P–442 Cancer does not adversely affect oocyte maturation in vitro with the exception of breast cancer
Authors: Viran. . Klun I , Bedenk J , Jancar N 
Published: August 2021

Study question

Do different types of cancer affect the success of oocyte maturation in vitro compared to infertile women included in the in vitro fertilization (IVF) program?

Summary answer

Cancer does not adversely affect oocyte maturation in vitro, with the exception of breast cancer, compared to infertile women in the in vitro fertilization program.

What is known already

Vitrification and storage of oocytes in liquid nitrogen is one of the real options for maintaining reproductive function in cancer patients. Despite careful hormonal stimulation of the ovaries, however, the proportion of oocytes is immature and lost to the patient. In vitro maturation of oocytes can play an important role in resolving immature oocytes and increasing the chances of conception in cancer patients. Moreover, it can mean a safe way to store oocytes when ovarian hormonal stimulation could worsen the disease. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether different types of cancer affect oocyte in vitro maturation.

Study design, size, duration

After ovarian stimulation in 18 cancer patients, the number and maturity of oocytes were compared to 21 infertile patients in the IVF program over a three-year period. In both groups, 119 germinal vesicle-GV oocytes were matured in vitro to compare the maturation rate. After IVF in a subset of 17 infertile patients, the fertilization of in vitro and in vivo matured oocytes was compared in the same cycles. The procedure was considered in cancer patients.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

In this prospective study, forty-five GV oocytes in cancer patients and 74 GV oocytes in infertile patients underwent in vitro maturation procedure. Each oocyte was matured in vitro in the MediCult IVM System by conditioning in LAG medium and maturation for up to 28 hours in IVM medium with added hormones FSH and hCG, in coculture with cumulus cells from mature oocytes in the same patients. Oocytes were fertilized by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

Main results and the role of chance

After controlled ovarian hormonal stimulation, 198 oocytes were retrieved in cancer patients and 259 oocytes in infertile women and there were no significant differences in the number of retrieved oocytes, proportion of degenerated oocytes and proportion of GV oocytes. In cancer patients, the proportion of oocytes that matured in vitro was lower than in infertile patients (66.0 vs. 80.0%), but the difference was not significant. Among cancer patients, the oocyte maturation rate tended to be lower in patients with breast cancer than in patients with other cancers (54.5% vs. 81.2%; difference not significant). However, in patients with breast cancer, significantly fewer oocytes matured in vitro than in infertile patients (54.5% vs. 80.0%; P &lt; 0.05, Chi-Square test) even though they tended to be younger (29.3 ± 7.4 vs. 33.4 ± 5.0 years; non-significant difference). After in vitro maturation, there was a 13% increase in mature oocyte yield in cancer patients and a 20.1% increase in infertile women with no significant difference observed. After ICSI in a subset of infertile women, there was approximately the same fertilization rate between oocytes matured in vitro and in vivo (55.1% vs. 57.0%) in the same cycles.

Limitations, reasons for caution

For ICSI in oocytes matured in vitro, we had to use semen collected the day before, while oocytes matured in vivo were fertilized with fresh semen in the same cycle. Therefore, we could not compare the development of embryos in both groups.

Wider implications of the findings: In vitro maturation of oocytes in connection with their vitrification or vitrification of embryos after their fertilization appears to be a valuable way to maintain the fertility of young cancer patients, but a worse outcome is expected in breast cancer patients.

Trial registration number

National Medical Ethical Committee Approval, No. 0120–222/2016–2; KME 115/04/16.