The Usage of Cryopreserved Reproductive Material in Cancer Patients Undergoing Fertility Preservation Procedures.
cancer
cryopreservation
fertility preservation
oncofertility
reproductive health
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Nov 2023
09 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
16
10
2023
revised:
01
11
2023
accepted:
06
11
2023
medline:
25
11
2023
pubmed:
25
11
2023
entrez:
25
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many cancer treatment methods can affect fertility by damaging the reproductive organs and glands that control fertility. Changes can be temporary or permanent. In order to preserve the fertility of cancer patients and protect the genital organs against gonadotoxicity, methods of fertility preservation are increasingly used. Considering that some patients ultimately decide not to use cryopreserved reproductive material, this review analysed the percentage of post-cancer patients using cryopreserved reproductive material, collected before treatment as part of fertility preservation. A systematic search of studies was carried out in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, based on a previously prepared research protocol. The search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID), and the Cochrane Library. In addition, a manual search was performed for recommendations/clinical practice guidelines regarding fertility preservation in cancer patients. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included in the review discussed the results of cryopreservation of oocytes, embryos, ovarian tissue, and semen. In 10 studies, the usage rate of cryopreserved semen ranged from 2.6% to 21.5%. In the case of cryopreserved female reproductive material, the return/usage rate ranged from 3.1% to 8.7% for oocytes, approx. 9% to 22.4% for embryos, and 6.9% to 30.3% for ovarian tissue. In studies analysing patients' decisions about unused reproductive material, continuation of material storage was most often indicated. Recovering fertility or death of the patient were the main reasons for rejecting cryopreserved semen in the case of men. Fertility preservation before gonadotoxic treatment is widely recommended and increasingly used in cancer patients. The usage rate is an important indicator for monitoring the efficacy of these methods. In all of the methods described in the literature, this indicator did not exceed 31%. It is necessary to create legal and organizational solutions regulating material collection and storage and to create clear paths for its usage in the future, including by other recipients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Many cancer treatment methods can affect fertility by damaging the reproductive organs and glands that control fertility. Changes can be temporary or permanent. In order to preserve the fertility of cancer patients and protect the genital organs against gonadotoxicity, methods of fertility preservation are increasingly used. Considering that some patients ultimately decide not to use cryopreserved reproductive material, this review analysed the percentage of post-cancer patients using cryopreserved reproductive material, collected before treatment as part of fertility preservation.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic search of studies was carried out in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, based on a previously prepared research protocol. The search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID), and the Cochrane Library. In addition, a manual search was performed for recommendations/clinical practice guidelines regarding fertility preservation in cancer patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included in the review discussed the results of cryopreservation of oocytes, embryos, ovarian tissue, and semen. In 10 studies, the usage rate of cryopreserved semen ranged from 2.6% to 21.5%. In the case of cryopreserved female reproductive material, the return/usage rate ranged from 3.1% to 8.7% for oocytes, approx. 9% to 22.4% for embryos, and 6.9% to 30.3% for ovarian tissue. In studies analysing patients' decisions about unused reproductive material, continuation of material storage was most often indicated. Recovering fertility or death of the patient were the main reasons for rejecting cryopreserved semen in the case of men.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Fertility preservation before gonadotoxic treatment is widely recommended and increasingly used in cancer patients. The usage rate is an important indicator for monitoring the efficacy of these methods. In all of the methods described in the literature, this indicator did not exceed 31%. It is necessary to create legal and organizational solutions regulating material collection and storage and to create clear paths for its usage in the future, including by other recipients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38001608
