Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42447040›Full record

ArticleReproduction & fertility2026

Patient-specific in vitro follicle development in response to ovarian freezing and culture.

N Kuscu, H Long, K Delray, S Lane, J Davies, C Becker, S A Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproduction & fertility, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

N KuscuNuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford , Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7366-6231
H LongNuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford , Oxford, United Kingdom.
K DelrayBig Data Institute, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford , Oxford, United Kingdom.
S LaneNuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford , Oxford, United Kingdom.
J DaviesOxford Cell & Tissue Biobank, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Oxford, United Kingdom.
C BeckerNuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford , Oxford, United Kingdom.
S A WilliamsNuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford , Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1798-976X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractOvarian tissue cryopreservation is currently the only fertility preservation option for young girls, yet little is known about follicle health and development after freezing in previously treated young cancer patients. This study investigated the effect of cryopreservation on follicle health and developmental potential in ovarian tissue from paediatric and adolescent cancer patients by comparing fresh and cryopreserved tissue from six girls aged 10-16 years, five of whom had received prior cancer treatment. Tissues were cultured in vitro for 2 or 8 days, and follicle morphology, health, developmental stage, and density were assessed by histological analysis. Data were analysed using advanced statistical models, including generalized linear mixed models, to account for patient variability. Fresh ovarian tissue contained approximately 15% healthy follicles by Day 8 of culture, whereas cryopreserved tissue showed complete follicular depletion, with 0% healthy follicles remaining. These findings demonstrate the detrimental effects of both the freeze-thaw process and extended in vitro culture on follicle health and development in paediatric and adolescent ovarian tissue. Statistical analyses confirmed the significant impact of cryopreservation, as cryopreserved tissue failed to maintain any healthy follicles beyond 1 week in culture, and substantial inter-patient variability was observed (P < 0.05), highlighting the influence of individual patient factors. Overall, these findings help resolve discrepancies in the literature regarding follicle survival after ovarian tissue cryopreservation in young cancer patients and underscore the importance of personalized fertility preservation strategies, given the significant inter-patient variability observed. The insights gained offer potential avenues for refining cryopreservation and culture protocols. LAY SUMMARY: Young girls undergoing cancer treatment often rely on ovarian tissue freezing as their only fertility preservation option, yet it remains unclear how well this approach maintains follicle health. Follicles are functional units of the ovary that contain immature eggs and are fundamental to future fertility. In this study, we compared fresh and frozen ovarian tissue from girls aged 10-16 years, most of whom had received chemotherapy, and examined follicle health and developmental potential during in vitro culture. Fresh tissue retained a small proportion of healthy follicles after eight days, whereas frozen tissue showed a complete loss of healthy follicles, with considerable differences observed between patients. These findings show that the freeze-thaw process and subsequent culture have a severe impact on follicle health in paediatric and adolescent ovarian tissue. Our work highlights the importance of improving and tailoring fertility preservation methods for young cancer patients and provides important evidence that current approaches to ovarian tissue freezing may not adequately protect follicle health in young cancer patients.

Indexed as

CryopreservationFertility PreservationNeoplasmsOvarian FollicleOvaryAdolescentChildFemaleFreezingHumansTissue Culture Techniquescancer patientscryopreservationfertility preservationfollicle developmentovary culturepaediatric and adolescent girls

Identifiers

PMID42447040
PMCPMC13393308

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.