Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39479806›Full record

Observational studyHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2024

Outcomes of female fertility preservation with cryopreservation of oocytes or embryos in the Netherlands: a population-based study.

M Elena Ter Welle-Butalid, Josien G Derhaag, Bo E van Bree, Ingeborg J H Vriens, Mariëtte Goddijn, Eva M E Balkenende, Catharina C M Beerendonk, Anna M E Bos, Irene Homminga, Sofie H Benneheij and 6 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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.

M Elena Ter Welle-ButalidDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3882-8036
Josien G DerhaagDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bo E van BreeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2898-9178
Ingeborg J H VriensGROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mariëtte GoddijnCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eva M E BalkenendeCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2116-7363
Catharina C M BeerendonkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Anna M E BosDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Irene HommingaCenter for Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6794-2102
Sofie H BenneheijDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
H C van OsDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Voorburg, The Netherlands.
Jesper M J SmeenkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Marieke O VerhoevenCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Casandra C A W van BavelIsala Fertility Centre, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Vivianne C G Tjan-HeijnenGROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ron J T van GoldeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat are the reproductive outcomes of patients who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos in the context of fertility preservation in the Netherlands? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study shows that after a 10-year follow-up period, the utilization rate to attempt pregnancy using cryopreserved oocytes or embryos was 25.5% and the cumulative live birth rate after embryo transfer was 34.6% per patient. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fertility preservation by freezing oocytes or embryos is an established treatment for women with a risk of premature ovarian failure (caused by a benign or oncological disease) or physiological age-related fertility decline. Little is known about the success of cryopreservation, the utilization rate of oocytes or embryos, or the live birth rates. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective observational study was performed in the Netherlands. Data were collected between 2017 and 2019 from 1112 women who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos more than 2 years ago in the context of fertility preservation in 10 IVF centers in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsA total of 1112 women were included in this study. Medical files and patient databases were used to extract data. Women were categorized based on indication of fertility preservation: oncological, benign, or non-medical. To indicate statistical differences the t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used for time endpoints, and log-rank analyses were used to assess statistical differences. The study protocol was approved by the medical ethics committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Fertility preservation cycles have been performed increasingly over the years in the Netherlands. In the first years, less than 10 cycles per year were performed, increasing to more than 300 cycles per year 10 years later. Initially, embryos were frozen in the context of fertility preservation. In later years, cryopreservation of oocytes became the standard approach. Cryopreservation of oocytes versus embryos resulted in comparable numbers of used embryos (median of 2) for transfer and comparable live birth rates (33.9% and 34.6%, respectively). The 5-year utilization rate was 12.3% and the 10-year utilization rate was 25.5%. The cumulative clinical pregnancy rate was 35.6% and the cumulative live birth rate was 34.6% per patient. Those who had fertility preservation due to benign diseases returned earlier to use their cryopreserved embryos or oocytes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The follow-up period after the fertility preservation procedure varied between patients in this study and not all frozen oocytes or embryos had been used at the end of this study. This might have led to underestimated outcomes reported in this study. Furthermore, intention to treat cannot be fully determined since women who started the fertility preservation procedure without success (cancellation due to low response) were not included in this study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThis study provides data on the reproductive outcomes after various indications of fertility preservation. This knowledge can be informative for professionals and future patients to improve counseling and informed decision making regarding ovarian stimulation in the context of fertility preservation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was obtained for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare related to this study. V.T.H. received grants paid to the institute for studies outside the present work from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Novartis, Eli Lily, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo. V.T.H. received consulting fees from Eli Lily outside the present work. M.G. received grants paid to the institute for studies outside the present work from Guerbet and Ferring. E.M.E.B. received a grant from The Dutch Network of Fertility Preservation for a study outside the present work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Indexed as

CryopreservationFertility PreservationOocytesPregnancy RateAdultBirth RateEmbryo, MammalianEmbryo TransferFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansLive BirthNetherlandsPregnancyRetrospective Studiesembryo cryopreservationfertility preservationoocyte cryopreservationpregnancyutilization rate

Identifiers

PMID39479806
PMCPMC11630040

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.