EVALUATION OF FERTILITY PRESERVATION CYCLE OUTCOMES BY PRIMARY CANCER SITE

Document Type

Conference Proceeding

Publication Date

12-1-2025

Publication Title

Fertil Steril

Keywords

adult, breast cancer, cancer diagnosis, cancer localization, cancer patient, Caucasian, cohort analysis, conference abstract, diagnosis, female, female genital tract cancer, fertility preservation, human, major clinical study, multiple cycle treatment, oocyte cryopreservation, oocyte retrieval, ovarian reserve, ovary cancer, primary tumor, retrospective study, surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of fertility preservation oocyte retrieval cycles per primary cancer site to planned fertility preservation controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study consisting of all patients seen at clinics associated with a national infertility practice between the years 2012 and 2024. To identify patients with a new diagnosis of cancer, we conducted a manual review of physician notes that contained specific oncofertility keywords to determine eligibility for the study. Patients presenting for care following a new diagnosis of cancer (within 12 months) were included in the study. They were excluded if they had previously undergone fertility preservation cycles or completed gonadotoxic therapy. Cancer patients were stratified based on the primary site of their cancer. Controls consisted of patients who had a planned oocyte cryopreservation cycle during the same time period. We performed descriptive statistical analyses to compare oocyte outcomes and sociodemographic qualities between the two cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 295 unique, eligible patients with newly diagnosed cancer, and 9161 controls. The most common primary sites of cancer were breast cancer (n=177) and leukemias/lymphomas (n=49). Patients with a new diagnosis of cancer were slightly more likely to be white (42.0% v 39.4%, p<0.001) and younger than those undergoing planned oocyte cryopreservation (30.8 v 35.1, p<0.001). The mean and median total number of mature oocytes retrieved for all cancer diagnoses were 26.6 and 22.0, respectively. Most patients underwent two oocyte retrieval cycles. When comparing the oocyte yield and total number of cycles completed, there were no statistically significant differences observed according to a patient’s primary site of cancer. On average, patients with breast cancer had 25.5 mature oocytes retrieved, compared to 27.8 mature oocytes among individuals with leukemia or lymphoma. Our cohort included 12 patients with non-ovarian gynecologic cancer and 11 patients with ovarian cancer. Both of these cohorts had similar total mean mature oocyte outcomes to their peers (non-ovarian gynecologic: 23.9, ovarian: 22.9). CONCLUSIONS: The origin of cancer does not appear to impact oocyte yield when accounting for age and ovarian reserve. The mean number of mature oocytes collected along with the number of cycles performed were similar among all cancer diagnoses, including the two most common cancer diagnoses in our cohort, breast cancer and leukemia or lymphomas. IMPACT STATEMENT: The primary site of cancer does not need to be considered when counseling a patient regarding their expected oocyte yield prior to a medically indicated fertility preservation cycle.

Volume

124

Issue

6

First Page

e268

Last Page

e269

Find It @ Sladen

Share

COinS