undergoing urgent FP. From 2009 to 2015, 373 cancer patients underwent MII oocyte cryopreservation after IVM cycles primed either with GnRHa (triptorelin 0.2 mg) (n = 138) or hCG (10,000 IU) (n = 235). Patients’ characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The number of COC retrieved was significantly higher in the GnRHa group (9.1 ± 6.8 versus 7.7 ± 5.5 oocytes, p = 0.04). However, the maturation rates (59 ±25% versus 64 ±26%, p = 0.07, respectively), and the total number of MII oocytes frozen (5.2 ±4.2 versus 4.9 ±4.0, p = 0.6, respectively) were similar between the GnRha and hCG groups. We did not find any difference between GnRHa and hCG priming for IVM. GnRHa priming is more physiological since it stimulates endogenous FSH and LH activity, and is well suited for FP in hormone-sensitive cancers and urgent cases. Public Library of Science 2018-12-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6283534/ /pubmed/30521621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208576 Text en © 2018 El Hachem et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article El Hachem, Hady Sonigo, Charlotte Benard, Julie Presse, Marion Sifer, Christophe Sermondade, Nathalie Grynberg, Michael Comparison of GnRH agonist and hCG for priming in vitro maturation cycles in cancer patients undergoing urgent fertility preservation |
title | Comparison of GnRH agonist and hCG for priming in vitro maturation cycles in cancer patients undergoing urgent fertility preservation |
title_full | Comparison of GnRH agonist and hCG for priming in vitro maturation cycles in cancer patients undergoing urgent fertility preservation |
title_fullStr | Comparison of GnRH agonist and hCG for priming in vitro maturation cycles in cancer patients undergoing urgent fertility preservation |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of GnRH agonist and hCG for priming in vitro maturation cycles in cancer patients undergoing urgent fertility preservation |
title_short | Comparison of GnRH agonist and hCG for priming in vitro maturation cycles in cancer patients undergoing urgent fertility preservation |
title_sort | comparison of gnrh agonist and hcg for priming in vitro maturation cycles in cancer patients undergoing urgent fertility preservation |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6283534/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30521621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208576 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT elhachemhady comparisonofgnrhagonistandhcgforpriminginvitromaturationcyclesincancerpatientsundergoingurgentfertilitypreservation AT sonigocharlotte comparisonofgnrhagonistandhcgforpriminginvitromaturationcyclesincancerpatientsundergoingurgentfertilitypreservation AT benardjulie comparisonofgnrhagonistandhcgforpriminginvitromaturationcyclesincancerpatientsundergoingurgentfertilitypreservation AT pressemarion comparisonofgnrhagonistandhcgforpriminginvitromaturationcyclesincancerpatientsundergoingurgentfertilitypreservation AT siferchristophe comparisonofgnrhagonistandhcgforpriminginvitromaturationcyclesincancerpatientsundergoingurgentfertilitypreservation AT sermondadenathalie comparisonofgnrhagonistandhcgforpriminginvitromaturationcyclesincancerpatientsundergoingurgentfertilitypreservation AT grynbergmichael comparisonofgnrhagonistandhcgforpriminginvitromaturationcyclesincancerpatientsundergoingurgentfertilitypreservation |