Françoise Shenfield

Cross border reproductive care in six European countries

BACKGROUND The quantity and the reasons for seeking cross border reproductive care are unknown. The present article provides a picture of this activity in six selected European countries receiving patients. METHODS Data were collected from 46 ART centres, participating voluntarily in six European countries receiving cross border patients. All treated patients treated in these centres during one calendar month filled out an individual questionnaire containing their major socio-demographic characteristics, the treatment sought and their reasons for seeking treatment outside their country of residence. RESULTS In total, 1230 forms were obtained from the six countries: 29.7% from Belgium, 20.5% from Czech Republic, 12.5% from Denmark, 5.3% from Slovenia, 15.7% from Spain and 16.3% from Switzerland. Patients originated from 49 different countries. Among the cross border patients participating, almost two-thirds came from four countries: Italy (31.8%), Germany (14.4%), The Netherlands (12.1%) and France (8.7%). The mean age of the participants was 37.3 years for all countries (range 21-51 years), 69.9% were married and 90% were heterosexual. Their reasons for crossing international borders for treatment varied by countries of origin: legal reasons were predominant for patients travelling from Italy (70.6%), Germany (80.2%), France (64.5%), Norway (71.6%) and Sweden (56.6%). Better access to treatment than in country of origin was more often noted for UK patients (34.0%) than for other nationalities. Quality was an important factor for patients from most countries. CONCLUSIONS The cross border phenomenon is now well entrenched. The data show that many patients travel to evade restrictive legislation in their own country, and that support from their home health providers is variable. There may be a need for professional societies to establish standards for cross border reproductive care.

Infertility therapy associated-multiple pregnancies (births): an ongoing epidemic

Multiple gestation is now recognized as a major problem associated with both assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and also with ovulation induction therapies. Although some countries are beginning to adopt measures to address this issue, either through legislation or the development of clinical guidelines, there is a clear need to ensure recognition and a consistent approach to this problem worldwide. In particular, there is a need to educate both healthcare professionals and the lay population that multiple gestations are not a desirable outcome for the infertile couple.

Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss

The recent introduction of oocyte vitrification has significantly advanced the outcome of oocyte cryopreservation, leading to clinical results comparable to those achieved in IVF using fresh oocytes, as reported by experienced centres. This has lead to new debate, both in the professional community and in society at large, about the acceptability of offering this technology to reproductively healthy women who want to cryopreserve their oocytes against the threat of time. Given the many demands calling for simultaneous realization in a relatively short period of their lives, many women who want to have children feel to be under considerable pressure. The option of oocyte cryopreservation may in fact give them more breathing space. In this document, it is concluded that the arguments against allowing this application of the technology are not convincing. The recommendations include the need for adequate information of women interested in oocyte cryopreservation, also in order to avoid raising false hopes. The message must remain that womens best chances of having a healthy child are through natural reproduction at a relative early age. Centres offering this service must have the necessary expertise to employ oocyte cryopreservation efficiently with the so far non-standardized protocols. As data about long-term safety is still lacking, centres also have a responsibility to contribute to the collection of these data.

Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy

STUDY QUESTION How has the interface between genetics and assisted reproduction technology (ART) evolved since 2005? SUMMARY ANSWER The interface between ART and genetics has become more entwined as we increase our understanding about the genetics of infertility and we are able to perform more comprehensive genetic testing. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and ART and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies and experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS In March 2012, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the EuroGentest2 Coordination Action Project met to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ART. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognized and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome prior to conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and PGD may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from RCTs to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving, but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonization and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe, and beyond. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This continually evolving field requires communication between the clinical genetics and IVF teams and patients to ensure that they are fully informed and can make well-considered choices. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS Funding was received from ESHRE, ESHG and EuroGentest2 European Union Coordination Action project (FP7 - HEALTH-F4-2010-26146) to support attendance at this meeting.

Fertility preservation in the male pediatric population: factors influencing the decision of parents and children

