Research Article | Volume 1 - Issue 1 | Article DOI :
Download PDF
Nouf Alasmari¹, Atif Zeadna¹, Hananel Holzer¹, Weon-Young Son¹, William Buckett¹, Janet Takefman¹ and Togas Tulandi¹*
¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Togas Tulandi, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, Tel: +1(514) 843 1650; Email: togas.tulandi@mcgill.ca
Keywords
Social Fertility Preservation;
Age; Oocyte Cryopreservation; Embryo
Cryopreservation
Abstract
The global phenomenon of deferment of conception has led to an increase in the age of sub fertile community and a growing demand for assisted reproductive techniques. Social fertility preservation can be considered a hedge against age-related decline in fertility and is considered as a form of elective self-donation; where healthy females collect then freeze their oocytes for autologous use at a later stage in life. From August 2005 to July 2014, 67 women presented for social fertility preservation at our institution. The mean age was 38.6±3.6 years. They were mostly single, nulliparous and professionals. They underwent a total of 128 cycles of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and 4 cycles of In Vitro Maturation (IVM). The number of oocytes frozen was 11.3±7.1. Only 5 women returned to achieve a pregnancy (7.5%). Embryo transfer of 4 patients did not reveal any live birth. It suggests that social fertility preservation after the age of 35 years is associated with a poor outcome. Social fertility preservation should be considered at an early reproductive age.
Citation
Alasmari N, Zeadna A, Holzer H, Son W, Buckett W, Takefman J, et al. A Decade of Social Fertility Preservation. SM J Reprod Health Infertil. 2016;1(1):1002.
Introduction
The global phenomenon of deferment of conception is due to a variety of reasons including increased opportunities for women in education and careers, high divorce rate and economic instability [1]. With this growing tendency toward delayed reproduction, there is an increase in the age of the sub fertile community and a growing demand for Assisted Reproductive Techniques (ART) [2] by women who falsely assume that it can restore their fertility at any age. Subsequently more women in their late thirties and older are requiring fertility services [3], increasing the treatment demands worldwide. For instance in the USA in the year 2011, women 35-40 years of age represented 41.2% of the total IVF cycles volume, where as those older than 40 years represented 14.5% suggesting that most of the treated population in the United States were women older than 35 years of age [4].
Traditionally, fertility preservation was for women with malignancy treated with gonadotoxic treatment that might lead to sterility [5]. It is considered as a form of elective self-donation [6]. The available options in females range from established techniques such as embryo and oocyte cryopreservation to experimental techniques such as ovarian tissue cryopreservation [7-9]. Hundreds of live births have been reported with oocyte cryopreservation and it has the unique advantage of avoiding the need for sperms at the time of collection. Therefore, it is highly desired by single women who might reject the use of donor sperm due to religious, ethical, future relationship and cultural concerns [10].
The European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) task force stated that oocyte vitrification should also be obtainable for non-medical purposes [11]. Subsequently, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) lifted the “Experimental” label from the oocyte freezing technique [7]. Unfortunately, data on reasons behind “Anticipated Gamete Exhaustion (AGE) banking” are scarce [3,6]. It is known that the recipient age does not affect success; implicating that the oocyte is the primary determinant of reproductive aging [12,13]. Indeed, the age of the woman at the time of oocyte collection impacts the fertility outcome [14].
The purpose of our study was to describe the demographics, motivations, treatment protocols and outcome achieved by women who chose to socially preserve their fertility by means of oocyte or embryo cryopreservation and who returned to our center aiming for a pregnancy.
Materials and Methods
We define social fertility preservation as an attempt to increase the likelihood of conception, where healthy females collect then freeze their gametes for autologous use at a later stage in life. During the period from August 2005 to July 2014, 67 women were referred to us for social fertility preservation. They underwent a total of 128 cycles of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and 4 cycles of In Vitro Maturation (IVM). We included all cycles independent whether they resulted in oocyte or embryo cryopreservation. Data were obtained from the database of the reproductive unit of the McGill University Health Center (MUHC) and cross-checked with the medical files. The Research and Ethics Board of MUHC (13-360-SDR) approved the study
The data evaluated included patient demography, serum baseline hormone levels, Antral Follicle Count (AFC), treatment protocol, number of cycles, duration of stimulation, dose of gonadotropins used, estradiol (E2) level on the day of trigger, number of oocytes retrieved, the number of frozen metaphase 2 oocytes, and the number of frozen embryos.
We also evaluated their motive and willingness of becoming a mother. Five patients returned to attempt a pregnancy; the data on the duration between the freezing and use for pregnancy, use of donor or partner sperms, protocol type, oocyte or embryo freezing, number of embryo(s) transferred and the pregnancy outcome were collected. Payment history of annual storage fees was checked to appraise their interest in continuous storage for future use.
All patients underwent controlled ovarian hyper stimulation with either one of 4 protocols: a fixed antagonist protocol (gonadotropin from day 2-3 of the cycle and GnRH antagonist on the sixth day of stimulation) (63 cycles) [15], a long agonist protocol (GnRH agonist started in the mid-luteal phase and gonadotropin after 2 weeks of down-regulation) (41cycles) [16], a micro dose flare protocol (initiation of GnRH agonist on day 2-3 of the cycle and gonadotropin on the third day of the GnRH agonist) (25cycles) [17] or IVM (without preceding stimulation, 10,000 IU HCG trigger was given when the dominant follicle reaches 10-12mm and the endometrial thickness becomes 6-8mm) (4 cycles) [18]. The protocol used and the initial dose of gonadotropins were decided by the patient’s treating physician according to the patient’s age, the serum FSH level on day 3 of the cycle, and the AFC at baseline ultrasound.
For IVF cycles, 3,300 to 10,000 units of human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) or 250mcg recombinant-hCG (choriogonadotropin alfa injection) was administered when the leading follicle mean diameter was ≥18 mm on Trans Vaginal Scanning (TVS). Transvaginal oocyte pickup was performed 36-38 hours after hCG administration. For IVM cycles, oocytes were collected 38 hours after triggering [19]. Oocyte and embryo vitrification were performed as previously described [20,21].
Embryo Transfer (ET) was performed after preparing the endometrium with 17β-estradiol 6 mg daily starting on day 2-3 of the menstrual cycle until the endometrial thickness reached 8mm and trilaminar on TVS. Embryos were transferred if they retained ≥50% of the blastomeres after thawing. The luteal phase was supplemented with either 200 mg of micronized progesterone capsules vaginally, 3 times per day, progesterone gel 8% vaginally 2 times a day, effervescent progesterone tablets 100 mg vaginally 3 times per day or intramuscular progesterone in oil 50 mg daily.
A positive pregnancy test was defined as a serum β-hCG level of >10 IU/L, measured 11 days after blastocyst transfer or 14 days after cleavage stage embryo transfer. A viability scan was performed two weeks after a positive pregnancy test. A clinical pregnancy was defined as a pregnancy with an intrauterine gestational sac at 6 weeks gestation.
Results
The total number of women who underwent fertility preservation for social reasons was 67 (Table 1).
Table 1: Demography of 67 women who underwent social fertility preservation.
|
No. patients
|
67
|
|
Age (years)
|
38.6±3.6
|
|
Day 2-3 FSH (mIU/ml)
|
6.9 (5.6-8.4)
|
|
Day 2-3 AFC
|
14 (9-19)
|
|
Parity:
|
66 (98.5%)
1 (1.5%)
|
|
Marital status:
- Single
- Married
- Divorced
- In a relation
|
58 (86.6%)
1 (1.5%)
6 (9 %)
2 (3%)
|
|
Ethnic group:
|
58 (86.6%)
9 (13.4%)
|
|
Occupation:
|
55 (82.1%)
12 (17.9%)
|
They underwent 132 treatment cycles. Motivations to preserve their fertility are described in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Motivation for undergoing social fertility preservation.
Twenty six women stated their desire to become future single mothers (38.8%) if they do not find a partner, 12 would only use their gametes in a couple situation (17.9%), and the remainder 29 women (43.2%) were not sure of their future intentions.
In the IVF group (128 cycles), the mean age of the women was 37.9±3.6 years, serum FSH 8.2±4.0mIU/ml and AFC 12.7±7.4 follicles. The duration of stimulation was 8.7±2.0days. The mean dose of gonadotropin used were 3078.2±1578.5 IU. The mean E2 levels on the day of triggering was 6937.2±4923.4pmol/L. In the IVM group (4 cycles) the average age of the patients was 40.8 years, FSH 6.0mIU/ ml and AFC 14 follicles. Most of the patients (n=65) opted to freeze oocytes only. Using frozen donor sperm from a bank, 2 patients froze both oocytes and embryos, but did not return for a transfer. After IVF and IVM, a total of 1486 oocytes were obtained; of which 1259 MII oocytes were vitrified (84.7%) (Table 2).
Table 2: Clinical stimulation parameters among women who underwent social fertility preservation.
|
No. of attempts/patient
|
2 (1-9)
|
|
Dose of gonadotropins (IU)
|
3078.2±1578.5
|
|
Days of stimulation
|
8.7±2
|
|
E2 level on day of HCG trigger (pmol/L)
|
6937.2±4923.4
|
|
Dose of triggering medication
- Chorio-gonadotropin alfa (mcg)
- HCG (IU)
- GnRHa (IU)
|
250
7810±3229.7
1000
|
|
No. of oocytes collected/patient
|
11.3±7.1
|
|
No. of frozen MII oocyte/patient
|
9.4±5.9
|
|
No. of frozen embryos
|
10
|
Five patients (7/5%) returned to the clinic to achieve a pregnancy. We obtained the outcome of 4 patients. Another had her oocytes transferred to another clinic and was lost from follow up. The outcome is demonstrated in Table 3.
Table 3: Clinical outcomes of 5 women who returned to achieve a pregnancy after social fertility preservation.
|
Case
|
Age at freezing
(years)
|
Number
of oocytes
|
Age at return
(years)
|
Outcome
|
|
1
|
35
|
10
|
42.6
|
10 oocytes thawed, 1 survived and fertilized, day 2 embryo transfer
grade 3, no pregnancy
|
|
2
|
37
|
4
|
42.3
|
Transfer to another clinic
|
|
3
|
38.7
|
31
|
43.1
|
15 oocytes thawed, 5 survived, 3
embryos grade 3 transferred, not pregnant
|
|
4
|
40
|
16
|
44.3
|
1st cycle: 16 oocytes thawed, 14
survived, 9 fertilized, 2 blastocysts
grade 2, 1 transferred and 1 frozen, no pregnancy
2nd cycle: Frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer, miscarriage at 8 weeks
gestation
|
|
5
|
42.2
|
39
|
43.1
|
1st cycle: 14 oocytes thawed,12 fertilized with donor sperms, 4 grade 2 embryos transferred, not pregnant 2nd cycle: 16 oocytes thawed, 14 fertilized, embryos transferred, no
pregnancy
|
One of the 4 patients achieved a pregnancy, but ended in a miscarriage.
Discussion
Social fertility preservation offers an opportunity to conceive to a various psychosocial and single status groups of women. The most widely technique to retain the option for future children bearing the genetics of both spouses in a couple is oocyte cryopreservation. Although, embryo vitrification is the most established fertility preservation method, its use is confined to women who have male partners, or who are willing to use donor sperm [7,22-26].
In the past two decades, the advancement of vitrification technique has played a major role in ART and oocyte cryopreservation outcomes. It yields comparable pregnancy results to that achieved with fresh oocytes [27-29]. As previously reported [30,31], the number of patients returning to try to conceive with their cryopreserved oocytes was very low (7.5%). The reasons are unclear. Perhaps, those who attempt a pregnancy first prefer to exhaust all other resources before utilizing the cryopreserved eggs [32].
In agreement with previous reports [33-36], the mean age at cryopreservation was 38.6±3.6 years. This is fairly advanced for optimal results. Ideally, women considering social oocyte cryopreservation should do it in the late twenties or early thirties [37]. This will boost their chances of a biological motherhood. Stoop et al reported that 96.1% of oocyte bankers would recommend the procedure to their peers; and three quarter of them (76%) would prefer to do it at a younger age [32].
It seems likely that women in their 20s or early 30s are still optimistic about finding a partner and focusing their efforts on relationship building as opposed to family building. The primary motivation for fertility preservation is the women’s single status, and they become aware of their biological clock at around the age of 38 years [38]. Due to the marked decrease in fertility and the quality of oocytes from the age 35 years, women should be counseled that cryopreserved oocytes after age of 35 years may not yield the desired outcome and that is a live, healthy baby. Before offering oocyte cryopreservation, women should be counseled thoroughly to mitigate a false sense of hope. Surveys addressing the acceptance of “AGE banking”, showed that experts and younger population were more in favor of the procedure as compared to the greater level of ambivalence expressed by the older general population [3,39].
