Live birth rate after female fertility preservation for cancer or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the three main techniques; embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION: What are the chances of achieving a live birth after embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) in female cancer survivors? SUMMARY ANSWER: The live birth rates (LBRs) following embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are 41% and 32%, respectively, while for IVF and spontaneous LBR after tissue cryopreservation and transplantation, these rates are 21% and 33%, respectively. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Currently, fertility preservation (FP) has become a major public health issue as diagnostic and therapeutic progress has made it possible to achieve an 80% survival rate in children, adolescents and young adults with cancer. In the latest ESHRE guidelines, only oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are considered as established options for FP. OTC is still considered to be an innovative method, while it is an acceptable FP technique in the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines. However, given the lack of studies on long-term outcomes after FP, it is still unclear which technique offers the best chance to achieve a live birth. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published controlled studies. Searches were conducted from January 2004 to May 2021 in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library using the following search terms: cancer, stem cell transplantation, FP, embryo cryopreservation, oocyte vitrification, OTC and reproductive outcome. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 126 full-text articles were preselected from 1436 references based on the title and abstract and assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The studies were selected, and their data were extracted by two independent reviewers according to the Cochrane methods. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with high heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Data from 34 studies were used for this meta-analysis. Regarding cryopreserved embryos, the LBR after IVF was 41% (95% CI: 34-48, I2: 0%, fixed effect). Concerning vitrified oocytes, the LBR was 32% (95% CI: 26-39, I2: 0%, fixed effect). Finally, the LBR after IVF and the spontaneous LBR after ovarian tissue transplantation were 21% (95% CI: 15-26, I2: 0%, fixed-effect) and 33% (95% CI: 25-42, I2: 46.1%, random-effect), respectively. For all outcomes, in the sensitivity analyses, the maximum variation in the estimated percentage was 1%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The heterogeneity of the literature prevents us from comparing these three techniques. This meta-analysis provides limited data which may help clinicians when counselling patients. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study highlights the need for long-term follow-up registries to assess return rates, as well as spontaneous pregnancy rates and birth rates after FP. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from GEDEON RICHTER France. The authors have no competing interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264042.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".