Published in

MDPI, Healthcare, 20(11), p. 2727, 2023

DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11202727

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Optimizing the Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation in the ‘Oncofertility’ Institutional Program at an Italian National Cancer Institute

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background: The majority of female cancer patients undergoing anticancer treatments are at risk of experiencing ‘cancer treatment-related infertility’, which can result in permanent damage to their reproductive prospects. Among the fertility preservation methods, ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) has emerged as an alternative for these patients. The Cancer Institute of Bari initiated a research program to assess the feasibility of OTC. This study compares the viability of ovarian cortical fragments cryopreserved using slow freezing (SF) and ultra-rapid freezing (URF) methods. Methods: Ovarian cortex biopsies were obtained from 11 fertile women enrolled in our oncofertility service between June 2022 and January 2023. After tissue collection, a histological assessment was performed before cryopreservation. OTC was carried out using both SF and URF methods. Six months later, thawed samples were evaluated for follicle counts and histological integrity. Results: No statistically significant difference was observed in the proportion of intact follicles (means of 31.5% and 73.0% in the SF and URF groups, respectively; p = 0.064). However, there was a significant difference in the number of follicles between the SF group (n = 149) and the URF group (n = 37) (p = 0.046). Conclusions: We assessed the viability of ovarian cortex after freezing and thawing, focusing on the structural integrity of follicles. Our findings suggest that there are no significant differences between the SF and URF methods.