4.7 Article

Embryo yield after in vitro fertilization in women undergoing embryo banking for fertility preservation before chemotherapy

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 95, Issue 2, Pages 588-591

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.028

Keywords

Cryopreservation; fertility preservation; assisted reproductive techniques

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate embryo yield after IVF in patients undergoing embryo banking before chemotherapy. Design: A retrospective cohort study. Setting: Hospital-based academic medical center. Patient(s): Thirty-eight women diagnosed with cancer or autoimmune disease presenting for IVF cycles, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), for embryo cryopreservation before any therapy were compared with 921 presumably fertile women undergoing IVF for male factor infertility from January 2001 through October 2007. Intervention(s): Standard IVF or ICSI protocol, embryo freezing, and ET. Main Outcome Measure(s): The number of 2 pronuclear (2PN) embryos created and suitable for cryopreservation or transfer. Result(s): No statistically significant differences were observed between preservation and male factor groups for number of embryos, number of oocytes, or amount of gonadotropin needed to stimulate follicular development. Peak serum E-2 levels were significantly lower for women with disease-seeking fertility preservation. Conclusion(s): Women facing chemotherapy as treatment for cancer or systemic autoimmune disease infrequently undergo fertility preservation. If offered this potentially fertility-preserving option, these data suggest equivalent embryo yield compared with women with infertile male partners. Our data report no significant complications in subsequent births in those who sought fertility preservation, which is informative and encouraging for these women and their providers. (Fertil Steril (R) 2011;95:588-91. (C) 2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available