Critical appraisal:Creux H, Monnier P, Son WY, Buckett W 2018 2
Critical Appraisal
Creux H, Monnier P, Son WY, Buckett W. Thirteen years' experience in fertility preservation for cancer patients after in vitro fertilization and in vitro maturation treatments. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018 Apr;35(4):583-592 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29502188.
Key Facts
case series
in vitro maturation without ovarian stimulation (IVM-FP) and conventional in vitro fertilization after ovarian stimulation (IVF-FP) in a fertility preservation (FP) program for women with cancer over 13 years
394
Comparatively with IVM-FP, IVF-FP had a higher median [25th-75th percentile] number of oocytes collected-12 [8-18] vs 7 [5-13]; oocytes cryopreserved-10 [6-15] vs 5 [2-8]; and, where applicable, embryos cryopreserved-5 [3-7] vs 3 [2-5] (p < 0.000001). Following FP treatment, 32 patients (9.0%) died, 18 patients (5.6%) conceived spontaneously, and 23 patients (6.5%) returned to attempt pregnancy with a median lapse of returning of 4.6 [3.1-6.1] years. Of these, cryopreserved oocytes or embryos were used in 33 cycles (19 after IVF-FP and 14 after IVM-FP). Overall, the cumulative pregnancy rate (CPR) was 47.6% (10/21) and the live birth rate (LBR) was 38.1% (8/21). Per cycle, CPR and LBR were 37 and 31% following IVF-FP and 14 and 7% following IVM-FP, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.
no
Evidence ratings
IV
Low risk of bias | Comments: |
5 | Reason for decision: |
- Article
- Creux H, Monnier P, Son WY, Buckett W. Thirteen years' experience in fertility preservation for cancer patients after in vitro fertilization and in vitro maturation treatments. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018 Apr;35(4):583-592 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29502188.
- Assigned to
- User:Roger.hart
- Topic area
- Guidelines:COSA:Cancer fertility preservation guidelines/Options for treatment
- Clinical question
Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer