One size does not fit all: the personal nature of completed embryo donation.

PURPOSE: To assess factors associated with embryo donation among individuals interested in donation in the United States. METHODS: An invitation to complete the 123-item survey was emailed from June to September 2022 to patients at a private practice fertility clinic with interest in donation at the time of IVF. Survey questions included disposition decision, attitudes about embryo status and genetic relatedness, donation disclosure, ideal donation arrangement, and decision satisfaction. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-seven completed the survey. Two hundred thirty donated to another person(s), 75 discarded embryos, 25 remained undecided, and disposition was unknown for 7 respondents. There were no demographic differences between groups based on final disposition or use of donor gametes. Few gamete recipients were interested in donation due to biological attachment to embryos. Final embryo disposition was associated with religious factors, not wanting to waste embryos, and storage fee concerns. Final disposition was also significantly associated with concern about donor-conceived children's (DCP) welfare, being denied the ability to complete donation, personal IVF outcomes, financial or legal issues, future contact with DCP, cognitive appraisal of disposition, beliefs about embryos, someone else raising their genetic child, anonymity, and beliefs about DCP not knowing genetic relationships (p < .001). Donation to others was associated with less regret and greater satisfaction with the emotional/medical aspects of donation and counseling compared to those who discarded embryos (p < .001). CONCLUSION: The decision to donate embryos to another person(s) is complex. Counseling that considers individual circumstances, values, and evolving dynamics may facilitate informed decision-making for those navigating infertility treatment, family building, and embryo disposition.

Psychological distress, vaccine, and booster acceptance in women considering or undergoing fertility treatments during the Omicron surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Follow-up study to evaluate perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination and booster with psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic and Omicron surge in women considering or undergoing fertility treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional anonymous survey (N = 2558) from a single academic fertility center. Five hundred forty patients completed the survey (response rate = 21.1%). Participants were randomized 1:1 to a one-page evidence-based graphic with information and benefits regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Mental health and vaccine hesitancy were assessed via the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression (PHQ-8), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scales, and the Medical Mistrust Index (MMI). RESULTS: Majority of participants were nulliparous, fully vaccinated with a booster dose, with > 1 year of infertility and mild to moderate distress. Patients with vaccine hesitancy had higher medical mistrust scores (r = .21,  p < .001). Higher MMI scores were not associated with vaccination during pregnancy. Participants that had higher PHQ-8 and GAD-7 scores were more likely to believe the omicron variant would cause delay in fertility treatments, would have impact on fertility outcome, and were more likely exhibiting medical system distrust (p < .001). Participants who received educational material were more likely to know pregnant women with COVID-19 had increased risk of death, stillbirth, and preterm birth (p < .05). CONCLUSION: The majority of women in this study were vaccinated and had received their booster dose but also with clinically significant levels of depression. Patients with higher levels of distress and greatest medical mistrust demonstrated a concern that the Omicron variant would delay treatment, lead to suboptimal fertility outcomes, and COVID-19 vaccination would impact risk of miscarriages.

Do Fertility Preservation Outcomes in Patients Diagnosed with Lymphoma Differ Based on Cancer Stage?

Purpose: This study aims to investigate whether oocyte stimulation outcomes in fertility preservation (FP) vary in patients with different stages of lymphoma. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at Northwestern Memorial Hospital (NMH). Between 2006 and 2017, 89 patients were identified with a diagnosis of lymphoma who contacted the FP navigator at NMH. Anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and FP ovarian stimulation outcomes were collected for analysis. The data were analyzed using chi-squared and analysis of variance tests. A regression analysis was also done to adjust for potential confounding variables. Results: Of the 89 patients who contacted the FP navigator, there were 12 patients (13.5%) with stage 1 lymphoma, 43 patients (48.3%) with stage 2, 13 patients (14.6%) with stage 3, 13 patients (14.6%) with stage 4, and 8 patients (9.0%) where staging information was not available. Forty-five of the patients proceeded with ovarian stimulation before initiating cancer treatment. Patients who underwent ovarian stimulation had a mean AMH level of 2.62 and median peak estradiol levels of 1772.0 pg/mL. Median oocytes retrieved was 16.77, mature oocytes were 11.00 and median oocytes frozen after completing FP was 8.00. These measures were also stratified by stage of lymphoma. Conclusion: We found no significant difference in number of retrieved, mature or vitrified oocytes between different cancer stages. There was also no difference in AMH levels in the different cancer stage groups. This suggests that even in higher stages of lymphoma, many patients respond to ovarian stimulation techniques and have a successful stimulation cycle.

Childbearing, Infertility, and Career Trajectories Among Women in Medicine.

Importance: Although women are increasingly represented within medicine, gender disparities persist in time to promotion, achievement of academic rank, and appointment to leadership positions, with no narrowing of this gap over time. Career-specific fertility and family building challenges among women physicians may contribute to ongoing disparities and academic attrition. Objective: To evaluate delayed childbearing and infertility among women in medicine and investigate the extent to which women physicians may alter career trajectories to accommodate family building and parenthood. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted among women physicians, with surveys distributed through medical society electronic mailing lists (listserves) and social media from March to August 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Baseline demographic information and fertility knowledge were assessed. Descriptive data on delayed childbearing, infertility, use of assisted reproductive technology, and career alterations to accommodate parenthood were collected. Factors associated with timing of pregnancy and family building regret were assessed using Likert-type scales. Group differences in fertility knowledge, delayed childbearing, infertility, and family building regret were evaluated using χ2 analyses. Results: A total of 1056 cisgender women (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [7.7] years) were surveyed across level of training (714 attending physicians [67.6%] and 283 residents or fellows [26.8%]), specialty (408 surgical [38.6%] and 638 nonsurgical [60.4%] specialties), and practice setting (323 academic [45.2%], 263 private [24.9%], and 222 community [21.0%] settings). Among respondents, 1036 individuals [98.1%] resided in the US. Overall, 910 respondents (86.2%) were married or partnered and 690 respondents (65.3%) had children. While 824 physicians (78.0%) correctly identified the age of precipitous fertility decline, 798 individuals (75.6%) reported delaying family building and 389 individuals (36.8%) had experienced infertility. Concerning measures taken to accommodate childbearing or parenthood, 199 women (28.8%) said they had taken extended leave, 171 women (24.8%) said they had chosen a different specialty, 325 women (47.1%) said they had reduced their work hours, 171women (24.8%) said they had changed their practice setting, and 326 women (47.2%) said they had passed up opportunities for career advancement among those with children. Additionally, 30 women with children (4.3%) had left medicine entirely. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, women physicians reported that career-related pressures influenced the timing of childbearing and led to marked alterations to career trajectories to accommodate family building and parenthood. These findings suggest that fertility and family building concerns among women in medicine may contribute to ongoing gender disparities and attrition and represent a potentially critical area for policy reform and future change.

Vaccine hesitancy, distress, and medical mistrust in women considering or undergoing fertility treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in women considering or undergoing fertility treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional anonymous survey (n= 3558) from a single academic fertility center. A total of 1103 patients completed the survey (response rate = 31% of those emailed, 97.6% of those who opened the email). Participants were randomized 1:1 to a one-page educational graphic providing facts and benefits regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Assessment of vaccine hesitancy was conducted via the Medical Mistrust Index (MMI). Mental health was assessed via the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale (PHQ-8) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). RESULTS: The majority of participants were married, nulliparous, white women with > 1 year of infertility and moderate to severe distress. As compared to the non-intervention group, participants in the intervention group believed that COVID-19 vaccination does not cause genetic abnormalities in a fetus (98.0% v. 94.2%) and infertility (99% v. 96.2%) and that severe infection has been associated with pregnancy (81.3% v. 74.6%) (P <0.05). Higher MMI scores were associated with vaccine hesitancy (P = 0.01), higher GAD-7 scores (P = 0.01), and greater concerns about side effects of the vaccine (P < 0.05). GAD-7 and PHQ-8 scores were not associated with vaccine hesitancy. Nearly a quarter of participants initiated psychiatric treatment after March 2020. CONCLUSION: Vaccine hesitancy was associated with mistrust of the medical system. Psychological distress was highly prevalent in this study. Efforts should be made to improve patient trust and provide psychological support for fertility patients.

The parent trap: desire for multifetal gestation among patients treated for infertility.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate predictors for patient preference regarding multifetal or singleton gestation among women presenting for infertility care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Academic university hospital-based infertility clinic. PATIENT(S): Five hundred thirty-nine female patients with infertility who presented for their initial visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Demographic characteristics, infertility history, insurance coverage, desired treatment outcome, acceptability of multifetal reduction, and knowledge of the risks of multifetal pregnancies were assessed using a previously published 41-question survey. Univariate analysis was performed to assess patient factors associated with the desire for multiple births. Independent factors associated with this desire were subsequently assessed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULT(S): Nearly a third of women preferred multiples over a singleton gestation. Nulliparity, lower annual household income, older maternal age, marital status, larger ideal family size, openness to multifetal reduction, and lack of knowledge of the maternal/fetal risks of twin pregnancies were associated with pregnancy desire. Older age (OR (95% CI) 1.66 (1.20-2.29)), nulliparity (OR (95% CI) 0.34 (0.20-0.58)), larger ideal family size (OR (95% CI) 2.34 (1.73-3.14)), and lesser knowledge of multifetal pregnancy risk (OR (95% CI) 0.67 (0.55-0.83)) were independently associated with desire. CONCLUSION(S): A large number of patients undergoing fertility treatment desire multifetal gestation. Although a lack of understanding of the risks associated with higher order pregnancies contributes to this desire, additional individual specific variables also contribute to this trend. Efforts to reduce the incidence of multiples should focus not only on patient education on comparative risks of multiples vs singleton pregnancies but also account for individual specific reservations.

Disposition preferences in oocyte preservation patients.

PURPOSE: To characterize the frozen oocyte disposition preferences of patients undergoing medical and planned fertility preservation. METHODS: All oocyte cryopreservation (OC) patients were identified between 2015 and 2018. Demographic information and fertility preservation (FP) indication (medical or planned) were identified for each patient. Oocyte disposition options included disposal, donation to research, or donation to a specified third party, which was decided at the time of initial consent and made available in the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was the disposition selection. Secondary outcomes included differences in demographic variables and disposition selections between medical and planned FP patients using chi-squared analysis. RESULTS: A total of 336 OC patients with a documented oocyte disposition preference were identified in the study timeframe. Patients were on average 34.5 years old (SD = 5.1) and were predominantly White (70.2%), nulliparous (83.0%), with a BMI of 24.7 (SD = 5.4). A total of 101 patients underwent OC for medical FP and 235 for planned FP. In both groups, the most commonly selected disposition option was donation to research (50% planned, 52% medical), followed by donation to a specified third party (30% planned, 30% medical), and finally disposal of oocytes (20% planned, 18% medical). There were no significant differences in disposition selection between each group. When comparing patient variables between groups, medical FP patients were more likely to be under the age of 35 and were less likely to be nulliparous (p < .001). CONCLUSION: This study shows that oocyte disposition choices are similar in patients undergoing OC for medical and planned indications. As donation to research was the most commonly selected option in both groups, it is time to start thinking of streamlining ways to utilize this potential research material in the future.

Patients' views of delayed fertility care during the COVID-19 pandemic as a conception catastrophe: the experience of U.S. FertilityIQ users.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of psychological reactions to delays in fertility treatment have often utilized single clinic samples during the time that fertility treatments were paused. We, therefore, assessed emotional reactions to treatment cancelations due to COVID-19 in infertility patients across the United States after treatments had begun to resume. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey emailed on 27 May 2020 and closed on 30 June 2020, to 53,600 FertilityIQ.com website users inquiring about their experience since the COVID-19 pandemic. A subset of FertilityIQ users (n = 13,490) opened the survey invitation and 1806 respondents participated in the survey (13.4% response rate). RESULTS: The majority of respondents (female, 67.4%; male, 61.7%) were 31-40 years old; most were planning to start treatment immediately (women, 42.6%; men, 44.7%) or were undergoing treatment (women, 34.9%; men, 29.8%) at the time of treatment cancelation. Patients (women, 21.1%; men 19.1%) or clinics (women, 57.7%; men, 40.4%) canceled treatment. Most clinics had resumed treatment at the time of the study (women, 90.0%; men, 73.7%). Cancelation resulted in sadness (women, 83.9%; men 86.7%) and anger (women, 45.4%; men, 36.7%); greater than half of the participants whose treatment was canceled (women: 66.8%, n = 630; men: 73.7%, n = 14) agreed with cancelations. Greater than 70% of respondents were at least somewhat concerned about reproductive chances (women, 84.7%; men, 72.4%) and exclusion of partners (women, 73.3%; men, 72.4%). Distress/concern was associated with clinic cancelation, disagreement with delays, age, diagnosis, and concern about delays and pregnancy chances (p <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents were distressed/concerned about the effect of the pandemic on their fertility. Distress was highest in women with a poorer fertility prognosis, no control over treatment cancelation, and high concern about the effect of treatment delay on pregnancy chances. Emotional support, education regarding treatment delay and fertility, and efforts where possible, to include patients in decisions to delay treatment are warranted in future treatment delays.

Reproductive endocrinologists' knowledge and attitudes in the identification of intimate partner violence.

OBJECTIVE: To assess reproductive endocrinologists' attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and experiences with intimate partner violence (IPV). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of US reproductive endocrinologists. SETTING: The survey was disseminated via both direct mail and e-mail to a voluntary, semirandomized US national sample of reproductive endocrinologists. We randomly selected a maximum of six clinics per state using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinician perceptions and knowledge regarding IPV and its relevance to the infertility setting. RESULTS: A total of 95 reproductive endocrinology and infertility physicians practicing in either academic or private clinics in the United States completed the survey with an overall response rate of 46% (95/200). General knowledge of IPV was good among respondents. Intimate partner violence assessment was very relevant among 39% (37/95) of respondents and possibly relevant among 56% (53/95) of respondents. A history of IPV awareness training was associated with a decreased frequency of reported barriers, including fewer perceived time constraints, decreased knowledge regarding IPV community resources, and less discomfort asking about IPV. Most respondents estimated the prevalence of IPV in their practice to be rare (≤1%). However, 33% (31/95) reported identifying between one and five active victims of IPV over the prior year, and 63% (60/95) reported identifying a victim of IPV throughout their careers. Only 17% (16/95) of respondents were certain that their clinic had guidelines for detection or management of IPV. CONCLUSION: Reproductive endocrinology and infertility physicians would benefit from education and training in IPV to enable them to better identify and assist patients who are victims of IPV.

Infertility in the Midwest: perceptions and attitudes of current treatment.

BACKGROUND: Although infertility affects an estimated 6.1 million individuals in the United States, only half of those individuals seek fertility treatment and the majority of those patients are White and of high socioeconomic status. Research has shown that insurance mandates are not enough to ensure equal access. Many workplaces, schools, and medical education programs have made efforts in recent years to improve the cultural humility of providers in efforts to engage more racially and economically underrepresented groups in medical care. However, these efforts have not been assessed on a population of patients receiving fertility care, an experience that is uniquely shaped by individual social, cultural, and economic factors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to better understand the racial, cultural, economic, and religious factors that impact patient experiences obtaining fertility care. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional self-administered survey was administered at an academic fertility center in Chicago, Illinois. Of 5000 consecutive fertility care patients, 1460 completed the survey and were included in the study sample. No interventions were used. Descriptive univariate frequencies and percentages were calculated to summarize sociodemographic and other relevant patient characteristics (eg, race or ethnicity, age, household income, religious affiliation, insurance coverage). Rates of endorsing perceived physician cultural competency were compared among demographic subgroups using Pearson chi-squared tests with 2-sided P<.05 indicative of statistical significance. To identify the key determinants of patient-reported worry regarding 9 different fertility treatment outcomes and related concerns, a series of multiple logistic regression models were fit to examine factors associated with patient report of being "very worried" or "extremely worried." RESULTS: Members of our sample (N=1460) were between 20 and 58 years of age (meanadjusted, 36.2; standard deviation, 4.4). Among Black participants, 42.3% reported that their physician does not understand their cultural background compared with 16.5% of White participants (P<.0001). Participants who identified as Latinx were significantly more likely than White participants to report being very/extremely worried about side effects of treatment, a miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, and birth defects (P<.05, P=.02, P=.002, P=.001, respectively). Individuals who identify as Hindu were nearly 4 times more likely to report being very/extremely worried about experiencing an ectopic pregnancy than nonreligious participants (P<.0002). Respondents most strongly identified the biology or physiology of the couple (meanadjusted, 21.6; confidence interval, 20.4-22.7) and timing or age (meanadjusted, 27.8; confidence interval, 26.5-29.1) as being associated with fertility. Overall, respondents most strongly disagreed that the ability to bear children rests upon God's will (meanadjusted, 65.4; confidence interval, 63.7-67.1), which differed most significantly by race (P<.0001) and religion (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Of the patient characteristics investigated, racial and ethnic subgroups showed the greatest degree of variation in regard to worries and concerns surrounding the experience of fertility treatment. Our findings emphasize a need for improved cultural humility on behalf of physicians, in addition to affordable psychological support for all patients seeking fertility care.

Emotional stress and reproduction: what do fertility patients believe?

PURPOSE: To better understand the beliefs about a causal role of emotional stress maintained by women seeking fertility care. METHODS: A cross-sectional, self-administered survey was distributed to fertility care patients at an academic fertility center in Illinois. Of 5000 consecutive patients, 1460 completed the survey and were included in the study sample. RESULTS: Members of our sample (N = 1460) were between 20 and 58 years (mean = 36.2, SD = 4.4). Most respondents were White (72.2%), were in a heterosexual relationship (86.8%), and felt that their physician understood their cultural background (79.4%). Of the sample, 28.9% believed emotional stress could cause infertility, 69.0% believed emotional stress could reduce success with fertility treatment, and 31.3% believed that emotional stress could cause a miscarriage, with evidence of significant racial differences. Less than a quarter (23.8%) of the sample believed emotional stress had no impact on fertility. Lower household income and educational attainment were associated with a greater belief in emotional stress as a causative factor in reproduction with regard to infertility, fertility treatment, and miscarriage. CONCLUSION: The majority of women seeking fertility care believe emotional stress could reduce the success of fertility treatment. Furthermore, beliefs about emotional stress and reproduction significantly differ based on race/ethnicity, income, and education. Particular attention should be paid to specific groups of women who may more likely not be aware of the lack of a proven biological relationship between emotional stress and reproduction.

Psychological distress and postponed fertility care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To evaluate perceptions of delayed fertility care secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional anonymous survey of N = 787/2,287 patients (response rate = 42.6%) from a single academic fertility center. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive supplemental educational explaining the rationale behind recommendations to delay fertility treatments due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessment of well-being was conducted via the Personal Health Questionnaire Depression Scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, the Ways of Coping-Revised, the Appraisal of Life Events Scale, and influence of supplemental education on agreement with ASRM COVID-19 Taskforce recommendations and associated distress. RESULTS: Participants in the education v. no education groups were 35.51 (SD = 4.06) and 37.24 (SD = 5.34) years old, married (90.8% v. 89.8%), had a graduate degree (53.9% v. 55.4%), > 1 year of infertility (73.4% v. 74.4%), and were nulliparous (69.0% v. 72.6%), with moderate to high distress (64.9% v. 64.2%) (ns). Distress was related to age, duration of infertility, and engagement in social support seeking and avoidant coping strategies (P < 0.001). Agreement with recommendations was related to receipt of supplemental education, history of pregnancy loss, and use of cognitive coping (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most participants were distressed by the delay of treatments. Supplemental education increased acceptance of recommendations but did not decrease distress. Future treatment delays should include education related to and assessment of understanding of recommendations, and inclusion of mental health professionals in patient care.

Predictors and outcomes in breast cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in reproductive age women, and treatment can affect fertility; however, there is often concern regarding the safety of increased estradiol (E2) levels and potential delays in treatment with ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation (FP). The aim of this study was to compare recurrence and survival in breast cancer patients who pursued FP without concurrent letrozole to those who did not (non-FP). METHODS: We reviewed charts of women with breast cancer who contacted the FP patient navigator (PN) at Northwestern University from 01/2005-01/2018. Oncology and fertility outcome data were collected. Data were analyzed by Chi-square test or regression, as appropriate. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to examine breast cancer recurrence and survival. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS IBM Statistics 26.0 for Windows. RESULTS: 332 patients were included, of which 157 (47.3%) underwent FP. Median days to treatment after consulting the PN was 35 in the FP group and 21 in non-FP (p < 0.05). Cancer recurrence was noted in 7 (4.7%) FP patients and 13 (7.9%) non-FP patients (NS), and mortality in 5 (3.2%) FP patients and 7 (4.2%) non-FP patients (NS). Within the FP group, no significant differences were found in recurrence or mortality based on ER status, age, BMI, peak E2 level or total gonadotropin dose. Likelihood of pursuing FP was primarily a function of age and parity, and was not affected by breast cancer stage. To date, 21 have used cryopreserved specimens, and 13 (62%) had a live birth. CONCLUSIONS: FP is safe and effective in breast cancer patients, regardless of receptor status; E2 elevations and the 2-week delay in treatment start are unlikely to be clinically significant. These findings are unique in that our institution does not use concomitant letrozole during stimulation to minimize E2 elevations in breast cancer patients.

Ovarian Stimulation Is Safe and Effective for Patients with Gynecologic Cancer.

Purpose: To compare long-term outcomes of gynecologic cancer patients who pursued controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for fertility preservation (FP) with those who did not. Methods: Retrospective cohort, COH, and health outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients; data were analyzed by chi-square test, t-tests, and logistic regression. Results: Ninety patients with a gynecologic malignancy contacted the FP patient navigator: 45.6% (n = 41) had ovarian cancer, 25.6% (n = 23) endometrial cancer, 18.9% (n = 17) cervical cancer, 5.6% (n = 5) uterine cancer, and 4.4% (n = 4) multiple gynecologic cancers. From this cohort, 32 underwent COH, 43 did not, and 18 pursued ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC; 3 patients had both COH and OTC). Median age and type of cancer were not significantly different between the groups. COH patients had a range of 1-35 oocytes retrieved. Days to next cancer treatment in the COH group was 36 days; for those who declined COH, it was 22 days (not significant [NS], p > 0.05). There were two recurrences reported in the stimulation group and four in the no stimulation group (NS). Five deaths were reported, two in the stimulation group, none in the no stimulation group, and three in the OTC group (NS); 34% (n = 11) COH patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, of which 45% (n = 5) had a live birth. Conclusion: Although time to next treatment was longer in the group of patients who underwent COH, this did not reach statistical significance. It appears that in selected patients with GYN malignancies, COH for oocyte or embryo cryopreservation is safe, with reasonable stimulation outcomes and no difference in long-term outcomes.

Ovarian stimulation is a safe and effective fertility preservation option in the adolescent and young adult population.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to describe the multidisciplinary approach and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) outcomes in adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients (ages 13-21) who underwent oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation (FP). METHODS: Multi-site retrospective cohort was performed from 2007 to 2018 at Northwestern University and Michigan University. Data were analyzed by chi-square test, t-test, and logistic regression. RESULTS: Forty-one patients began COH of which 38 patients successfully underwent oocyte retrieval, with mature oocytes obtained and cryopreserved without any adverse outcomes. To treat this group of patients, we use a multidisciplinary approach with a patient navigator. When dividing patients by ages 13-17 vs. 18-21, the median doses of FSH used were 2325 and 2038 IU, the median number of mature oocytes retrieved were 10 and 10, and median number frozen oocytes were 11 and 13, respectively. Median days of stimulation were 10 for both groups. There was no statistical difference in BMI, AMH, peak E2, FSH dosage, days stimulated, total oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes retrieved, and oocytes frozen between the two groups. Three patients were canceled for poor response. CONCLUSION: COH with oocyte cryopreservation is a feasible FP option for AYAs who may not have other alternatives when appropriate precautions are taken, such as proper counseling and having a support team. These promising outcomes correspond to similar findings of recent small case series, providing hope for these patients to have genetically related offspring in the future.

Beyond the biopsy: predictors of decision regret and anxiety following preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.

STUDY QUESTION: What factors are associated with decision regret and anxiety following preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The majority of patients viewed PGT-A favourably regardless of their outcome; although patients with negative outcomes expressed greater decision regret and anxiety. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PGT-A is increasingly utilized in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles to aid in embryo selection. Despite the increasing use of PGT-A technology, little is known about patients' experiences and the possible unintended consequences of decision regret and anxiety related to PGT-A outcome. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Anonymous surveys were distributed to 395 patients who underwent their first cycle of autologous PGT-A between January 2014 and March 2015. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: There were 69 respondents who underwent PGT-A at a university-affiliated fertility centre, completed the survey and met inclusion criteria. Respondents completed three validated questionnaires including the Brehaut Decision Regret (DR) Scale, short-form State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) and a health literacy scale. The surveys also assessed demographics, fertility history, IVF and frozen embryo transfer cycle data. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The majority of respondents were Caucasian, >35 years of age and educated beyond an undergraduate degree. The majority utilized PGT-A on their first IVF cycle, most commonly to 'maximize the efficiency of IVF' or reduce per-transfer miscarriage risk. The overall median DR score was low, but 39% of respondents expressed some degree of regret. Multiple regression confirmed a relationship between embryo ploidy and decision regret, with a lower number of euploid embryos associated with a greater degree of regret. Patients who conceived following euploid transfer reported less regret than those who miscarried or failed to conceive (P < 0.005). Decision regret was inversely associated with number of living children but not associated with age, education, race, insurance coverage, religion, marital status or indication for IVF/PGT-A. Anxiety was greater following a negative pregnancy test or miscarriage compared to successful conception (P < 0.0001). Anxiety was negatively associated with age, time since oocyte retrieval and number of living children, and a relationship was observed between anxiety and religious affiliation. Overall, decision regret was low, and 94% of all respondents reported satisfaction with their decision to pursue PGT-A; however, patients with a negative outcome were more likely to express decision regret and anxiety. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: This survey was performed at a single centre with a relatively homogenous population, and the findings may not be generalizable. Reasons for caution include the possibility of response bias and unmeasured differences among those who did and did not respond to the survey, as well as the possibility of recall bias given the retrospective nature of the survey. Few studies have examined patient perceptions of PGT-A, and our findings should be interpreted with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Overall decision regret was low following PGT-A, and the vast majority deemed the information gained valuable for reproductive planning regardless of outcome. However, more than one-third of the respondents expressed some degree of regret. Respondents with no euploid embryos were more likely to express regret, and those with a negative outcome following euploid embryo transfer expressed both higher regret and anxiety. These data identify unanticipated consequences of PGT-A and suggest opportunities for additional counselling and support surrounding IVF with PGT-A. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was obtained for this study. D.H.M. reports personal fees, honorarium, and travel expenses from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, personal fees and travel expenses from Granata Bio, and personal fees from Biogenetics Corporation, The Sperm and Embryo Bank of New York, and ReproART: Georgian American Center for Reproductive Medicine. All conflicts are outside the submitted work.

Long-term outcomes in cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term outcomes of cancer patients who pursued fertility preservation (FP) with those who did not and compare random-start (RS) and menstrual cycle-specific (CS) protocols for FP. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Single urban academic institution. PATIENT(S): Oncology patients who contacted the FP patient navigator, 2005-2015. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Time to cancer treatment, disease-free survival, and reproductive outcomes in FP versus no-FP patients and cycle outcomes for RS versus CS protocols. Data were analyzed by χ2 and logistic regression. RESULT(S): Of 497 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 41% elected FP. The median number of days to cancer treatment was 33 and 19 days in the FP and no-FP groups, respectively. There was no difference in cancer recurrence or mortality. There were no differences in stimulation parameters, outcomes, or days to next cancer treatment in RS versus CS protocols. Twenty-one patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, resulting in 16 live births. Eight of 21 returning patients used a gestational carrier. Thirteen FP (6.4%) and 16 no-FP (5.5%) patients experienced a spontaneous pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): FP is both safe and efficacious for eligible cancer patients. Only 10% of patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, and almost half used a gestational carrier, suggesting the need for further research into reproductive decision-making in cancer survivors.