Utilisation of Cryopreserved Gametes in Cancer Patients who Underwent Fertility Preservation.

Devika Gunasheela, N Ashwini, Yoshita Saneja, D Deepthi
Author Information
  1. Devika Gunasheela: Department of Reproductive Medicine, Gunasheela Surgical and Maternity Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
  2. N Ashwini: Department of Reproductive Medicine, Gunasheela Surgical and Maternity Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
  3. Yoshita Saneja: Department of Reproductive Medicine, Gunasheela Surgical and Maternity Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
  4. D Deepthi: Department of Reproductive Medicine, Gunasheela Surgical and Maternity Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Abstract

Background: cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy often compromise fertility by damaging gonadal function, creating a critical need for fertility preservation options. Despite advancements in fertility preservation techniques, there is a significant lack of research focused on their application in Asian cancer patients and their utilisation remains underexplored in this population.
Aim: This study aims to evaluate the utilisation rates and outcomes of Cryopreserved Gametes in cancer patients who underwent fertility preservation before their cancer treatment.
Settings and Design: This retrospective study was conducted at our hospital from January 2003 to May 2023. It investigated the utilisation of Cryopreserved Gametes in 557 male patients aged 15-50 years and 39 female patients aged 15-40 years who opted for fertility preservation before chemotherapy or radiotherapy.
Materials and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected, including patient demographics and fertility preservation outcomes. Various fertility preservation methods were employed based on patient suitability and availability. Participants were surveyed to identify reasons for non-utilisation of Cryopreserved Gametes. All data were collected and analysed following institutional ethical guidelines.
Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive statistics were used to calculate utilisation rates and report clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. Reasons for non-usage were categorised into mortality, spontaneous pregnancies, financial constraints and social factors.
Results: Out of 596 participants, only 11 utilised their Cryopreserved Gametes, yielding a utilisation rate of 1.8%. Among those who used their gametes, clinical pregnancy rates were 66.66% for males and 50% for females, with live birth rates of 33.33% for males and 50% for females. Non-usage was primarily due to mortality, spontaneous pregnancies, financial constraints and social issues.
Conclusion: The utilisation rate of Cryopreserved Gametes was low at 1.8%. Challenges such as mortality, financial constraints and social factors highlight the need for improved counselling and a refined approach to fertility preservation, ensuring services better align with patients' future needs.

Keywords

References

  1. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Nov 09;15(22): [PMID: 38001608]
  2. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024 Apr 18;22(1):47 [PMID: 38637872]
  3. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2019 Apr-Jun;12(2):156-163 [PMID: 31293331]
  4. Hum Reprod. 2018 Dec 1;33(12):2222-2231 [PMID: 30383235]
  5. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(2):599-603 [PMID: 24568464]
  6. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Feb 20;21(4): [PMID: 32093393]
  7. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016 Dec;21(6):1167-1171 [PMID: 27306218]
  8. Front Vet Sci. 2023 Apr 18;10:1151254 [PMID: 37143497]
  9. J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 13;10(8): [PMID: 33924415]
  10. BMC Cancer. 2018 Feb 17;18(1):192 [PMID: 29452595]
  11. Hum Reprod. 2023 Mar 1;38(3):489-502 [PMID: 36421038]
  12. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 Jun;301(6):1579-1588 [PMID: 32377787]
  13. Asian J Androl. 2010 May;12(3):356-62 [PMID: 20348941]
  14. Rev Urol. 2015;17(4):211-9 [PMID: 26839518]
  15. Hum Reprod. 2014 Mar;29(3):525-33 [PMID: 24345581]
  16. Genes Dis. 2020 Sep 18;8(5):655-661 [PMID: 34291136]
  17. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;127(3):474-480 [PMID: 26855092]
  18. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2015 Jan-Mar;8(1):3-13 [PMID: 25838742]
  19. Reprod Med Biol. 2022 Aug 06;21(1):e12481 [PMID: 35949642]
  20. Reprod Med Biol. 2007 Feb 16;6(1):53-57 [PMID: 29699265]
  21. Reprod Med Biol. 2017 Jul 07;16(4):320-324 [PMID: 29259484]
  22. Indian J Med Res. 2022 Oct-Nov;156(4&5):598-607 [PMID: 36510887]
  23. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021 Oct;43(4):671-679 [PMID: 34474973]
  24. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 Sep 03;10:600 [PMID: 31551931]
  25. Investig Clin Urol. 2018 May;59(3):177-181 [PMID: 29744474]
  26. Saudi Med J. 2024 Mar;45(3):326-327 [PMID: 38438207]
  27. Hum Reprod. 1999 Sep;14(9):2242-4 [PMID: 10469687]
  28. Med Sci Monit. 2019 May 03;25:3256-3261 [PMID: 31048670]
  29. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Jul;33(1):29-38 [PMID: 27156003]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0fertilitypreservationgametesutilisationcryopreservedratescancerpatientsmortalityfinancialconstraintssocialCancerchemotherapyradiotherapyneedstudyoutcomesagedyearscollectedpatientusedclinicalpregnancylivebirthspontaneouspregnanciesfactorsrate18%males50%femalesBackground:treatmentsoftencompromisedamaginggonadalfunctioncreatingcriticaloptionsDespiteadvancementstechniquessignificantlackresearchfocusedapplicationAsianremainsunderexploredpopulationAim:aimsevaluateunderwenttreatmentSettingsDesign:retrospectiveconductedhospitalJanuary2003May2023investigated557male15-5039female15-40optedMaterialsMethods:DataretrospectivelyincludingdemographicsVariousmethodsemployedbasedsuitabilityavailabilityParticipantssurveyedidentifyreasonsnon-utilisationdataanalysedfollowinginstitutionalethicalguidelinesStatisticalAnalysisUsed:DescriptivestatisticscalculatereportReasonsnon-usagecategorisedResults:596participants11utilisedyieldingAmong6666%3333%Non-usageprimarilydueissuesConclusion:lowChallengeshighlightimprovedcounsellingrefinedapproachensuringservicesbetteralignpatients'futureneedsUtilisationCryopreservedGametesPatientsUnderwentFertilityPreservationAssistedreproductivetechnologiesoncofertility

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.