4.5 Article

Female fertility preservation: Impact of cancer on ovarian function and oocyte quality

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13702

关键词

cancer; controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; fertility preservation; in vitro fertilization; ovarian response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer significantly affects ovarian response and oocyte quality during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for fertility preservation, with cancer patients showing a higher number of abnormal oocytes compared to controls.
Objective To evaluate the influence of cancer on ovarian response and oocyte quality in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). Methods This prospective study conducted at the Physiopathology of Reproduction and Andrology Unit of Sandro Pertini Hospital enrolled 82 cancer patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COH) cycles for fertility preservation, and age- and date-matched controls undergoing COH for in vitro fertilization for male-factor infertility from June 2016 to November 2019. The interventions performed were COH, oocyte retrieval, and quality evaluation. Main outcome measures were maximal estradiol levels on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin administration, duration of stimulation, total amount of gonadotropins administered, number of oocytes retrieved, and rates of metaphase 2 oocytes and abnormal oocytes. All data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) 22.0. Results Intergroup comparisons (82 cancer patients and 180 patients in control group) showed a significant difference in ovarian response, especially for a significant higher number of abnormal oocytes in cancer patients (P < 0.0001). Regression analysis to assess the influence of the neoplastic process, regardless of the type, on ovarian response showed an effect on the main outcome measured due to cancer itself. Conclusion Cancer influences the ovarian response, particularly the oocyte quality, during COH performed for 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

4.5
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