Luteal phase stimulation, the future of fertility preservation? Retrospective cohort study of luteal phase versus follicular phase stimulation.
Floriane Jochum, Nicolas Sananès, Marius Teletin, Isabelle Lichtblau, Catherine Rongières, Olivier Pirrello
Author Information
Floriane Jochum: Department of Gynecology, Centre Médico-Chirurgical d'Obstétrique (CMCO), Hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, France. Electronic address: floriane.jochum@chru-strasbourg.fr.
Nicolas Sananès: Department of Gynecology, Centre Médico-Chirurgical d'Obstétrique (CMCO), Hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, France; INSERM UMR-S 1121 "Biomaterials and Bioengineering", France.
Marius Teletin: Reproduction Laboratory, Centre Médico-Chirurgical d'Obstétrique (CMCO), Hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, France.
Isabelle Lichtblau: Reproduction Laboratory, Centre Médico-Chirurgical d'Obstétrique (CMCO), Hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, France.
Catherine Rongières: Department of Gynecology, Centre Médico-Chirurgical d'Obstétrique (CMCO), Hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, France.
Olivier Pirrello: Department of Gynecology, Centre Médico-Chirurgical d'Obstétrique (CMCO), Hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, France.
RESEARCH QUESTION: Is luteal phase stimulation capable of improving fertility preservation? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive ovarian stimulations, during July 2012 and September 2018 at Strasbourg University Teaching Hospital in France. Enrollment criteria were patients aged below 40 who had been referred to our center following a diagnosis of cancer or requiring gonadotoxic treatment. All patients enrolled had regular menstrual cycles and normal ovulation. Non-enrollment criteria were an expected low ovarian response (defined by an anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level <0.75μg/L and/or an antral follicle count inferior (AFC) inferior than 5), polycystic ovarian syndrome, amenorrhea, prior history of infertility or gonadotoxic treatment. The primary endpoint is the number of mature oocytes (metaphase II) obtained. Secondary outcomes were oocyte yields obtained, stimulation duration, initial gonadotropin dose and total gonadotropin dose. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included: 20 in luteal phase and 80 in follicular phase. A larger number of mature oocytes was obtained in luteal phase versus follicular phase (13.1+/8.0 versus 9.2+/-5.8 with p=0.01). A greater amount of total (mature and immature) oocytes was obtained in luteal phase versus follicular phase with a significant difference (16.8+/-9.3 versus 11.8+/-7.3 with p=0.01). No difference was found for the initial and total doses of gonadotropin. CONCLUSIONS: Luteal phase stimulation has the advantage of a better flexibility with positives results as to the number of oocytes obtained in fertility preservation.
