4.5 Article

Uptake and outcome of assisted reproductive techniques in long-term survivors of SCT

Journal

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 47, Issue 4, Pages 568-573

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2011.134

Keywords

assisted conception; sperm banking; SCT

Funding

  1. North West London Cancer Network
  2. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
  3. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0611-10275] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have audited the invitation for uptake and outcome of artificial reproductive techniques in patients undergoing SCT for haematological malignancy, with the aim of improving our pre-transplant counselling. A postal survey was sent to 434 patients in our centre surviving a minimum of 2 years after allo-SCT, of whom 221 patients responded. Of 112 male patients, 79 were offered sperm storage, 42 banked sperm and 25 subsequently attempted parenthood with stored sperm. A total of 18 were successful, with 29 children born a median of 8 years (range 1-22 years) following SCT. Of 72 females <42 years old, 33 were offered storage of embryos/eggs/ovarian tissue and 12 accepted. Following SCT, four women attempted pregnancy using cryopreserved embryos, with two successes. The majority of patients who were not counselled about infertility or not offered fertility-preservation options provided a likely reason, with completion of family being the most frequent. Nonetheless, 16 patients (11/72 women and 5/112 men) could not provide a reason for the lack of information/invitation. In conclusion, uptake of gamete/embryo storage is high when offered and collected material is used frequently. Pregnancies in partners of male patients were usually successful and our data highlight the value of prolonged cryostorage. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2012) 47, 568-573; doi:10.1038/bmt.2011.134; published online 11 July 2011

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available