<i>In Vitro</i> Maturation of Oocytes Obtained from Ovarian Cortex Among Postpubertal Hematological Cancer Patients Undergoing Fertility Preservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes obtained from ovarian tissue during ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) is a technique for fertility preservation in patients with cancer obviating the need to postpone chemotherapy initiation. Little is known about IVM outcomes in hematological malignancies, especially post-chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of cytotoxic treatment on the potential to retrieve immature oocytes and mature them in vitro and examine the association between serum inflammatory markers and these results. Methods: In this retrospective study, we evaluated inflammation markers, including B symptoms and IVM outcomes of 78 chemotherapy-naive and exposed patients diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), or acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Results: The mean number of oocytes found was 7.2 ± 7.2. The average number of oocytes matured by IVM was 2.8 ± 3.5, and a mean IVM rate was 32.1 ± 27.7%. All patients in the ALL and AML groups had previous exposure to chemotherapy before OTC, compared with 50.0% (7/14) and 31.9% (15/47) in the NHL and HL groups, respectively. Among patients with lymphoma, chemotherapy exposure was associated with the reduced number of retrieved oocytes (9.8 ± 7.7 vs. 5.3 ± 5.7 oocytes, p = 0.049) in the HL group but not with the number of mature oocytes or IVM rate. B symptoms were not associated with IVM outcomes. Lymphocyte count (ß = 1.584; p = 0.038) and lactate dehydrogenase (ß = 0.009; p = 0.043) were the only significant parameters associated with the number of matured oocytes in a linear regression model. Conclusion: IVM is a promising assisted reproductive technology, which holds great potential for patients in need of urgent fertility preservation or those who cannot receive hormonal stimulation. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of the technique even in the presence of B symptoms and elevated inflammation markers and in patients with previous exposure to chemotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".