Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Survey of Women Who Cryopreserved Oocytes for Non-medical Indications (Social Fertility Preservation)

  • Reproductive Endocrinology: Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To evaluate the expectations, experiences, and fertility awareness status of women who underwent social oocyte cryopreservation. Cohort survey study was conducted at an academic medical center. All women who underwent social oocyte cryopreservation between January 2015 and June 2016 were recruited. One hundred thirty-three women were contacted by phone to participate in a survey. The questionnaire investigated the initial motivation towards freezing, intentions to use cryopreserved oocytes, treatment experience, awareness of fertility and knowledge about chances of having a live birth with their frozen oocytes. The mean age at the time of oocyte freezing was 38.5 ± 2.68 years. The average number of mature oocytes cryopreserved was 5.48 ± 6.6 (1–16). Two major motivations were absence of a male partner (40%) and an anticipated age-related fertility decline (42%). Almost 60% overestimated the chances of natural conception, as well as the success of IVF at the age of 40 years. Half of the oocyte bankers reported that fertility declined between ages 35 and 39, but only 28% of patients estimated the live birth rate per cryopreserved oocyte correctly. Overall 98.8% stated that they would recommend oocyte cryopresevation to a friend, and 72% felt more secure in terms of reproductive potential. Despite comprehensive personalized counseling prior to the start of ovarian stimulation, many women do not seem to have a realistic understanding of reproductive aging. Even though gamete cryopreservation provides some insurance, overestimating the effectiveness of oocyte cryopreservation can also lead to a false sense of security. Clinical Trial Registration: 2016.086.IRB1.006

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. CDC. Mean age of mothers is on the rise - CDC. In: NCHS data brief ■ no 232 Vol. January 2016. CDC/NCHS , United States: CDC/NCHS, 2016.

  2. SART. Preliminary CSR for 2016. In, 2018.

  3. Ethics ETF, Law, Dondorp W, de Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, et al. Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1231–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive M, Society for Assisted Reproductive T. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wennberg AL, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Milsom I, Brannstrom M. Attitudes towards new assisted reproductive technologies in Sweden: a survey in women 30-39 years of age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95:38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Petropanagos A. Reproductive ‘choice’ and egg freezing. Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:223–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lampic C, Svanberg AS, Karlstrom P, Tyden T. Fertility awareness, intentions concerning childbearing, and attitudes towards parenthood among female and male academics. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:558–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bretherick KL, Fairbrother N, Avila L, Harbord SH, Robinson WP. Fertility and aging: do reproductive-aged Canadian women know what they need to know? Fertil Steril. 2010;93:2162–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rovei V, Gennarelli G, Lantieri T, Casano S, Revelli A, Massobrio M. Family planning, fertility awareness and knowledge about Italian legislation on assisted reproduction among Italian academic students. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;20:873–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hashiloni-Dolev Y, Kaplan A, Shkedi-Rafid S. The fertility myth: Israeli students' knowledge regarding age-related fertility decline and late pregnancies in an era of assisted reproduction technology. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:3045–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Virtala A, Vilska S, Huttunen T, Kunttu K. Childbearing, the desire to have children, and awareness about the impact of age on female fertility among Finnish university students. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2011;16:108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yu L, Peterson B, Inhorn MC, Boehm JK, Patrizio P. Knowledge, attitudes, and intentions toward fertility awareness and oocyte cryopreservation among obstetrics and gynecology resident physicians. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:403–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Buske D, Sender A, Richter D, Brahler E, Geue K. Patient-physician communication and knowledge regarding fertility issues from German oncologists’ perspective-a quantitative survey. J Cancer Educ. 2016;31:115–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Goldman RH, Racowsky C, Farland LV, Munne S, Ribustello L, Fox JH. Predicting the likelihood of live birth for elective oocyte cryopreservation: a counseling tool for physicians and patients. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:853–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Colamaria SAC, Sapienza F, Maggiulli R, Giuliani M, Gravotta E, Vaiarelli A, et al. Female age, number of mature eggs and biopsied blastocysts effectively define the chance for obtaining one euploid embryo: counselling and decision-making during PGS cycles. Human Reproduction. 2015;30:i56.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Steiner AZ, Jukic AM. Impact of female age and nulligravidity on fecundity in an older reproductive age cohort. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1584–8 e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Doyle JO, Richter KS, Lim J, Stillman RJ, Graham JR, Tucker MJ. Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:459–66 e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cobo A, Garcia-Velasco JA, Coello A, Domingo J, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:755–64 e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mesen TB, Mersereau JE, Kane JB, Steiner AZ. Optimal timing for elective egg freezing. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1551–6 e1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Devine K, Mumford SL, Goldman KN, Hodes-Wertz B, Druckenmiller S, Propst AM, et al. Baby budgeting: oocyte cryopreservation in women delaying reproduction can reduce cost per live birth. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1446–53 e1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cobo A, Garcia-Velasco JA. Why all women should freeze their eggs. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28:206–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stoop D, Maes E, Polyzos NP, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Nekkebroeck J. Does oocyte banking for anticipated gamete exhaustion influence future relational and reproductive choices? A follow-up of bankers and non-bankers. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:338–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. de Groot M, Dancet E, Repping S, Goddijn M, Stoop D, van der Veen F, et al. Perceptions of oocyte banking from women intending to circumvent age-related fertility decline. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95:1396–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Greenwood EA, Pasch LA, Hastie J, Cedars MI, Huddleston HG. To freeze or not to freeze: decision regret and satisfaction following elective oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:1097–104 e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van Tilborg TC, Torrance HL, Oudshoorn SC, Eijkemans MJC, Koks CAM, Verhoeve HR, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: the predicted poor responder. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2496–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Centre, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ayse Seyhan, Baris Ata, Kayhan Yakin & Bulent Urman

  2. American Hospital, Centre for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ayse Seyhan, Oznur Dundar Akin, Sinem Ertaş, Kayhan Yakin & Bulent Urman

Authors
  1. Ayse Seyhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oznur Dundar Akin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sinem Ertaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Baris Ata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kayhan Yakin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bulent Urman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sinem Ertaş.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

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

Seyhan, A., Akin, O.D., Ertaş, S. et al. A Survey of Women Who Cryopreserved Oocytes for Non-medical Indications (Social Fertility Preservation). Reprod. Sci. 28, 2216–2222 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00460-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00460-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation