ArticleF&S reports2025
Ex vivo oocyte retrieval for fertility preservation in an adolescent patient with recurrent ovarian dysgerminoma: a case report and review of the literature.
Article in F&S reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eggs-panding possibilities: feasibility of ex vivo oocyte retrieval in ovarian cancer.F&S reports · 2025Article
- Feasibility and Safety of Intraoperative Oocyte Retrieval in Patients With Ovarian Tumor: Results From the Japan Oncofertility Registry.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe fertility preservation via ex vivo oocyte retrieval for an adolescent patient undergoing oophorectomy for recurrent ovarian dysgerminoma and to review the available literature regarding this technique. Design: Case report and literature review. Subjects: A 17-year-old female with a medical history of right ovarian dysgerminoma treated with oophorectomy 3 years prior, who presented with a retroperitoneal mass noted during surveillance. Biopsy of the mass and remaining ovary confirmed recurrent stage III ovarian dysgerminoma. The patient desired fertility preservation. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation and traditional transvaginal oocyte retrieval were contraindicated because of the ovarian malignancy. Exposure: The patient underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with gonadotropins followed by laparotomy and left salpingo-oophorectomy 36 hours after ovulation trigger. An ex vivo retrieval of oocytes was performed under both direct visualization and ultrasound guidance in the operating room after excision of the ovary and isolated using a "mobile IVF" setup. Main Outcome Measures: Number of meiosis II oocytes cryopreserved. Results: A total of 12 meiosis II oocytes were retrieved from the ovary and were successfully cryopreserved. The patient tolerated the procedure well and has since completed chemotherapy. Conclusion: The combination of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation followed by ex vivo oocyte retrieval provides select patients with an opportunity for fertility preservation that may have otherwise faced a complete loss of fertility. In this case, the patient was able to preserve oocytes without jeopardizing her health status or delaying cancer therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.