Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T05:00:45.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 21 - ART and Oocyte Donation in Cancer Survivors

from Section 6 - Fertility Preservation Strategies in the Female: ART

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2021

By
Glenn L Schattman ,
Ina N Cholst  and
Zev Rosenwaks
Edited by
Jacques Donnez  and
S. Samuel Kim
Jacques Donnez
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels
S. Samuel Kim
Affiliation:
University of Kansas School of Medicine
Get access

Summary

Every year many women worldwide are diagnosed with cancer. More than 90% of cancer patients undergo invasive cancer therapy, such as chemo- and radiotherapy [1]. Most chemotherapy regimens include the alkylating agent cyclophosphamide, which is known to cause a significant loss in ovarian follicle reserve, and may result in infertility and early menopause. The irreversible destruction of germ cells after using both radio and chemotherapy is due to a direct apoptotic effect on oocytes [2]. On the other hand, advances in oncological treatments and better screening programs have significantly improved the life expectancy thus increasing the population of young cancer survivors. Therefore, protection against iatrogenic infertility caused by cancer therapies is considered indispensable to allow patients to have a chance to conceive in the future and to have their own genetic offspring.

Type
Chapter
Information
Fertility Preservation
Principles and Practice
 , pp. 225 - 242
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kavic, SM, Sauer, MV. Oocyte donation treats infertility in survivors of malignancies: 10-year experience. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2001;18(3):181–183.Google Scholar
Edgar, A, Morris, EMM, Kelnar, CJH, Wallace, WH. Long-term follow-up of survivors of childhood cancer. Endoc Dev, 2009;15:159–180.Google Scholar
Del Mastro, L, Catzeddu, T, Venturini, M. Infertility and pregnancy after breast cancer: current knowledge and future perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev, 2006;32(6):417–422.Google Scholar
Meirow, D, Epstein, M, Lewis, H, Nugent, D, Gosden, RG. Administration of cyclophosphamide at different stages of follicular maturation in mice: effects on reproductive performance and fetal malformations. Hum Reprod, 2001;16(4):632–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, MM. Pregnancy outcome and offspring after childhood cancer. BMJ, 1994;309(6961):1034.Google Scholar
Sanders, JE, Hawley, J, Levy, W et al. Pregnancies following high-dose cyclophosphamide with or without high-dose busulfan or total-body irradiation and bone marrow transplantation. Blood, 1996;87(7):3045–3052.Google Scholar
Larsen, EC, Loft, A, Holm, K et al. Oocyte donation in women cured of cancer with bone marrow transplantation including total body irradiation in adolescence. Hum Reprod, 2000;15(7):1505–1508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bath, LE, Critchley, HO, Chambers, SE et al. Ovarian and uterine characteristics after total body irradiation in childhood and adolescence: response to sex steroid replacement. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1999;106(12):1265–1272.Google Scholar
Urbano, MT, Tait, DM. Can the irradiated uterus sustain a pregnancy? A literature review. Clin Oncol, 2004;16(1):24–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenig, E, Mishaeli, M, Kalish, Y, Lishner, M. Pregnancy and radiation. Cancer Treat Rev, 2001;27(1):1–7.Google Scholar
Yih, MC, Spandorfer, SD, Rosenwaks, Z. Egg production predicts a doubling of in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates even within defined age and ovarian reserve categories. Fertil Steril, 2005;83(1):24–29.Google Scholar
Bath, LE, Wallace, WH, Shaw, MP, Fitzpatrick, C, Anderson, RA. Depletion of ovarian reserve in young women after treatment for cancer in childhood: detection by anti-Müllerian hormone, inhibin B and ovarian ultrasound. Hum Reprod, 2003;18(11):2368–2374.Google Scholar
Larsen, EC, Müller, J, Rechnitzer, C, Schmiegelow, K, Andersen, AN. Diminished ovarian reserve in female childhood cancer survivors with regular menstrual cycles and basal FSH <10 IU/l. Hum Reprod, 2003;18(2):417–422.Google Scholar
Azim, AA, Rauch, ER, Ravich, Witkin S, Oktay, K. Ovarian reserve is impaired in cancer patients with normal baseline FSH who previously received chemotherapy as determined by response to controlled ovarian stimulation and anti-mullerian hormone measurements: a controlled study. Fertil Steril, 2006;86(3):S123–S124.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, ES, Yanushpolsky, EH, Jackson, KV. In vitro fertilization for cancer patients and survivors. Fertil Steril, 2001;75(4):705–710.Google Scholar
Azim, A, Costantini-Ferrando, M, Oktay, K. Safety of fertility preservation by ovarian stimulation with letrozole and gonadotropins in patients with breast cancer: a prospective controlled study. J Clin Oncol, 2008;26(16):2630–2635.Google Scholar
Azim, AA, Rauch, ER, Ravich, M, Witkin, S, Oktay, K. Ovarian reserve is impaired in cancer patients with normal baseline FSH who previously received chemotherapy as determined by response to controlled ovarian stimulation and anti-Müllerian hormone measurements: a controlled study. Fertil Steril, 2006;86(3):S123–S124.Google Scholar
Oktay, K, Buyuk, E, Libertella, N, Akar, M, Rosenwaks, Z. Fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: a prospective controlled comparison of ovarian stimulation with tamoxifen and letrozole for embryo cryopreservation. J Clin Oncol, 2005;23(19):4347–4353.Google Scholar
Oktay, K, Hourvitz, A, Sahin, G et al. Letrozole reduces estrogen and gonadotropin exposure in women with breast cancer undergoing ovarian stimulation before chemotherapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2006;91(10):3885–3890.Google Scholar
Suikkari, A. In-vitro maturation: its role in fertility treatment. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2008;20(3):242–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banwell, KM, Thompson, JG. In vitro maturation of mammalian oocytes: outcomes and consequences. Semin Reprod Med, 2008;26(2):162–174.Google Scholar
Bustillo, M, Buster, JE, Cohen, SW et al. Delivery of a healthy infant following nonsurgical ovum transfer. JAMA, 1984;251(7):889.Google Scholar
Lutjen, P, Trounson, A, Leeton, J et al. The establishment and maintenance of pregnancy using in vitro fertilization and embryo donation in a patient with primary ovarian failure. Nature, 1984;307(5947):174–175.Google Scholar
Rosenwaks, Z, Veeck, LL, Liu, HC. Pregnancy following transfer of in vitro fertilized donated oocytes. Fertil Steril, 1986;45(3):417.Google Scholar
National Summary Report for 2015. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0“ www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0Google Scholar
Anselmo, AP, Cavalieri, E, Aragona, C et al. Successful pregnancies following an egg donation program in women with previously treated Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica, 2001;86(6):624–628.Google ScholarPubMed
Clarke, A, Gaff, C. Challenges in the genetic testing of children for familial cancers. Arch Dis Child, 2008;93(11):911–914.Google Scholar
Offit, K, Kohut, K, Clagett, B et al. Cancer genetic testing and assisted reproduction. J Clin Oncol, 2006;24(29):4775–4782.Google Scholar
Sagi, M, Weinberg, N, Eilat, A et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for BRCA1/2 – a novel clinical experience. Prenat Diagn, 2009;29(5):508–513.Google Scholar
Xu, K, Rosenwaks, Z, Beaverson, K et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for retinoblastoma: the first reported liveborn. Am J Ophthalmol, 2004;137(1):18–23.Google Scholar
Julian-Reynier, C, Chabal, F, Frebourg, T et al. Professionals assess the acceptability of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and prenatal diagnosis for managing inherited predisposition to cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2009;27(27):4475–4480.Google Scholar
Lammens, C, Bleiker, E, Aaronson, N et al. Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer. Fam Cancer, 2009;8(4):457–464.Google Scholar
Nagy, Z, Chang, C, Shapiro, D et al. Clinical evaluation of the efficiency of an oocyte donation program using egg cryo-banking. Fertil Steril, 2009;92(2):520–526.Google Scholar
Alkorta-Idiakez, I. Human tissue and cells regulation in Spain: looking at Europe to solve inner contradictions? Law Human Genome Rev, 2008;29:25–43.Google Scholar
Jones, HW, Cohen, J. IFFS surveillance 07. Fertil Steril, 2007;87(4 Suppl 1):S1–67.Google Scholar
Practices Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Practices Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a Committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2013;99:47–62.Google Scholar
Inhorn, M, Patrizio, P. Rethinking reproductive “tourism” as reproductive “exile.” Fertil Steril, 2009;92:904–906.Google Scholar
Pennings, G, de Wert, G, Shenfield, F et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 15: cross-border reproductive care. Hum Reprod, 2008;23(10):2182–2184.Google Scholar
Tremlett, G. Spain becomes the destination of choice for fertility tourists from Britain. Guardian, May 12, 2006:p. 16.Google Scholar
Murphy, C. Rush to Spain for IVF is up 100 pc. Herald, September 9, 2009: www.herald.ie/national-news/rush-to-spain-for-ivf-is-up-100pc-1881428.htmlGoogle Scholar
Andersen, AN, Goossens, V, Bhattacharya, S et al. Assisted reproductive technology and intrauterine inseminations in Europe, 2005. Results generated from European registers by the European IVF Monitoring Programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod, 2009;24(6):1267.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2005 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates: National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007.Google Scholar
The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2016;106(7):e15–e19.Google Scholar
The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Family members as gamete donors and surrogates. Fertil Steril, 2003;80(5):1124–1130.Google Scholar
US Department of Health and Human Services, US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Guidance for Industry: Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps), 2007. www.fda.govhttp://www.BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Tissue/ucm073964.htm. (Accessed 2009)Google Scholar
Daar, J, Brzyski, R. Genetic screening of sperm and oocyte donors: ethical and policy implications. JAMA, 2009;302(15):1702–1704.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, R, Jansen, V, Grifo, JA et al. Genetic screening of prospective oocyte donors. Fertil Steril, 1998;70(1):52–55.Google Scholar
Maron, B, Lesser, J, Schiller, N et al. Implications of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy transmitted by sperm donation. JAMA, 2009;302(15):1681–1684.Google Scholar
Practices Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Practices Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidelines for gamete and embryo donation: a Practice Committee report. Fertil Steril, 2008;90(Suppl.5):S30–S44.Google Scholar
Singer, LM, Brodzinsky, DM, Ramsay, D, Steir, M, Waters, E. Mother–infant attachment in adoptive families. Child Dev, 1985;56(6):1543–1551.Google Scholar
Scarr, S, Weinberg, RA. The Minnesota adoption studies: genetic differences and malleability. Child Dev, 1983;54(2):260–267.Google Scholar
Kalfoglou, AL. Navigating conflict of interest in oocyte donation. Amer J Bioeth, 2001;1(4):W1.Google Scholar
de Melo-Martin, I, Cholst, IN. Researching human oocyte cryopreservation: ethical issues. Fertil Steril, 2008;89(3):523–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, K, Cholst, I, Rosenwaks, Z. The incidence of both serious and minor complications in young women undergoing oocyte donation. Fertil Steril, 2008;90(6):2165–2171.Google Scholar
Sauer, MV. Defining the incidence of serious complications experienced by oocyte donors: a review of 1000 cases. Obstet Gynecol, 2001;184(3):277–278.Google Scholar
Bennett, SJ, Waterstone, JJ, Cheng, WC, Parsons, J.Complications of transvaginal ultrasound-directed follicle aspiration: a review of 2670 consecutive procedures. J Assist Reprod Genet, 1993;10(1):72–77.Google Scholar
