Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33797007›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2021

Live birth rate after use of cryopreserved oocytes or embryos at the time of cancer diagnosis in female survivors: a retrospective study of ten years of experience.

Anne Mayeur, Vincent Puy, Victoria Windal, Laetitia Hesters, Vanessa Gallot, Alexandra Benoit, Michael Grynberg, Charlotte Sonigo, Nelly Frydman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. In vitro maturation (IVM) of human immature oocytes: is it still relevant?Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anne MayeurReproductive Biology Unit CECOS, Antoine Béclère Hospital APHP, Paris-Saclay University, 157 rue de la porte de Trivaux, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France. anne.mayeur@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5764-5382
Vincent PuyReproductive Biology Unit CECOS, Antoine Béclère Hospital APHP, Paris-Saclay University, 157 rue de la porte de Trivaux, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France.
Victoria WindalReproductive Biology Unit CECOS, Antoine Béclère Hospital APHP, Paris-Saclay University, 157 rue de la porte de Trivaux, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France.
Laetitia HestersReproductive Biology Unit CECOS, Antoine Béclère Hospital APHP, Paris-Saclay University, 157 rue de la porte de Trivaux, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France.
Vanessa GallotDepartment of Reproductive Medicine and Fertility Preservation, Antoine Béclère Hospital, APHP, Paris-Saclay University, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France.
Alexandra BenoitDepartment of Reproductive Medicine and Fertility Preservation, Antoine Béclère Hospital, APHP, Paris-Saclay University, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France.
Michael GrynbergDepartment of Reproductive Medicine and Fertility Preservation, Antoine Béclère Hospital, APHP, Paris-Saclay University, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France.
Charlotte Sonigo *Department of Reproductive Medicine and Fertility Preservation, Antoine Béclère Hospital, APHP, Paris-Saclay University, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France.
Nelly Frydman *Reproductive Biology Unit CECOS, Antoine Béclère Hospital APHP, Paris-Saclay University, 157 rue de la porte de Trivaux, Clamart, 92140, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of frozen oocytes or embryos cryopreserved after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) or in vitro maturation (IVM) for female cancer patients who underwent a fertility preservation (FP) prior to gonadotoxic therapy.

methodsA retrospective cohort study from 2009 to December 2017 was conducted. Among the 667 female cancer patients who underwent oocytes or embryos cryopreservation for FP, 40 (6%) have returned to the fertility clinic between 2011 and 2019 to use their frozen material after being cured. We compared these thaw cycles outcomes according to the techniques used at the time of cryopreservation.

resultsAmong the 40 women cancer survivors who used their cryopreserved material, thirty patients have benefited from at least one embryo transfer. Ten patients did not have an embryo transfer since the oocytes did not survive after the thawing process or because no embryo was obtained after fertilization. We related three live births following FP using IVM (two from frozen oocytes and one after embryo cryopreservation). Five live births were obtained when COS was performed at the time of FP (one from frozen oocytes and four after embryo cryopreservation).

conclusionsOur preliminary results, although they are obtained in a small sample, are encouraging and show that different FP techniques can be used in female cancer patients and lead to live births. IVM is one of the options available that does not delay the start of chemotherapy or if ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins is contraindicated.

Indexed as

OocytesPregnancy RateAdultBlastocystCancer SurvivorsCryopreservationFemaleFertility PreservationHumansIn Vitro Oocyte Maturation TechniquesNeoplasmsOvulation InductionPregnancyRetrospective StudiesIn vitro maturationLive birthOncofertility preservationOocyte cryopreservationZygote cryopreservation

Identifiers

PMID33797007
PMCPMC8324734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.