As Leridon suggested, after 2 to 4 years attempting to conceive without success, ART can only make up for half of the births lost by deferring attempts of pregnancy from age 30 to 35 years, and less than 30% of the loss after postponing from 35 to 40 years [40]. ART certainly does not overcome the decline in fecundity by age [40]. Age-related infertility should be seen as a medical issue and its prevention is the responsibility of health care professionals [4]. First line physicians including family doctors and general gynecologists should be discussing this option with their young female patients. Similarly, medical organizations must be proactive and are advised to encourage educational programs promoting fertility at an age of 20-35 years [31].
The motivation for egg freezing in our study is in agreement with others [32,40]. In our cohort, 38.8% of women expressed their desire to become future single mothers if they do not find a partner, and 17.9% would only use their gametes in a couple situation. Gold et al evaluated 20 women who electively cryopreserved their oocytes. They were all highly educated professionals, single and wanting to take the pressure off their relationships and their biological clock. Around a half of them showed desire to become future single mothers [40]. Stoop et al. found that among 86 oocyte banker, 50.8% would use their oocytes at some point, while 29.2% were less likely considering, compared to the time of oocyte retrieval [32].
To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the largest published report on social fertility preservation from a single institution. Other reports evaluated diverse indications or methods of fertility preservation and were for shorter periods of follow up [41-43]. We conclude that social fertility preservation after the age of 35 years is associated with poor outcome. Social fertility preservation should be considered at an early reproductive age.
References
1. Mills M, Rindfuss RR, McDonald P, te Velde E. Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update. 2011; 17: 848-860.
2. de Graaff AA, Land JA, Kessels AG, Evers JL. Demographic age shift toward later conception results in an increased age in the subfertile population and an increased demand for medical care. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95: 61-63.
3. Stoop D, Nekkebroeck J, Devroey P. A survey on the intentions and attitudes towards oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons among women of reproductive age. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26: 655-661.
4. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, Folger SG, Jamieson DJ, Barfield WD, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2011. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014; 63: 1-28.
5. Aubard Y, Teissier MP, Baudet JH. Cryopreservation of the ovary and ovarian tissue. Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet. 1994; 89: 192-197.
6. Stoop D, van der Veen F, Deneyer M, Nekkebroeck J, Tournaye H. Oocyte banking for anticipated gamete exhaustion (AGE) is a preventive intervention, neither social nor nonmedical. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014; 28: 548-551.
7. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99: 37-43.
8. Soleimani R, Heytens E, Darzynkiewicz Z, Oktay K. Mechanisms of chemotherapy-induced human ovarian aging: double strand DNA breaks and microvascular compromise. Aging (Albany NY). 2011; 3: 782-793.
9. Titus S, Li F, Stobezki R, Akula K, Unsal E, Jeong K, et al. Impairment of BRCA1-related DNA double-strand break repair leads to ovarian aging in mice and humans. Sci Transl Med. 2013; 5: 172ra21.
10. Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, Patrizio P, Wallace WH, Hagerty K, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 2917-2931.
11. Dondorp W, de Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, et al. Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27: 1231-1237.
12. Sauer MV, Paulson RJ, Lobo RA. Reversing the natural decline in human fertility. An extended clinical trial of oocyte donation to women of advanced reproductive age. JAMA. 1992; 268: 1275-1279.
13. Patrizio P, Sakkas D. From oocyte to baby: a clinical evaluation of the biological efficiency of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009; 91: 1061-1066.
14. Trokoudes KM, Pavlides C, Zhang X. Comparison outcome of fresh and vitrified donor oocytes in an egg-sharing donation program. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95: 1996-2000.
15. Seyhan A, Ata B, Polat M, Son WY, Yarali H, Dahan MH. Severe early ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome following GnRH agonist trigger with the addition of 1500 IU hCG. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 2522-25288.
16. Tan SL, Maconochie N, Doyle P, Campbell S, Balen A, Bekir J, et al. Cumulative conception and live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization with and without the use of long, short, and ultrashort regimens of the gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist buserelin. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 171: 513 520.
17. Kelly SM, Pirwany IR, Phillips SJ, Tan S L. Microdose gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-A) flare protocol compared with standard long protocol GnRH-A for ovarian stimulation in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2002; 78: S234.
