4.5 Article

Priming Before In Vitro Maturation Cycles in Cancer Patients Undergoing Urgent Fertility Preservation: a Randomized Controlled Study

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCES
卷 27, 期 12, 页码 2247-2256

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s43032-020-00244-0

关键词

Fertility preservation; In vitro maturation; Priming; GnRH agonists; hCG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes retrieved at germinal vesicle stage, followed by vitrification of mature oocytes, has emerged as a fertility preservation (FP) option. This technique was first developed for patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome. In this population, providing LH activity prior to oocyte collection has been associated with better IVM outcomes. However, the benefit of this treatment in normo-ovulatory breast cancer (BC) patients undergoing IVM for FP purpose has never been investigated. To assess if the absence of therapeutic intervention prior to oocyte retrieval for IVM modifies IVM outcomes in BC patients undergoing urgent FP, we performed a non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. The main outcome was the total number of mature oocytes obtained and cryopreserved after IVM.A total of 172 normo-ovulatory women, suffering from BC, 18 to 39 years of age received no injection or a subcutaneous injection of hCG or GnRH agonist (GnRHa) 36 h before oocytes retrieval according to randomized allocation. The total number of cryopreserved oocytes were 5.1 +/- 3.8, 5.4 +/- 3.8, and 6.0 +/- 4.2 oocytes, respectively in the without, hCG and GnRHa groups. Mean differences were not significant between the three groups (- 0.5; CI 97.5% [- 2.03:1.02] and - 0.22; CI 97.5% [- 1.75:1.32], respectively). Intention to treat analyses failed to show non-inferiority in the without injection group in comparison with hCG or GnRHa groups. Our results are not conclusive enough to modify our practices and to stop administering hCG or GnRHa before IVM cycles for FP. The study was retrospectively registered to clinical trial (ID NCT03954197) in May 2019.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据