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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: El Hachem, Hady, Sonigo, Charlotte, Benard, Julie, Presse, Marion, Sifer, Christophe, Sermondade, Nathalie, Grynberg, Michael
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