4.4 Article

Delayed childbearing and female ageing impair assisted reproductive technology outcome in survivors of male haematological cancers

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 2049-2056

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-1283-5

关键词

Assisted reproductive technology; Haematological cancer; Male infertility; Delayed childbearing; Sperm banks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To analyse the impact of female characteristics on assisted reproductive technology outcome among male haematological cancer survivors. Methods A retrospective analysis of 93 haematological cancer survivors attending our tertiary referral fertility centre between June 1998 and June 2017 for achieving fatherhood with assisted reproductive technology treatments. Results A progressive increase in the median female age was observed during the study period (32.2 years until the year 2007 and 36.9 years from the year 2012). Fifty-five out of 93 patients were treated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) (113 ovarian stimulations, 108 ICSI procedures). Cryopreserved ejaculated sperm was used in 28 couples, fresh sperm in 19, and thawed testicular sperm in 8 couples. Mean female age at ovarian stimulation was 37.0 + 4.7 years. Twenty-six pregnancies resulted in a full-term birth (23% per started ovarian stimulation; 43.6% per couple) and 33 children were born. No significant differences were observed according to source of sperm (fresh, frozen, testicular) and multivariate analysis confirmed that maternal age was the only variable inversely related to the cumulative delivery rate, being five times lower (15.7%) when the female partner was >= 40 years (OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.77) vs. 58.3% with younger women (p = 0.0037). Conclusions Delayed childbearing and female ageing affect ICSI outcome in couples where the male is a survivor of haematological cancer. This topic should be discussed when counselling male cancer patients about fertility preservation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据