Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37563616›Full record

ArticleJournal of ovarian research2023

Fertility preservation after gonadotoxic treatments for cancer and autoimmune diseases.

Saki Saito, Mitsutoshi Yamada, Rika Yano, Kazuko Takahashi, Akiko Ebara, Hiroe Sakanaka, Miho Matsumoto, Tomoko Ishimaru, Hiroki Utsuno, Yuichi Matsuzawa and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Saki SaitoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Mitsutoshi YamadaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan. mitsutoshi.yamada@gmail.com.
Rika YanoDepartment of Nursing, Keio University Hospital, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Kazuko TakahashiDepartment of Nursing, Keio University Hospital, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Akiko EbaraDepartment of Nursing, Keio University Hospital, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Hiroe SakanakaDepartment of Nursing, Keio University Hospital, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Miho MatsumotoClinical Laboratory, Keio University Hospital, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Tomoko IshimaruClinical Laboratory, Keio University Hospital, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Hiroki UtsunoClinical Laboratory, Keio University Hospital, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Yuichi MatsuzawaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Reina OokaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Mio FukuokaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Kazuhiro AkashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Shintaro KamijoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Toshio HamataniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Mamoru TanakaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Keio University · JPKeio University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe indications for fertility preservation (FP) have expanded. A few patients who underwent gonadotoxic treatment did not have the opportunity to receive FP, leading to concerns that these patients may develop premature ovarian insufficiency. However, the usefulness of FP in women with reduced ovarian reserve has also been questioned. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation can improve the controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol, but there is limited data on the efficacy of FP with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation.

methodsWe conducted a prospective study of 43 women with cancer or autoimmune diseases before and after gonadotoxic treatment at the reproductive unit of Keio University Hospital, counselled between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2021. After counselling, informed consent was obtained for FP from 43 patients, with those who underwent gonadotoxic treatment of the primary disease being prioritised. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue or progestin was used to suppress luteinising hormone in COS before or after gonadotoxic treatment. The number of cryopreserved mature oocytes was the primary outcome.

resultsForty-three patients and 67 assisted reproductive technology cycles were included in the analysis. The median age at entry was 32 [inter quartile range (IQR), 29-37] years. All patients in the post-gonadotoxic treatment group had their oocytes frozen. Gonadotoxic treatment resulted in fewer oocytes [median 3 (IQR 1-4); pre-gonadotoxic treatment group: five patients, 13 cycles] vs. median 9 (IQR 5-14; pre-gonadotoxic treatment group: 38 patients, 54 cycles; P < 0.001). Although anti-Müllerian hormone levels were lower in the post-gonadotoxic treatment group (n = 5, 13 cycles, median 0.29 (IQR 0.15-1.04) pg/mL) than in the pre-gonadotoxic treatment group (n = 38, 54 cycles, median 1.89 (IQR 1.15-4.08) pg/mL) (P = 0.004), oocyte maturation rates were higher in the post-gonadotoxic treatment group [median 100 (IQR 77.5-100) %] than in the pre-gonadotoxic group [median 90.3 (IQR 75.0-100) %; P = 0.039]. Five patients in the pre-gonadotoxic treatment group had their cryopreserved embryos thawed, of which three had live births.

conclusionsOocytes obtained for FP from women with cancer or autoimmune disease for FP are of satisfactory quality, regardless of whether they are obtained post-gonadotoxic treatment or COS protocols.

Indexed as

Autoimmune DiseasesFertility PreservationNeoplasmsCryopreservationFemaleHumansLive BirthOocyte RetrievalOocytesOvulation InductionPregnancyProgestinsProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesProgestinsAutoimmune diseaseCancerCryopreservationEmbryo qualityFemale infertilityFertility preservationGonadotropin-releasing hormone analogueOocyte qualityProgestin-primed ovarian stimulationRemission

Identifiers

PMID37563616
PMCPMC10416401
OpenAlexW4385737540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.