STUDY QUESTION How can the decision process for fertility preservation (FP) in adolescents and prepubertal boys be improved based on patient and parent feelings about FP counseling? SUMMARY ANSWER The content of information given to patients and parents and hope for future parenthood appeared to positively impact on the decision to preserve fertility in the pediatric population and, therefore, deserves special attention to improve FP care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A vast body of literature on adult cancer patients shows that reproductive capacity is a major quality-of-life issue. Patients also have a strong desire to be informed of available FP options with a view to future parenthood of their own genetic child, considering that <10% chose to adopt or used donated gametes. Furthermore, the quality of fertility counseling provided at the time of cancer diagnosis has been identified as a crucial factor in the decision-making process. By contrast, in the pediatric population, while it was shown that parents were able to make an informed and voluntary decision for their prepubertal sons despite the heavy emotional burden at the time of diagnosis, there is so far very limited information on patient expectations regarding FP. A lack of awareness often equates to suboptimal care by oncologists and FP specialists, and poor access to FP, therefore improving knowledge and identifying the expectations of pediatric patients and their parents are crucial for optimizing multidisciplinary collaborative care pathways (MCCPs), including counseling and access to FP methods, in the youngest population. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A questionnaire survey was posted to an eligible population between May 2005 and May 2013. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS A total of 348 prepubertal boys and adolescents aged 0-18 years, diagnosed with cancer in a university hospital setting, were eligible. Three different questionnaires for two age groups of children (<12 and 12-18 years) and parents were established based on information from focus groups. Questions were subsequently reviewed by the institutional ethics board before being sent. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of the 348 eligible patients, 44 died and 14 were lost to follow-up. Thus, 290 patients (77 aged 12-18 years and 213 aged <12 years) were sent a questionnaire. In total, 120 questionnaires were recovered, 45.5% (n = 35/77) from adolescents and 39.9% (n = 85/213) from children. FP acceptance rates were, respectively, 74 and 78.6% for boys aged <12 and 12-18 years. The content of information provided to patients and parents appeared to positively impact on the decision to preserve fertility (P = 0.04). While the majority of boys aged >12 years considered the information to be clear (72%), complete (80%) and understandable (90.9%), only 33.3% of boys aged <12 years were able to comprehend the information. Pressure from doctors to reduce the delay between diagnosis and cancer treatment increased the number of refusals (P<0.01), while hope for future parenthood favored acceptance (P < 0.01). Family support was considered important for 75% of adolescents and 58% of children, and medical support for 50% of adolescents and 42% of children. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION This single-center survey does not allow extrapolation of the information to other settings. Recall bias and lack of full external validation of the questionnaires are further limitations. Modification of the current MCCP should be further evaluated according to our results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Acknowledging the issues faced and familiarizing oneself with the care of patients undergoing fertility-threatening therapies supply primary care providers with the appropriate quality management tools in the field of FP in centers for reproductive medicine. Expectations reported in the survey allow appropriate support to be included within the MCCP design. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS Funding by hospital/clinic(s); Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02411214.

Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries

STUDY QUESTION Do the socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors differ in European countries? SUMMARY ANSWER The socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors differ considerably across countries. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY There have been no other international studies comparing the characteristics of oocyte donors. Regarding their motivations, most studies indicate mixed motives. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The proposed study was a transversal epidemiological study. Data were collected from 63 voluntarily participating assisted reproduction technology centres practising oocyte donation in 11 European countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, UK and Ukraine). The survey was conducted between September 2011 and June 2012 and ran for 1-6 calendar months depending on the number of cycles of oocyte donation performed at the centre. The sample size was computed in order to allow an estimate of the percentage of a relatively rare characteristic (∼2%) with a precision (95% confidence interval) of 1%. The calculation gave 1118 donors. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS In total, 1423 forms were obtained from oocyte donors. All consecutive donors in these centres filled out an anonymous questionnaire when they started their hormonal stimulation, asking for their socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics, their motivations and compensation. Population characteristics were described and compared by country of donation. Motives for donation and mean amount of money were compared between countries and according to the donors characteristics. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors varied enormously across European countries. The number of received forms corresponded with a participation rate of 61.9% of the cycles performed by the participating centres. Mean age was 27.4 years. About 49% of donors were fully employed, 16% unemployed and 15% student. The motivation in the total group of donors was 47.8% pure altruism, 33.9% altruism and financial, 10.8% pure financial, 5.9% altruism and own treatment and finally 2% own treatment only. About 15% of the donors were egg sharers (patient donors), mainly from the UK and Poland. Women were donating for the first time in 55.4% of cases, for the second time in 20.3% and for the third time in 12.8%. The motivation to donate was significantly related to being of foreign origin (P < 0.01), age (P < 0.001), living in couple or not (P < 0.01), level of education (P < 0.001) and number of donations (P < 0.001). The amount of compensation differed considerably between centres and/or countries. The general donor profile in this study was a well-educated, 27-year-old woman living with her partner and child who mainly donated to help others. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The selection of clinics in some countries and the limited participation rate may have led to a bias in donor characteristics. A possible effect of social desirability in the answers by the donors should be taken into account. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The diversity of the donor population reflects the differences in European legislation (for example, on anonymity and payment) and economic circumstances. The differences in systems of reimbursement/payment demonstrate the need to have a thorough discussion on the specific meaning of these terms. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was funded by the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. The authors declare no conflicting interests.

Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and assisted reproductive technology (ART), and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials. Seven years later, in March 2012, a follow-up interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies, including experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project. The main goal of this meeting was to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ARTs. As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognised and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome before conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from randomised clinical trials to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole-genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (International Standards Organisation – ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo. The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonisation and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe and beyond. The aim of this paper is to complement previous publications and provide an update of selected topics that have evolved since 2005.

Oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in European countries: statutory background, practice, storage and use

Abstract STUDY QUESTION What is known in Europe about the practice of oocyte cryopreservation (OoC), in terms of current statutory background, funding conditions, indications (medical and ‘non-medical’) and specific number of cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER Laws and conditions for OoC vary in Europe, with just over half the responding countries providing this for medical reasons with state funding, and none providing funding for ‘non-medical’ OoC. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN The practice of OoC is a well-established and increasing practice in some European countries, but data gathering on storage is not homogeneous, and still sparse for use. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OtC) is only practiced and registered in a few countries. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION A transversal collaborative survey on OoC and OtC, was designed, based on a country questionnaire containing information on statutory or professional background and practice, as well as available data on ovarian cell and tissue collection, storage and use. It was performed between January and September 2015. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS All ESHRE European IVF Monitoring (EIM) consortium national coordinators were contacted, as well as members of the ESHRE committee of national representatives, and sent a questionnaire. The form included national policy and practice details, whether through current existing law or code of practice, criteria for freezing (age, health status), availability of funding and the presence of a specific register. The questionnaire also included data on both the number of OoC cycles and cryopreserved oocytes per year between 2010 and 2014, specifically for egg donation, fertility preservation for medical disease, ‘other medical’ reasons as part of an ART cycle, as well as for ‘non-medical reasons’ or age-related fertility decline. Another question concerning data on freezing and use of ovarian tissue over 5 years was added and sent after receiving the initial questionnaire. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Out of 34 EIM members, we received answers regarding OoC regulations and funding conditions from 27, whilst 17 countries had recorded data for OoC, and 12 for OtC. The specific statutory framework for OoC and OtC varies from absent to a strict frame. A total of 34 705 OoC cycles were reported during the 5-year-period, with a continuous increase. However, the accurate description of numbers was concentrated on the year 2013 because it was the most complete. In 2013, a total of 9126 aspirations involving OoC were reported from 16 countries. Among the 8885 oocyte aspirations with fully available data, the majority or 5323 cycles (59.9%) was performed for egg donation, resulting in the highest yield per cycle, with an average of 10.4 oocytes frozen per cycle. OoC indication was ‘serious disease’ such as cancer in 10.9% of cycles, other medical indications as ‘part of an ART cycle’ in 16.1%, and a non-medical reason in 13.1%. With regard to the use of OoC, the number of specifically recorded frozen oocyte replacement (FOR) cycles performed in 2013 for all medical reasons was 14 times higher than the FOR for non-medical reasons, using, respectively, 8.0 and 8.4 oocytes per cycle. Finally, 12 countries recorded storage following OtC and only 7 recorded the number of grafted frozen/thawed tissues. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Not all countries have data regarding OoC collection, and some data came from voluntary collaborating centres, rather than a national authority or register. Furthermore, the data related to use of OoC were not included for two major players in the field, Italy and Spain, where numbers were conflated for medical and non-medical reasons. Finally, the number of cycles started with no retrieval is not available. Data are even sparser for OtC. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS There is a need for ART authorities and professional bodies to record precise data for practice and use of OoC (and OtC), according to indications and usage, in order to reliably inform all stakeholders including women about the efficiency of both methods. Furthermore, professional societies should establish professional standards for access to and use of OoC and OtC, and give appropriate guidance to all involved. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was supported by ESHRE. There are no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

Giving oocytes to women in need: permitted, forbidden, or pressured? A commentary

There can be no starker contrast in egg donation than between Austria, where it is forbidden, and Israel, where it is encouraged to the extent that some Israeli women go abroad in order to obtain these precious reproductive cells. There are grave ethical issues in some of the transactions involved, which may fall out with the definition of a gift. The ESHRE taskforce on cross-border reproductive care is keen to promote standards in this field, including the ethical standard of avoiding coercion.This is a commentary on http://www.ijhpr.org/content/1/1/15/

Chromosome analysis in embryos from young patients with previous parity

This study included 173 young couples of proven fertility who had previously undergone preimplantation genetic screening for chromosomes X and Y for family balancing. Several months later, when the outcome of the pregnancies was already known, the blastomeres from the corresponding embryos transferred were reanalysed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) for chromosomes 13, 16, 18, 21, 22 with the aim of investigating correlation with embryo viability and the level of FISH sensitivity (embryos confirmed to be euploid). According to the results, informative in 152 couples, the proportion of euploid embryos was significantly lower in 53 nonpregnant women when compared with 99 women with term pregnancy (49% versus 75% respectively, P < 0.001). In addition, in 21 nonpregnant patients, all embryos transferred were found to be chromosomally abnormal. The level of FISH sensitivity was calculated in the group of term pregnancies where the number of euploid embryos was expected to exceed or match with the number of babies born. The resulting false-negative rate was 4.0% per patient and 1.9% per embryo. These findings confirmed the limited prediction power of embryo morphology on implantation but also the relevance of chromosomal abnormalities in causing embryo demise.