In the last years, thanks to the improvement in the prognosis of cancer patients, a growing attention has been given to the fertility issues. International guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients recommend that physicians discuss, as early as possible, with all patients of reproductive age their risk of infertility from the disease and/or treatment and their interest in having children after cancer, and help with informed fertility preservation decisions. As recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, sperm cryopreservation and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservations in male and female patients, respectively; other strategies (e.g. pharmacological protection of the gonads and gonadal tissue cryopreservation) are considered experimental techniques. However, since then, new data have become available, and several issues in this field are still controversial and should be addressed by both patients and their treating physicians. In April 2015, physicians with expertise in the field of fertility preservation in cancer patients from several European countries were invited in Genova (Italy) to participate in a workshop on the topic of “cancer and fertility preservation”. A total of ten controversial issues were discussed at the conference. Experts were asked to present an up-to-date review of the literature published on these topics and the presentation of own unpublished data was encouraged. On the basis of the data presented, as well as the expertise of the invited speakers, a total of ten recommendations were discussed and prepared with the aim to help physicians in counseling their young patients interested in fertility preservation. Although there is a great interest in this field, due to the lack of large prospective cohort studies and randomized trials on these topics, the level of evidence is not higher than 3 for most of the recommendations highlighting the need of further research efforts in many areas of this field. The participation to the ongoing registries and prospective studies is crucial to acquire more robust information in order to provide evidence-based recommendations.

/pdf/cancer-and-fertility-preservation-international-5drg8ol4gz.pdf

Cancer and fertility preservation: international recommendations from an expert meeting

There has been a sharp increase in the demand for fertility preservation. This review summarizes the indications and current options and describes new techniques and strategies, including those for women with newly diagnosed malignant disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMra1614676/suppl_file/nejmra1614676_appendix.pdf

Fertility Preservation in Women

BACKGROUND Successful cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is essential not only to maximize the safety and efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles in an IVF treatment, but also to enable fertility preservation. Two cryopreservation methods are routinely used: slow-freezing or vitrification. Slow-freezing allows for freezing to occur at a sufficiently slow rate to permit adequate cellular dehydration while minimizing intracellular ice formation. Vitrification allows the solidification of the cell(s) and of the extracellular milieu into a glass-like state without the formation of ice. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE The objective of our study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following slow-freezing/thawing versus vitrification/warming of oocytes and embryos and to inform the development of World Health Organization guidance on the most effective cryopreservation method. SEARCH METHODS A Medline search was performed from 1966 to 1 August 2016 using the following search terms: (Oocyte(s) [tiab] OR (Pronuclear[tiab] OR Embryo[tiab] OR Blastocyst[tiab]) AND (vitrification[tiab] OR freezing[tiab] OR freeze[tiab]) AND (pregnancy[tiab] OR birth[tiab] OR clinical[tiab]). Queries were limited to those involving humans. RCTs and cohort studies that were published in full-length were considered eligible. Each reference was reviewed for relevance and only primary evidence and relevant articles from the bibliographies of included articles were considered. References were included if they reported cryosurvival rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live-birth rate (LBR) or delivery rate for slow-frozen or vitrified human oocytes or embryos. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to calculate relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI. OUTCOMES One RCT study comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification of oocytes was included. Vitrification was associated with increased ongoing CPR per cycle (RR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.05-7.51; P = 0.039; 48 and 30 cycles, respectively, per transfer (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 0.71-4.67; P = 0.214; 47 and 19 transfers) and per warmed/thawed oocyte (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.28; P = 0.018; 260 and 238 oocytes). One RCT comparing vitrification versus fresh oocytes was analysed. In vitrification and fresh cycles, respectively, no evidence for a difference in ongoing CPR per randomized woman (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87-1.21; P = 0.744, 300 women in each group), per cycle (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.18; P = 0.934; 267 versus 259 cycles) and per oocyte utilized (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.26; P = 0.873; 3286 versus 3185 oocytes) was reported. Findings were consistent with relevant cohort studies. Of the seven RCTs on embryo cryopreservation identified, three met the inclusion criteria (638 warming/thawing cycles at cleavage and blastocyst stage), none of which involved pronuclear-stage embryos. A higher CPR per cycle was noted with embryo vitrification compared with slow-freezing, though this was of borderline statistical significance (RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.00-3.59; P = 0.051; three RCTs; I2 = 71.9%). LBR per cycle was reported by one RCT performed with cleavage-stage embryos and was higher for vitrification (RR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.17-4.44; P =  0.016; 216 cycles; one RCT). A secondary analysis was performed focusing on embryo cryosurvival rate. Pooled data from seven RCTs (3615 embryos) revealed a significant improvement in embryo cryosurvival following vitrification as compared with slow-freezing (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.30-1.93; P < 0.001; I2 = 93%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS Data from available RCTs suggest that vitrification/warming is superior to slow-freezing/thawing with regard to clinical outcomes (low quality of the evidence) and cryosurvival rates (moderate quality of the evidence) for oocytes, cleavage-stage embryos and blastocysts. The results were confirmed by cohort studies. The improvements obtained with the introduction of vitrification have several important clinical implications in ART. Based on this evidence, in particular regarding cryosurvival rates, laboratories that continue to use slow-freezing should consider transitioning to the use of vitrification for cryopreservation.

Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance

Restoration of ovarian activity and pregnancy after transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue: a review of 60 cases of reimplantation.

background: An efficient oocyte cryopreservation method is mandatory to establish a successful egg-banking programme. Although there are increasing reports showing good clinical outcomes after oocyte cryopreservation, there is still a lack of large controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness of oocyte cryo-banking. In this study, we aimed to compare the outcome of vitrified-banked oocytes with the gold standard procedure of employing fresh oocytes. methods: A randomized, prospective, triple-blind, single-centre, parallel-group controlled-clinical trial (NCT00785993), including 600 recipients (a ¼ 0.05 and power of 80% for sample-size calculation) selected among 1032 eligible patients from November 2008 to September 2009, was designed to compare the outcome of vitrified-banked oocytes with the gold standard procedure of employing fresh oocytes. The study was designed to establish the superiority of the ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) of fresh oocytes over that of vitrified oocytes, by performing a likelihood ratio test in a logistic regression analysis expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A limit of 0.66 for OR of vitrified versus fresh groups was defined to set up a possible conversion from superiority to non-inferiority. Randomization was performed 1:1 based on a computer randomization list in vitrification (n ¼ 300) or fresh groups (n ¼ 300). The primary end-point was the OPR per randomized patient i.e. intention-to-treat population (ITT). Secondary end-points were clinical pregnancy (CPR), implantation (IR) and fertilization rates, respectively. Additionally, embryo developmental characteristics were recorded. results: There were no differences in donor ovarian stimulation parameters, demographic baseline characteristics for donors and recipients, ovum donation indications or male factor distribution between groups (NS). The OPR per ITT was 43.7 and 41.7% in the vitrification and fresh groups, respectively. The OR of OPR was 0.921 in favour of the vitrification group. Nevertheless, the 95% CI was 0.667–1.274, thus the superiority of fresh group with respect to OPR was not proven (P ¼ 0.744). Non-inferiority of the vitrified group compared with the fresh group was shown with a margin of 0.667, which was above the pre-established non-inferiority limit of 0.66. CPR per cycle (50.2 versus 49.8%; P ¼ 0.933) or per embryo-transfer (55.4 versus 55.6% ; P ¼ 0.974), and IR (39.9 versus 40.9%; P ¼ 0.745) were similar for patients receiving either vitrified or fresh oocytes. The proportion of top-quality embryos obtained either by inseminated oocyte (30.8 versus 30.8% for Day-2; and 36.1 versus 37.7% for Day-3, respectively) or by cleaved embryos (43.6 versus 43.8% for Day-2 and 58.4 versus 60.7% for Day-3, respectively) was similar between groups (NS). conclusions: This controlled-randomized, clinical trial confirmed the effectiveness of oocyte cryo-storage in an ovum donation programme, failing to demonstrate the superiority of using fresh oocytes with respect to the use of vitrified egg-banked ones in terms of OPR. Instead, the non-inferiority of vitrified oocytes was confirmed. These findings involve highly relevant issues that may open a new range of possibilities in ART. Clinical Trials identifier: www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT 00785993.

/pdf/use-of-cryo-banked-oocytes-in-an-ovum-donation-programme-a-1oeq52ig9x.pdf

Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial

Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation

Five years' experience using oocyte vitrification to preserve fertility for medical and nonmedical indications

Introduction Oocyte cryopreservation is a useful tool for preserving the fertility of cancer patients at risk of losing ovarian function due to undergoing potentially sterilising therapies. Results obtained with different cryopreservation protocols have been disappointing, particularly those obtained with slow cooling procedures. The efficacy of vitrification as an application in clinical practice has recently been demonstrated. The aim of this study is to report results obtained with the Cryotop method of oocyte vitrification in a population of healthy women and to point out its potential usefulness for fertility preservation in oncological patients. Materials and methods The study population consisting of non-oncological patients included 47 oocyte donors and 57 recipients undergoing an oocyte donation cycle of assisted reproductive technology (ART). A total of 693 mature metaphase II oocytes were collected following ovarian stimulation using long protocol down-regulation plus gonadotropin administration. Vitrification was carried out by means of the Cryotop method. Oocytes were donated to a compatible recipient after endometrial preparation. Results Of the 693 oocytes, 666 (96.1%) survived. A total of 487 (73.1%) were fertilised successfully. One hundred and seventeen embryos were transferred to 57 recipients. Pregnancy rate per transfer and implantation rates were 63.2% and 38.5% respectively. Twenty-eight healthy babies were later born. Conclusions Oocyte cryo-banking by means of the Cryotop vitrification method represents a viable option for healthy women, producing excellent survival rates and a clinical outcome similar to that obtained with fresh oocytes. This approach could potentially be used in cancer patients who want to safeguard their fertility. Cancer patients could potentially benefit from this approach by storing their oocytes before the onset of the oncological therapy.

Vitrification: an effective new approach to oocyte banking and preserving fertility in cancer patients.

Oocyte vitrification versus ovarian cortex transplantation in fertility preservation for adult women undergoing gonadotoxic treatments: a prospective cohort study

https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(13)00379-8/pdf

Javier Domingo

Papers

Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation

Five years' experience using oocyte vitrification to preserve fertility for medical and nonmedical indications

Vitrification: an effective new approach to oocyte banking and preserving fertility in cancer patients.

Oocyte vitrification versus ovarian cortex transplantation in fertility preservation for adult women undergoing gonadotoxic treatments: a prospective cohort study

Is vitrification of oocytes useful for fertility preservation for age-related fertility decline and in cancer patients?