Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To review the outcomes of patients who underwent autologous oocyte thaw after planned oocyte cryopreservation. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING/METHODS:Large urban university-affiliated fertility center. PATIENT(S)/METHODS:All patients who underwent ≥1 autologous oocyte thaw before December 31, 2020. INTERVENTION(S)/METHODS:None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)/METHODS:The primary outcome was the final live birth rate (FLBR) per patient, and only patients who had a live birth (LB) or consumed all remaining inventory (cryopreserved oocytes and resultant euploid/untested/no result embryos) were included. The secondary outcomes were laboratory outcomes and LB rates per transfer. RESULT(S)/RESULTS:A total of 543 patients underwent 800 oocyte cryopreservations, 605 thaws, and 436 transfers. The median age at the first cryopreservation was 38.3 years. The median time between the first cryopreservation and thaw was 4.2 years. The median numbers of oocytes and metaphase II oocytes (M2s) thawed per patient were 14 and 12, respectively. Overall survival of all thawed oocytes was 79%. Of all patients, 61% underwent ≥1 transfer. Among euploid (n = 262) and nonbiopsied (n = 158) transfers, the LB rates per transfer were 55% and 31%, respectively. The FLBR per patient was 39%. Age at cryopreservation and the number of M2s thawed were predictive of LB; the FLBR per patient was >50% for patients aged <38 years at cryopreservation or who thawed ≥20 M2s. A total of 173 patients (32%) have remaining inventory. CONCLUSION(S)/CONCLUSIONS:Autologous oocyte thaw resulted in a 39% FLBR per patient, which is comparable with age-matched in vitro fertilization outcomes. Studies with larger cohorts are necessary.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Characterize outcomes among adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with sex chromosome disorders (SCDs) after oocyte cryopreservation (OC) consultation. METHODS:Retrospective case series of all AYA (< 25 years) patients with SCDs seen for OC consultation from 2011 to 2019 at a large, urban, academic fertility center. All AYA patients with an SCD seen for OC consult in the study time period were reviewed and included. Data collected included patient age, SCD type, number of patients who attempted OC, number of cycles attempted, and cycle outcomes. RESULTS:Twenty-two patients were included: 9 with Turner syndrome, 12 with mosaic Turner syndrome, and 1 with 47,XXX. Mean age at consult was 14.7 ± 3.5 years. Fourteen patients elected for OC: 5 with Turner syndrome, 8 with mosaic Turner syndrome, and 1 47,XXX who pursued 31 OC cycles total. Of those 14 patients, 10 underwent retrieval, 9 froze oocytes, and 8 froze mature (MII) oocytes. Seven patients underwent > 1 cycle and 7 had ≥ 1 cancelation. 3/3 patients who pursued cycles after 1st cancelation never got to retrieval. Age, SCD type, and baseline FSH did not predict ability to freeze MIIs. One patient returned after OC and attempted 4 ovulation induction cycles and 2 IVF cycles; all were canceled for low response. CONCLUSIONS:AYA patients with SCDs have a high risk of poor response and cycle cancelation but the majority froze MIIs. Thus, setting expectations is important. A larger sample size is needed to evaluate possible clinical predictors of success.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine whether sociodemographic differences exist among female patients accessing fertility services post-cancer diagnosis in a representative sample of the United States population. METHODS:All women ages 15-45 with a history of cancer who responded to the National Survey for Family Growth (NSFG) from 2011 to 2017 were included. The population was then stratified into 2 groups, defined as those who did and did not seek infertility services. The demographic characteristics of age, legal marital status, education, race, religion, insurance status, access to healthcare, and self-perceived health were compared between the two groups. The primary outcome measure was the utilization of fertility services. The complex sample analysis using the provided sample weights required by the NSFG survey design was used. RESULTS:Five hundred forty-five women reported a history of cancer and were included in this study. Forty-three (7.89%) pursued fertility services after their cancer diagnosis. Using the NSFG sample weights, this equates to a population of 161,500.7 female cancer survivors in the USA who did utilize fertility services and 1,811,955.3 women who did not. Using multivariable analysis, household income, marital status, and race were significantly associated with women utilizing fertility services following a cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS:In this nationally representative cohort of reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer, there are marital, socioeconomic, and racial differences between those who utilized fertility services and those who did not. This difference did not appear to be due to insurance coverage, access to healthcare, or perceived health status.

The use of planned oocyte cryopreservation for nonmedical need has been steadily increasing, especially since the experimental label on this procedure was lifted nearly 10 years ago. With this rise, patients' desires to postpone or conserve their reproductive potential have become increasingly nuanced, and the need for complex individualized counseling has grown. In addition, there are several ethical considerations, including risks, access, and patient comprehension that must be discussed with patients who are considering this procedure. In this review, we provide an in-depth discussion of these concepts, highlighting the need for individualized and comprehensive counseling that recognizes the gaps in knowledge that remains in this somewhat novel domain.

Background/UNASSIGNED:The opportunity for fertility preservation in adolescent and young adult (AYA) transmen is growing. Many AYA transmen desire future biologic children and are interested in ways to preserve fertility through oocyte cryopreservation prior to full gender affirmation, yet utilization of oocyte cryopreservation remains low. Additionally, standard practice guidelines currently do not exist for the provision of oocyte cryopreservation to AYA transmen. Our objective was to review our experience with oocyte cryopreservation in adolescent and young adult transmen in order to synthesize lessons regarding referral patterns, utilization, and oocyte cryopreservation outcomes as well as best practices to establish treatment guidance. Methods/UNASSIGNED:This is a case series of all AYA transmen (aged 10 to 25 years) who contacted, consulted or underwent oocyte cryopreservation at a single high volume New York City based academic fertility center between 2009 and 2021. Results/UNASSIGNED:Forty-four adolescent and young adult transmen made contact to the fertility center over the study period. Eighty percent (35/44) had a consultation with a Reproductive and Endocrinology specialist, with a median age of 16 years (range 10 to 24 years) at consultation. The majority were testosterone-naive (71%, 25/35), and had not pursued gender affirming surgery (86%, 30/35). Expedited initiation of testosterone remained the most commonly cited goal (86%, 30/35). Fifty-seven percent (20/35) pursued oocyte cryopreservation. Ninety-five percent (19/20) underwent successful transvaginal oocyte aspiration, with a median of 22 oocytes retrieved and 15 mature oocytes cryopreserved. There were no significant adverse events. At time of review, no patient has returned to utilize their cryopreserved oocytes. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Oocyte cryopreservation is a safe fertility preservation option in AYA transmen and is an important aspect of providing comprehensive transgender care. Insights from referral patterns, utilization, and oocyte cryopreservation outcomes from a single center's experience with adolescent and young adult transmen can be integrated to identify lessons learned with the goal of providing transparency surrounding the oocyte cryopreservation process, improving the education and comfort of patients and providers with fertility preservation, and easing the decision to pursue an oocyte cryopreservation cycle in parallel to gender-affirmatory care.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:To characterize activity, text sentiment, and online community characteristics regarding "fertility" on Twitter before and during the COVID-19 pandemic using social network analysis. Design/UNASSIGNED:Cross-sectional analysis. Setting/UNASSIGNED:Publicly available Twitter data. Patients/UNASSIGNED:Not applicable. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures/UNASSIGNED:Number of users (vertices); edges (connections, defined as unique and total); self-loops (tweet without connection to another user); connected components (groups of users communicating back and forth frequently); maximum vertices in a connected component (largest group size); maximum and average geodesic distance (number of tweets to connect two users in the network); graph density; positive and negative sentiment tweets; and top 5 hashtags and top 5 word pairs. Results/UNASSIGNED:There were 1426 unique users and 401 groups in the pre-COVID-19 data compared to 1492 unique users and 453 groups in the during COVID-19 data. There was no difference in the number of total connections (96.8% [1381/1426] vs. 96.0% [1433/1492]) or self-loops (20.0% [286/1426] vs. 22.1% [329/1492]) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The percentage of unique connections per user decreased during COVID-19 (91.6% [1381/1508] pre-COVID-19 vs. 83.3% [1433/1720] during COVID-19). The average and maximum distance between users in the community increased during COVID-19 (maximum: 5 pre-COVID-19, 8 during COVID-19; average 1.95 pre-COVID-19, 2.43 during COVID-19). The percentage of positive sentiments per total number of tweets increased during COVID-19 (58.1% pre-COVID-19 [773/1331] vs. 64.3% [1198/1863] during COVID-19). The top 5 hashtags changed during COVID-19 to include COVID-19. The top word pairs changed from "family, hereditary; parents, children" to "fertility, treatment; healthcare, decisions." Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Despite the challenge to the fertility community amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall Twitter sentiment regarding fertility was more positive during than before the pandemic. Top hashtags and word pairs changed to reflect the emergence of COVID-19 and the unique healthcare decision-making challenges faced. While the character, the number of users, and the total connections remained constant, the number of unique connections and the distance between users changed to reflect more self-broadcasting and less tight connections.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine if recent evolutions in laboratory protocols, including the increased use of natural cycles and the use of a hyaluronan-containing transfer medium, affected the rate of monozygotic twin (MZT) pregnancies after single frozen embryo transfer (FET). Design/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. Setting/UNASSIGNED:Urban university-based fertility center. Patients/UNASSIGNED:Patients who underwent single FET between January 2016 and December 2018 resulting in an intrauterine pregnancy. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Transition to a transfer protocol with a hyaluronan-containing transfer medium in July 2017. Main Outcome Measures/UNASSIGNED:Number of MZT pregnancies. Results/UNASSIGNED:There were 1,619 cycles that met the inclusion criteria and 31 (1.9%) resulted in MZT pregnancies. A hyaluronan-containing transfer medium was used in 875 (54.1%) cycles. Programmed cycles were used for 1,385 (85.5%) FETs and 234 (14.5%) cycles were natural. The mean age at FET, oocyte age, endometrial echo thickness, inner cell mass grade, trophectoderm grade, expansion, and day of blastocyst vitrification were similar between the groups. The use of a hyaluronan-containing transfer medium resulted in fewer MZTs. After controlling potential confounders with a multivariate regression, the use of the hyaluronan-containing medium still resulted in fewer MZTs. Monozygotic twins were colinear with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), so PGT was excluded as a variable in our regression. A regression of PGT only cycles showed that the use of the hyaluronan-containing medium was still associated with a reduction in MZT pregnancies. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:The use of a hyaluronan-containing transfer medium was associated with a lower rate of MZTs. Other clinical parameters, including cycle type, were not associated with changes in the number of MZTs. The use of PGT needs to be further investigated as a risk factor for MZTs.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and efficacy of a universal screening program in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). DESIGN:Single-center retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Academic fertility center in an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENT(S):All patients undergoing COS from June 17, 2019, to February 28, 2021. INTERVENTION(S):Universal COVID-19 screening starting June 17, 2020, with SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing within 5 days of oocyte retrieval, patient-reported symptom screening, and temperature monitoring. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S):The primary outcome was the number of positive COVID-19 cases in patients undergoing COS cycles. The secondary outcomes were cycle outcomes compared with before COVID-19 COS cycles, adverse outcomes in COVID-canceled cycles, and center-specific COVID-19 detection rates compared with New York City cases. RESULT(S):From June 17, 2020, to February 28, 2021, 1,696 COS cycles were initiated with only seven positive COVID-19 cases for an overall positivity rate of 0.4%. When compared with before COVID cycles from June 17, 2019, to February 28, 2020, the volume of COS cycles were higher, while the overall cycle cancelation rate was lower during COVID-19. Cycle outcomes including oocyte yield and blast utilization rates were unchanged from pre-COVID cycles. Cases of COVID-19, while very low, occurred more frequently during surges in New York City rates. CONCLUSION(S):Assisted reproductive technology can be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic utilizing frequent universal screening and safe practices with low SARS-CoV-2 positivity, low cycle cancelation rates, and positive patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has influenced family building, delayed fertility care, and affected people's decisions about where to live.We sought to understand differences in movement of cryopreserved reproductive tissue before and during the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who transported tissue into or out of a single academic fertility center in New York City (NYC). Tissue transport was compared the year before (PRE, 4/1/2019-3/31/2020) and after (DUR, 4/1/2020-3/31/2021) the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in NYC, an epicenter. The primary outcome was the number of patients transporting tissue DUR compared to PRE. Secondary outcomes were the number of geographic changes, type of tissue, geographic origin/destination, and type of movement (in or out). Statistical analyses were performed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum, Chi-Square, and Fisher's Exact tests with p<0.05 considered significant.
RESULT(S): A total of 367 tissue transports were included, with similar rates between cohorts (PRE 46.3% (170/367) vs DUR 53.7% (197/367), p=0.16). The median age at transport was the same (PRE 41 (range 29-54) vs DUR 41 (range 28-54) years, p=0.54). A similar amount of tissue was transported in (PRE 30.0% (51/170) vs DUR 35.0% (69/197)) and out (PRE 70.0% (119/170) vs DUR 65.0% (128/197), p=0.32). Patients were more likely to transport embryos pre-pandemic (37.6% (64/170) oocytes vs 61.8% (105/170) embryos, PRE) and oocytes during COVID-19 (51.8% (102/197) oocytes vs 44.2% (87/197) embryos, DUR) (p<0.01). A subgroup analysis excluding tissue moved for a gestational carrier or donor gametes found a similar number of transports were due to patient geographic relocation (PRE 50.0% (61/122) vs DUR 40.5% (60/148), p=0.12). Examination of geographic origin and destination of tissue PRE vs DUR produced no identifiable trends (p=0.38). Timing of tissue transport varied. The monthly transport rates were relatively even PRE (average 8% per month). However, during the pandemic, there were few transports in the beginning (April-May 2020, 0-1% per month) followed by a peak of transports in June-August 2020 (10-11% per month) and February-March 2021 (11-16% per month) (p<0.01). Transport activities were impacted by closure of clinics and courier service availability.
CONCLUSION(S): The rate of cryopreserved tissue movement did not differ in the year before versus during the pandemic at our center, despite being in a COVID-19 epicenter, although transport activities were concentrated into fewer days. There was peak movement of tissue three months after the pandemic onset and roughly one year from the start of the pandemic. The type of tissue transported shifted to favor oocytes during the pandemic, warranting more investigation in how COVID-19 impacted family building activities. IMPACT STATEMENT: Despite the impact of COVID-19 on reproductive and place of living choices, the pandemic did not affect the amount of cryopreserved tissue that was relocated. However, insight into the increased movement of oocytes and potential impacts on warming outcomes or timelines is necessary