Outcomes and cost‐effectiveness comparisons of progestin‐primed ovarian stimulation, <scp>GnRH</scp> antagonist protocol, and luteal phase stimulation for fertility preservation
Weie Zhao, Peng Sun, Tingting Li, Yongfang Li, Xiaoyan Liang, Jingjie Li
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and the gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonist (GnRH-A) protocol in fertility preservation (FP) in cancer patients. The stimulation option when patients were in the luteal phase was also explored. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed clinical data from 163 patients who underwent FP. The number of retrieved oocytes and vitrified oocytes/embryos, total dose of gonadotropin, duration of stimulation, number of injections, and cost were compared among the PPOS, GnRH-A, and luteal phase stimulation (LPS) groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in the numbers of retrieved oocytes and vitrified oocytes/embryos among the three groups. In the multiple regression model, age (P = 0.02) and antral follicle count (AFC) (P < 0.001), but not the controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols (P = 0.586), were associated with the number of retrieved oocytes. The number of injections and the cost were all significantly lower in the PPOS and LPS groups than in the GnRH-A group(P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PPOS had similar clinical results but was superior medically and economically to GnRH-A. For patients in the luteal phase, LPS was an optional protocol with similar outcomes and costs to PPOS.