Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disposition preferences in oocyte preservation patients

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To characterize the frozen oocyte disposition preferences of patients undergoing medical and planned fertility preservation.

Methods

All oocyte cryopreservation (OC) patients were identified between 2015 and 2018. Demographic information and fertility preservation (FP) indication (medical or planned) were identified for each patient. Oocyte disposition options included disposal, donation to research, or donation to a specified third party, which was decided at the time of initial consent and made available in the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was the disposition selection. Secondary outcomes included differences in demographic variables and disposition selections between medical and planned FP patients using chi-squared analysis.

Results

A total of 336 OC patients with a documented oocyte disposition preference were identified in the study timeframe. Patients were on average 34.5 years old (SD = 5.1) and were predominantly White (70.2%), nulliparous (83.0%), with a BMI of 24.7 (SD = 5.4). A total of 101 patients underwent OC for medical FP and 235 for planned FP. In both groups, the most commonly selected disposition option was donation to research (50% planned, 52% medical), followed by donation to a specified third party (30% planned, 30% medical), and finally disposal of oocytes (20% planned, 18% medical). There were no significant differences in disposition selection between each group. When comparing patient variables between groups, medical FP patients were more likely to be under the age of 35 and were less likely to be nulliparous (p < .001).

Conclusion

This study shows that oocyte disposition choices are similar in patients undergoing OC for medical and planned indications. As donation to research was the most commonly selected option in both groups, it is time to start thinking of streamlining ways to utilize this potential research material in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Planned oocyte cryopreservation for women seeking to preserve future reproductive potential: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:1022–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:380–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) national summary report. Preliminary national summary report for 2014. Available at: https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?reportingYear=2014. Accessed 23rd January 2022.

  4. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) national summary report. Preliminary national summary report for 2018. Available at: https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?reportingYear=2019. Accessed 23rd January 2022.

  5. Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE. Mean age of mothers is on the rise: United States, 2000–2014. NCHS Data Brief. 2016:1–8.

  6. Lewis EI, Missmer SA, Farland LV, Ginsburg ES. Public support in the United States for elective oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1183–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: final data for 2018. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019;68(13):1–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2016 assisted reproductive technology national summary report. Atlanta: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2018.

  9. van de Wiel L. The speculative turn in IVF: egg freezing and the financialization of fertility. New Genet Soc. 2020;39(3):306–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2019.1709430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mills M, Rindfuss RR, McDonald P, Te Velde E. Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:848–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr026.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hodes-Wertz B, Druckenmiller S, Smith M, Noyes N. What do reproductive-age women who undergo oocyte cryopreservation think about the process as a means to preserve fertility? Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1343–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ikhena-Abel DE, Confino R, Shah NJ, Lawson AK, Klock SC, Robins JC, et al. Is employer coverage of elective egg freezing coercive?: a survey of medical students’ knowledge, intentions, and attitudes towards elective egg freezing and employer coverage. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:1035–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0956-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Moravek MB, Confino R, Smith KN, Kazer RR, Klock SC, Lawson AK, et al. Long-term outcomes in cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:349–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.029.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Akel RA, Guo XM, Moravek MB, Confino R, Smith KN, Lawson AK, et al. Ovarian stimulation is safe and effective for patients with gynecologic cancer. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2020;9:367–74. https://doi.org/10.1089/jayao.2019.0124.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Friedrich A. A cold yield. Cryopreserved oocytes of “social freezing” customers as potential option values for biomedical research. New Genet Soc. 2020;39(3):327–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2020.1755637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wafi A, Nekkebroeck J, Blockeel C, De Munck N, Tournaye H, De Vos M. A follow-up survey on the reproductive intentions and experiences of women undergoing planned oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;40:207–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.11.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sheffer-Mimouni G, Mashiach S, Dor J, Levran D, Seidman DS. Factors influencing the obstetric and perinatal outcome after oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2636–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.10.2636.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sauer MV. Reproduction at an advanced maternal age and maternal health. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1136–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hounshell CV, Chetkowski RJ. Donation of frozen embryos after in vitro fertilization is uncommon. Fertil Steril. 1996;66:837–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cattoli M, Borini A, Bonu MA. Fate of stored embryos: our 10 years experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;115 Suppl 1:S16–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.01.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. de Lacey S. Parent identity and ‘virtual’ children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1661–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh831.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Alexander VM, Riley JK, Jungheim ES. Recent trends in embryo disposition choices made by patients following in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(11):2797–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01927-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Disposition of unclaimed embryos: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(1):48–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.02.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hammarberg K, Tinney L. Deciding the fate of supernumerary frozen embryos: a survey of couples’ decisions and the factors influencing their choice. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(1):86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.11.071.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Caughey LE, Lensen S, White KM, Peate M. Disposition intentions of elective egg freezers toward their surplus frozen oocytes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(6):1601–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.07.1195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Leung AQ, Baker K, Vaughan D, et al. Clinical outcomes and utilization from over a decade of planned oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43(4):671–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Blakemore JK, Grifo JA, DeVore SM, Hodes-Wertz B, Berkeley AS. Planned oocyte cryopreservation-10-15-year follow-up: return rates and cycle outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(6):1511–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.01.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rinehart LA. Storage, transport, and disposition of gametes and embryos: legal issues and practical considerations. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(2):274–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lyerly AD, Steinhauser K, Voils C, Namey E, Alexander C, Bankowski B, et al. Fertility patients’ views about frozen embryo disposition: results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):499–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mayor S. HFEA allows women to donate eggs for research. BMJ. 2007;334(7591):445. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39139.478345.DB.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Inhorn MC, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Westphal LM, et al. Patient-centered elective egg freezing: a binational qualitative study of best practices for women’s quality of care. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(6):1081–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01481-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Söderström-Anttila V. Follow-up study of Finnish volunteer oocyte donors concerning their attitudes to oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(11):3073–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135852.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. de Lacey S. Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: fresh insights into patients’ thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(6):1751–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kirkman M. Egg and embryo donation and the meaning of motherhood. Women Health. 2003;38(2):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v38n02_01.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Klock SC, Sheinin S, Kazer RR. The disposition of unused frozen embryos. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(1):69–70. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200107053450118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Newton CR, Fisher J, Feyles V, Tekpetey F, Hughes L, Isacsson D. Changes in patient preferences in the disposal of cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(12):3124–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem287.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 N. St Clair, Suite 2310, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Anne P. Hutchinson, Shweta Hosakoppal, Kathryn A. Trotter, Rafael Confino, John Zhang, Susan C. Klock, Angela K. Lawson & Mary Ellen Pavone

Authors
  1. Anne P. Hutchinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shweta Hosakoppal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathryn A. Trotter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rafael Confino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Susan C. Klock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Angela K. Lawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mary Ellen Pavone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Ellen Pavone.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained.

Consent to participate

Waiver of informed consent was approved by IRB given retrospective nature of study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hutchinson, A.P., Hosakoppal, S., Trotter, K.A. et al. Disposition preferences in oocyte preservation patients. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 1619–1624 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02518-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02518-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation