P-423 Fertility outcomes of an egg donation program for hematologic cancer survivors: an 11-year retrospective cohort study
Authors: Morra F , Garcia-Faura A , Miravitlles M  J , Oñate G , Catlla C , Garcia F , Montalvo V , Marques B 
Published: July 2024

Abstract

Study question
What is the effectiveness of IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with egg donation (IVF/ICSI-ED) in hematological cancer survivors (HCS) with reproductive desire and iatrogenic ovarian failure (IOF)?

Summary answer
The probability of clinical pregnancy and having a live birth does not significantly differ between women treated for hematological cancer and non-oncological patients using IVF/ICSI-ED.

What is known already
The most common hematological malignancies in women before or during reproductive age are lymphoma and leukemia. Oncological therapies cause premature ovarian failure, uterine fibrosis and infertility. Fertility preservation measures are not always possible or advisable. Egg vitrification in post-pubertal women has temporary implications as it requires ovarian stimulation; cryopreservation of ovarian tissue carries the risk of introducing back malignant cells. Fertility preservation is performed in 4-20% of cases: only 5% of patients have the chance to consult a reproductive specialist before cancer treatment. There are no published comparative studies on the effectiveness of ED in hematologic cancer survivors.

Study design, size, duration
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 47 HCS with IOF, all of them nulliparous and without infertility diagnosis nor fertility preservation prior to oncological treatment and compared them with a control group (CG) of 19 infertile non-oncologic patients who underwent IVF/ICSI-ED with eggs from the same donors obtained during the same period of time (2012-2022). After evaluation by the center’s Oncofertility Committee, 45 HCS were eligible for IVF/ICSI-ED, and 23 agreed to undergo treatment.

Participants/materials, setting, methods
On the 47 patients HCS group we studied all the oncologic information: mean age at cancer diagnosis, mean age at IVF/ICS-ED treatment, type of tumor and oncologic treatment received.
We compared the 23 patients HCS group with the 19 patients CG for: mean age of the egg recipient, mean age of the egg donor, single embryo transfers performed per patient, pregnancy and life bith rate per IVF/ICSI-ED treatment. We used chi-square statistic for the comparison.

Main results and the role of chance
The 47 women HCS group was aged between 25 to 50 years. The mean age at cancer diagnosis was 25.9 ± 7.6 years. The most frequent neoplasms were Hodgkin lymphoma (46.8%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (21.2%), acute myeloid leukemia (12.7%), chronic myeloid leukemia (10.6%), other leukemias (8.5%). Lymphomas (68%) predominated over leukemias (32%).
In this group 95.8% of the HCS were treated with chemotherapy: 21.2% as monotherapy, 14.8% combined with radiotherapy, 6.3% with surgery, and 6.3% with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Bone marrow transplantation was required in 46.8% of cases. At least 5 years elapsed from diagnosis to evaluation by the Oncology Committee.
The mean egg recipient age was 36.5 ± 4.9 years for the HCS group and 41.3 ± 2.6 years for the CG (p &lt; 0.05); there were no significant differences in the egg donor’s mean age (26.5±4.5 Vs 26.1±4.9, p=ns). We found no significant differences between the HCS and the CG in the mean single embryo transfers performed per patient (1.7 Vs 1.9, p=ns), in the pregnancy rate per ED cycle (88.4% vs 89.4%, p=ns), nor in the live birth rate per ED cycle (73% vs 64%, p=ns).

Limitations, reasons for caution
The retrospective nature of the study, the small number of cases and the under-recording of data in the medical history are the main limitations of this study.

Wider implications of the findings
It is important to have a comprehensive understanding of cancer therapies on fertility so that both doctors and patients can make informed decisions. Fertility preservation methods must be proposed before initiating oncological treatment, so multidisciplinary teamwork and timely referral to reproductive medicine centers specialized in fertility preservation are recommended.

Trial registration number
Not applicable