Reproductive outcomes from ten years of elective oocyte cryopreservation

Research question: To assess the relationship between the number of oocytes retrieved during elective oocyte cryopreservation (EOC) cycles with various clinical, biochemical, and radiological markers, including age, body mass index (BMI), baseline anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC), Oestradiol level (E2) and total number of follicles ≥ 12 mm on the day of trigger. To also report the reproductive outcomes from women who underwent EOC. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 373 women embarking on EOC and autologous oocyte thaw cycles between 2008 and 2018 from a single London clinic in the United Kingdom. Results: 483 stimulation cycles were undertaken amongst 373 women. The median (range) age at cryopreservation was 38 (26–47) years old. The median numbers of oocytes retrieved per cycle was 8 (0–37) and the median total oocytes cryopreserved per woman was 8 (0–45). BMI, E2 level and number of follicles ≥ 12 mm at trigger were all significant predictors of oocyte yield. Multivariate analysis confirmed there was no significant relationship between AFC or AMH, whilst on univariate analysis statistical significance was proven. Thirty six women returned to use their cryopreserved oocytes, of which there were 41 autologous oocyte thaw cycles undertaken. There were 12 successful livebirths achieved by 11 women. The overall livebirth rate was 26.8% per cycle. No livebirths were achieved in women who underwent EOC ≥ 40 years old, and 82% of all livebirths were achieved in women who had done so between 36 and 39 years old. Conclusion: Clinical, biochemical and radiological markers can predict oocyte yield in EOC cycles. Reproductive outcomes are more favourable when cryopreservation is performed before the age of 36, with lower success rates of livebirth observed in women aged 40 years and above

Next Generation Sequencing Detects Premeiotic Errors in Human Oocytes

Autosomal aneuploidy is the leading cause of embryonic and foetal death in humans. This arises mainly from errors in meiosis I or II of oogenesis. A largely ignored source of error stems from germinal mosaicism, which leads to premeiotic aneuploidy. Molecular cytogenetic studies employing metaphase fluorescence in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridisation suggest that premeiotic aneuploidy may affect 10–20% of oocytes overall. Such studies have been criticised on technical grounds. We report here an independent study carried out on unmanipulated oocytes that have been analysed using next generation sequencing (NGS). This study confirms that the incidence of premeiotic aneuploidy in an unselected series of oocytes exceeds 10%. A total of 140 oocytes donated by 42 women gave conclusive results; of these, 124 (88.5%) were euploid. Sixteen out of 140 (11.4%) provided evidence of premeiotic aneuploidy. Of the 140, 112 oocytes were immature (germinal vesicle or metaphase I), of which 10 were aneuploid (8.93%); the remaining 28 were intact metaphase II - first polar body complexes, and six of these were aneuploid (21.4%). Of the 16 aneuploid cells, half contained simple errors (one or two abnormal chromosomes) and half contained complex errors. We conclude that germinal mosaicism leading to premeiotic aneuploidy is a consistent finding affecting at least 10% of unselected oocytes from women undergoing egg collection for a variety of reasons. The importance of premeiotic aneuploidy lies in the fact that, for individual oocytes, it greatly increases the risk of an aneuploid mature oocyte irrespective of maternal age. As such, this may account for some cases of aneuploid conceptions in very young women