Ovarian Stimulation Is Safe and Effective for Patients with Gynecologic Cancer

Purpose: To compare long-term outcomes of gynecologic cancer patients who pursued controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for fertility preservation (FP) with those who did not. Methods: Retrospective cohort, COH, and health outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients; data were analyzed by chi-square test, t -tests, and logistic regression. Results: Ninety patients with a gynecologic malignancy contacted the FP patient navigator: 45.6% ( n  = 41) had ovarian cancer, 25.6% ( n  = 23) endometrial cancer, 18.9% ( n  = 17) cervical cancer, 5.6% ( n  = 5) uterine cancer, and 4.4% ( n  = 4) multiple gynecologic cancers. From this cohort, 32 underwent COH, 43 did not, and 18 pursued ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC; 3 patients had both COH and OTC). Median age and type of cancer were not significantly different between the groups. COH patients had a range of 1-35 oocytes retrieved. Days to next cancer treatment in the COH group was 36 days; for those who declined COH, it was 22 days (not significant [NS], p  > 0.05). There were two recurrences reported in the stimulation group and four in the no stimulation group (NS). Five deaths were reported, two in the stimulation group, none in the no stimulation group, and three in the OTC group (NS); 34% ( n  = 11) COH patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, of which 45% ( n  = 5) had a live birth. Conclusion: Although time to next treatment was longer in the group of patients who underwent COH, this did not reach statistical significance. It appears that in selected patients with GYN malignancies, COH for oocyte or embryo cryopreservation is safe, with reasonable stimulation outcomes and no difference in long-term outcomes.