Bodri, D, Guilln, JJ, Polo, A et al. Complications related to ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval in 4052 oocyte donor cycles. Reprod Biomed Online, 2008;17(2):237–243.Google Scholar
Pereira, N, Voskuilen-Gonzalez, A, Hancock, K et al. Random-start ovarian stimulation in women desiring elective cryopreservation of oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online, 2017;35(4):400–406.Google Scholar
Acevedo, B, Gomez-Palomares, JL, Ricciarelli, E, Hernández, ER. Triggering ovulation with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists does not compromise embryo implantation rates. Fertil Steril, 2006;86(6):1682–1687.Google Scholar
Damewood, MD, Shen, W, Zacur, HA et al. Disappearance of exogenously administered human chorionic gonadotropin. Fertil Steril, 1989;52(3):398–400.Google Scholar
Yen, SS, Llerena, O, Little, B, Pearson, OH. Disappearance rates of endogenous luteinizing hormone and chorionic gonadotropin in man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1968;28(12):1763–1767.Google Scholar
Itskovitz-Eldor, J, Kol, S, Mannaerts, B. Use of a single bolus of GnRH agonist triptorelin to trigger ovulation after GnRH antagonist ganirelix treatment in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction, with special reference to the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Preliminary report: short communication. Hum Reprod, 2000;15(9):1965–1968.Google Scholar
Engmann, L, DiLuigi, A, Schmidt, D et al. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce oocyte maturation after cotreatment with GnRH antagonist in high-risk patients undergoing in vitro fertilization prevents the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a prospective randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril, 2008;89(1):84–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melo, M, Busso, CE, Bellver, J et al. GnRH agonist versus recombinant hCG in an oocyte donation programme: a randomized, prospective, controlled, assessor-blind study. Reprod Biomed Online, 2009;19(4):486–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sismanoglu, A, Tekin, HI, Erden, HF et al. Ovulation triggering with GnRH agonist vs hCG in the same egg donor population undergoing donor oocyte cycles with GnRH antagonist: a prospective randomized cross-over trial. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2009;26(5):251–256.Google Scholar
Ludwig, AK, Glawatz, M, Griesinger, G, Diedrich, K, Ludwig, M.Perioperative and post-operative complications of transvaginal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval: prospective study of >1000 oocyte retrievals. Hum Reprod, 2006;21(12):3235–3240.Google Scholar
Tureck, RW, Garcıa, CR, Blasco, L, Mastroianni, L. Perioperative complications arising after transvaginal oocyte retrieval. Obstet Gynecol, 1993;81(4):590.Google Scholar
Jun, S, Hornstein, M. Is there a role for preparatory cycle in ovum donation recipients? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2006;18(3):333–337.Google Scholar
Rosenwaks, Z. Donor eggs: their application in modern reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril, 1987;47(6):895–909.Google Scholar
Droesch, K, Navot, D, Scott, R et al. Transdermal estrogen replacement in ovarian failure for ovum donation. Fertil Steril, 1988;50(6):931–934.Google Scholar
Davis, OK, Rosenwaks, Z. Preparation of the endometrium for oocyte donation. J Assist Reprod Genet, 1993;10(7):457–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navot, D, Anderson, TL, Droesch, K et al.Hormonal manipulation of endometrial maturation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1989;68(4):801–807.Google Scholar
Navot, D, Scott, RT, Droesch, K et al. The window of embryo transfer and the efficiency of human conception in vitro. Fertil Steril, 1991;55(1):114–118.Google Scholar
Gibbons, WE, Toner, JP, Hamacher, P, Kolm, P. Experience with a novel vaginal progesterone preparation in a donor oocyte program. Fertil Steril, 1998;69(1):96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R, Navot, D, Liu, HC, Rosenwaks, Z. A human in vivo model for the luteoplacental shift. Fertil Steril, 1991;56(3):481–484.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×