pii: cancers15225348
doi: 10.3390/cancers15225348
pmc: PMC10670543
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
Int J Urol. 2021 Oct;28(10):1047-1052
pubmed: 34278620
Fertil Steril. 2018 Feb;109(2):349-355
pubmed: 29338854
Eur J Cancer. 2022 Sep;173:146-166
pubmed: 35932626
BMC Med. 2016 Jan 04;14:1
pubmed: 26728489
Fertil Steril. 2022 Jun;117(6):1277-1278
pubmed: 35525815
Mayo Clin Proc. 2020 Apr;95(4):770-783
pubmed: 32247351
Hum Reprod. 2020 Apr 28;35(4):929-938
pubmed: 32313940
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Jan 01;7(1):86-91
pubmed: 33211089
Hum Reprod. 2013 Sep;28(9):2381-8
pubmed: 23832792
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb;22(2):e45-e56
pubmed: 33539753
Ann Oncol. 2020 Dec;31(12):1664-1678
pubmed: 32976936
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb;22(2):e57-e67
pubmed: 33539754
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Dec 08;57(12):
pubmed: 34946285
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Feb;2(2):182-4
pubmed: 26821887
Maturitas. 2014 Jan;77(1):85-9
pubmed: 24215726
Fertil Steril. 2021 May;115(5):1126-1139
pubmed: 33933174
Hum Reprod. 2018 Dec 1;33(12):2222-2231
pubmed: 30383235
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Sep;170(1):177-82
pubmed: 23870186
Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Apr;26(4):337-44
pubmed: 23415997
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Feb;2(2):249-52
pubmed: 26822453
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023 Feb;281:41-48
pubmed: 36535069
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017 Feb;34(2):167-177
pubmed: 27817040
Urol Oncol. 2018 Mar;36(3):92.e1-92.e9
pubmed: 29169844
Int J Clin Oncol. 2022 Feb;27(2):265-280
pubmed: 34973107
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 May;98(5):604-615
pubmed: 30723910
Fertil Steril. 2019 Dec;112(6):1022-1033
pubmed: 31843073
Womens Health (Lond). 2022 Jan-Dec;18:17455065221074886
pubmed: 35130799
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 1;36(19):1994-2001
pubmed: 29620997
Hum Reprod. 2019 May 1;34(5):795-803
pubmed: 30951144
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2022 Nov;31(6):e13748
pubmed: 36280896
Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:961232
pubmed: 22253632
Support Care Cancer. 2015 Sep;23(9):2763-8
pubmed: 25680764
Andrologia. 2021 Mar;53(2):e13635
pubmed: 32390180
ScientificWorldJournal. 2014 Jan 22;2014:575978
pubmed: 24587730
Hum Reprod. 2022 May 3;37(5):954-968
pubmed: 35220429
Asian J Androl. 2021 Sep-Oct;23(5):490-494
pubmed: 33818523
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2016 Nov;8(6):412-420
pubmed: 27800030
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022 Jan;156(1):3-9
pubmed: 33829509
J Transl Med. 2019 Nov 29;17(1):396
pubmed: 31783875
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2019 Apr 09;3(1):pkz008
pubmed: 31360893
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2021 Jun;37(6):483-489
pubmed: 33501866
Front Oncol. 2020 Oct 07;10:574669
pubmed: 33117711
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Sep 23;20(19):
pubmed: 31548505
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Feb;55:59-66
pubmed: 30744950
Hong Kong Med J. 2020 Jun;26(3):216-226
pubmed: 32482909
Psychooncology. 2018 Dec;27(12):2725-2732
pubmed: 30144212
Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Jul;33(1):29-38
pubmed: 27156003
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Dec;29(6):722-8
pubmed: 25444506
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018 Jun;78(6):567-584
pubmed: 29962516
Hum Reprod. 2023 Mar 1;38(3):489-502
pubmed: 36421038
Curr Oncol. 2015 Aug;22(4):e294-304
pubmed: 26300680
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;32(5):380-384
pubmed: 32739976
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 Aug;32(8):1233-7
pubmed: 26174124
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019 Jan;28(1):e12945
pubmed: 30375696
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023 May 08;14:1148314
pubmed: 37223027
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Nov 14;2020(4):hoaa052
pubmed: 33225079
BJOG. 2012 Aug;119(9):1049-57
pubmed: 22642563
J Law Med Ethics. 2013 Fall;41(3):711-9
pubmed: 24088162
Reprod Biomed Online. 2022 Feb;44(2):357-369
pubmed: 34656436
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Mar 10;14(6):
pubmed: 35326578
Pediatrics. 2020 Mar;145(3):
pubmed: 32071259
Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Feb;32(2):147-53
pubmed: 26687904
Hum Reprod. 2014 Mar;29(3):525-33
pubmed: 24345581
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Jan;16(1):66-97
pubmed: 29295883