4.7 Article

Ovarian reserve and oocyte maturity in women with malignancy undergoing in vitro maturation treatment

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 95, 期 5, 页码 1621-1623

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.12.041

关键词

Malignancy; breast cancer; fertility preservation; oocyte maturity; ovarian reserve; in vitro maturation; IVM

资金

  1. Ethicon Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate ovarian reserve and oocyte maturity in women with malignancy. Design: A case-control study. Setting: University teaching hospital. Patient(s): We evaluated all women with malignancy who underwent in vitro maturation treatment for fertility preservation from the year 2003 to 2009. The results were compared with those of an age-matched infertile control group. Intervention(s): In vitro maturation treatment. Main Outcome Measure(s): Ovarian reserve and oocyte maturity. Result(s): Women with malignancy of the breast (n = 87), hematologic malignancy (n 16), gynecologic or abdominal malignancy (n 9), and other malignancies (n 16) were compared with infertile control women (n 79). The age was similar in all groups except in women with hematologic malignancy where they were younger than the control group (24.9 perpendicular to 1.1 years vs. 30.8 perpendicular to 0.4 years, confidence interval 4.0-9.5). Baseline FSH in this group was also lower than in the control group. Women with breast cancer had a lower number of retrieved oocytes than the control group (95% confidence interval 0-5). There were no significant differences in antral follicle count, percentage of mature oocytes on collection day, and percentage of metaphase II oocytes matured in vitro among all groups of women. Conclusion(s): Women with breast cancer have fewer numbers of retrieved oocytes than infertile controls. Ovarian reserve and oocyte maturity in other types of malignancy are similar to those in the control group. (Fertil Steril (R) 2011;95:1621-3. (C) 2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

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

4.7
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