4.6 Review

State of the art on oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients: A critical review of the literature

Journal

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
Volume 57, Issue -, Pages 50-57

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.04.009

Keywords

Oncofertility; Oocyte cryopreservation; Gonadotoxic therapies; Pregnancy after cancer

Categories

Funding

  1. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) for a Translational Research Fellowship at Institut Jules Bordet, in Brussels (Belgium)
  2. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) [2013-14272]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During the last decades, important advances in therapeutic options have led to increased survival rates in cancer patients; however, cancer treatments are associated with several potential adverse effects including infertility in those diagnosed during their reproductive years. A proper discussion about fertility preservation options before the use of therapies with potential gonadotoxicity (i.e. oncofertility counseling) is standard of care and should be offered to all patients of childbearing age. Temporary ovarian suppression with LH-RH analogs, oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservation in female cancer patients. Oocyte cryopreservation should be preferred to embryo cryopreservation when this latter is prohibited by law, avoided for ethical or religious issues and in single women refusing sperm donation. Despite the increasing use of this strategy, data are still lacking about the efficacy and safety of the procedure in female cancer patients, with most of the evidence on this regard deriving from infertile non-oncologic women. This article aims at critically review the available evidence about the success of oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients with the final goal to further improve the oncofertility counseling of these women. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available