18. Son WY, Tan SL. Laboratory and embryological aspects of hCG-primed in vitro maturation cycles for patients with polycystic ovaries. Hum Reprod update. 2010; 16: 675-689.
19. Das M, Son WY, Buckett W, Tulandi T, Holzer H. In-vitro maturation versus IVF with GnRH antagonist for women with polycystic ovary syndrome: treatment outcome and rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014; 29: 545-551.
20. Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Kato O, Leibo SP. Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005; 11: 300-308.
21. Kuwayama M. Highly efficient vitrification for cryopreservation of human oocytes and embryos: the Cryotop method. Theriogenology. 2007; 67: 73-80.
22. Oehninger S. Strategies for fertility preservation in female and male cancer survivors. J Soc Gynecol Investig. 2005; 12: 222-231.
23. Kim SS. Fertility preservation in female cancer patients: current developments and future directions. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85: 1-11
24. Su HI, Lin K, Gracia CR. Early menopause in cancer survivors: Fertility options. Menopausal Medicine. 2008; 16: S1-S8.
25. Maltaris T, Koelbl H, Seufert R, Kiesewetter F, Beckmann MW, Mueller A, et al. Gonadal damage and options for fertility preservation in female and male cancer survivors. Asian J Androl. 2006; 8: 515-533.
26. Sonmezer M, Oktay K. Fertility preservation in female patients. Hum Reprod Update. 2004; 10: 251-266.
27. Cobo A, Kuwayama M, Perez S, Ruiz A, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Comparison of concomitant outcome achieved with fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes vitrified by the Cryotop method. Fertil Steril. 2008; 89: 1657-1664.
28. Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25: 2239-2246.
29. Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Baroni E, et al. Embryo development of fresh ‘versus’ vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25: 66-73.
30. Cobo A, Garcia-Velasco JA, Domingo J, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Is vitrification of oocytes useful for fertility preservation for age-related fertility decline and in cancer patients?. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99: 1485-1495.
31. Donnez J. Introduction: Fertility preservation, from cancer to benign disease to social reasons: the challenge of the present decade. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99: 1467-1468.
32. Stoop D, Maes E, Polyzos NP, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Nekkebroeck J. Does oocyte banking for anticipated gamete exhaustion influence future relational and reproductive choices? A follow-up of bankers and non-bankers. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30: 338-344.
33. Mertes H, Pennings G. Social egg freezing: for better, not for worse. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 23: 824-829.
34. Nekkebroeck J, Stoop D, Devroey P. A preliminary profile of women opting for oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons. Human Reproduction. 2010; 25: i15-i16.
35. Klein J, Howard M, Grunfeld L, Mukherjee T, Sandler B, et al. P-486: Preliminary experience of an oocyte cryopreservation program: Are patients presenting too late?. Fertil Steril. 2006; 86: S315.
36. Sage CF, Kolb BA, Treiser SL, Silverberg KM, Barritt J, et al. Oocyte Cryopreservation in Women Seeking Elective Fertility Preservation: A Multicenter Analysis. Obstetrics and gynecology-new York. 2008; 111: 20s.
37. Lockwood GM. Social egg freezing: the prospect of reproductive ‘immortality’ or a dangerous delusion?. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 23: 334-340.
38. Daniluk JC, Koert E. Childless Canadian men’s and women’s childbearing intentions, attitudes towards and willingness to use assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27: 2405-2412.
39. Brezis M, Malkiel A, Chinitz D, Lehmann LS. Discordant views of experts and laypersons on the adoption of new fertility technology. Med Care. 2011; 49: 420-423.
40. Gold E, Copperman K, Witkin G, Jones C, Copperman AB. A motivational assessment of women undergoing elective freezing for fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2006; S201: P-187.
41. Garcia-Velasco JA, Domingo J, Cobo A, Martinez M, Carmona L, Pellicer A. Five years’ experience using oocyte vitrification to preserve fertility for medical and nonmedical indications. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99: 1994-1999.
42. Nurudeen SK, Douglas NC, Mahany EL, Sauer MV, Choi JM. Fertility Preservation Decisions Among Newly Diagnosed Oncology Patients: A Single-Center Experience. Am J Clin Oncol. 2016; 39: 154-159.
43. Oktay K, Oktem O. Ovarian cryopreservation and transplantation for fertility preservation for medical indications: report of an ongoing experience. Fertil Steril. 2010; 93: 762-768
