Fertility Preservation Using GnRH Agonists: Rationale, Possible Mechanisms, and Explanation of Controversy. (August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Blumenfeld, Zeev
• Is Part Of: Clinical medicine insights. Volume 13(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-08
• Subjects: Fertility preservation -- GnRH analogues -- chemotherapy -- premature ovarian insufficiency; Reproductive health -- Periodicals; Reproductive Medicine; Women's Health; Reproductive health; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; Periodicals; Periodicals; 613.905
• DOI: 10.1177/1179558119870163
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1179-5581

Abstract

The only clinically accepted method of fertility preservation in young women facing gonadotoxic chemo- and/or radiotherapy for malignant or autoimmune diseases is cryopreservation of embryos or unfertilized ova, whereas cryopreservation of ovarian tissue for future reimplantation, or in vitro maturation of follicles, and the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) are still considered investigational, by several authorities. Whereas previous publications have raised the fear of GnRHa's possible detrimental effects in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancers, recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that it either improves or does not affect disease-free survival (DFS) in such patients. This review summarizes the pros and cons of GnRHa co-treatment for fertility preservation, suggesting 5 theoretical mechanisms for GnRHa action: (1) simulating the prepubertal hypogonadotropic milieu, (2) direct effect on GnRH receptors, (3) decreased ovarian perfusion, (4) upregulation of an ovarian-protecting molecule such as sphingosine-1-phosphate, and (5) protecting a possible germinative stem cell. We try to explain the reasons for the discrepancy between most publications that support the use of GnRHa for fertility preservation and the minority of publications that did not support its efficiency.