How do transgender men experience fertility preservation (FP) by cryopreservation of oocytes? The procedures required prior to oocyte cryopreservation, such as hormonal ovarian stimulation and transvaginal ultrasound (TVS), have a negative impact on gender dysphoria as they are closely linked to the men's female assigned sex at birth, which is incompatible with their current status. Transgender persons often have high dissatisfaction with assigned sex-specific body features, such as the genital organs and androgen/oestrogen-responsive features. Thus, undergoing FP that requires genital-specific examinations, aimed at obtaining oocytes to cryopreserve, could be distressing. As no previous studies have investigated transgender men's experiences of FP involving cryopreservation of oocytes, little is known about their experience of the procedures. This is a prospective study among adult transgender men referred for FP between March 2014 and December 2015. Individual in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted shortly after FP treatment. The interviews lasted between 62 and 111 min (mean 81 min) and were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants were recruited on their first visit to the assisted reproduction clinic for reproductive counseling. There were 15 men, scheduled for FP, who chose to participate in the study (age 19–35); none had given birth and eight had a partner. Data were analyzed by thematic content analysis. The analysis resulted in three main categories: the journey to FP, reactions to the FP proceedings and strategies for coping. The referral for FP was an important part of the assessment and diagnosis and sometimes lined with frustrating waits and doubts. The reaction to the FP proceedings revealed that the genital examinations and the physical changes associated with discontinuation of testosterone or hormonal stimulation treatment triggered gender incongruence and dysphoria. However, for some, the negative expectations were not met. The participants used several coping strategies in order to manage the procedure, such as focusing on their reasons for undergoing FP, reaching out to friends and family for support and the cognitive approaches of not hating their body or using non-gendered names for their body parts. The results demonstrate the importance of contextual sensitivity during FP procedures. The authors have strived to be reflective about their pre-understanding of the phenomenon. The majority of the participants resided in large urban areas; it is possible that transgender men living in rural areas have different experiences. As the results are based on qualitative data from 15 transgender men, the results cannot readily be generalized to larger populations. However, the results are suggested to be applicable to other transgender men who want to undergo FP by cryopreservation of oocytes. The results show that transgender men's experience of FP places may elicit gender incongruence and gender dysphoria. However, health care personnel can alleviate distress by using a gender-neutral language and the preferred pronoun. Also, reassuringly, the men also have coping strategies of how to handle the situation. This knowledge is important to ensure adequate professional support for patients with gender dysphoria during FP. Swedish Society of Medicine, Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet (to K.A.R.-W.). N/A.

Purpose: The aim was to investigate male and female cancer survivors' perception of fertility-related information and use of fertility preservation (FP) in connection with cancer treatment during reproductive age. Methods: The study sample consisted of cancer survivors diagnosed from 2003 to 2007 identified in population-based registers in Sweden. Inclusion criteria included survivors who were age 18 to 45 years at diagnosis and had lymphoma, acute leukemia, testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, or female breast cancer treated with chemotherapy. Of 810 eligible participants, 484 survivors (60% response rate) completed a postal questionnaire. Results: The majority of male participants reported having received information about treatment impact on fertility (80%) and FP (68%), and more than half of the men banked frozen sperm (54%). Among women, less than half (48%) reported that they received information about treatment impact on fertility, and 14% reported that they received information about FP. Only seven women (2%) underwent FP. Predictors for receiving information about treatment impact on fertility were a pretreatment desire to have children (odds ratio [OR], 3.5), male sex (OR, 3.2), and being ≤ 35 years of age at diagnosis (OR, 2.0). Predictors for receiving information about FP included male sex (OR, 14.4), age ≤ 35 at diagnosis (OR, 5.1), and having no children at diagnosis (OR, 2.5). Conclusion: Our results show marked sex differences regarding the receipt of fertility-related information and use of FP. There is an urgent need to develop fertility-related information adapted to female patients with cancer to improve their opportunities to participate in informed decisions regarding their treatment and future reproductive ability.

Introduction: The aim of this study is to report the current status of ovarian tissue cryopreservation among alternatives for fertility preservation in the Nordic countries.Material and methods: A questionnaire was sent to 14 Nordic academic reproductive centers with established fertility preservation programs. It covered fertility preservation cases performed up to December 2014, standard procedures for ovarian tissue cryopreservation and oocyte cryopreservation and reproductive outcomes following ovarian tissue transplantation.Results: Among the Nordic countries, Denmark and Norway practice ovarian tissue cryopreservation as a clinical treatment (822 and 164 cases, respectively) and their programs are centralized. In Sweden (457 cases), ovarian tissue cryopreservation is practiced at five of six centers and in Finland at all five centers (145 cases). Nearly all considered ovarian tissue cryopreservation to be experimental. In Iceland, embryo cryopreservation is the only option for fertility preservation. Most centers use slow‐freezing methods for ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Most patients selected for ovarian tissue cryopreservation were newly diagnosed with cancer and the tissue was predominantly retrieved laparoscopically by unilateral oophorectomy. Only minor complications were reported. In total, 46 women have undergone ovarian tissue transplantation aiming at recovering fertility, 17 healthy children have been born and several additional pregnancies are currently ongoing. Whenever patients’ clinical condition is permissive, oocyte cryopreservation after hormonal stimulation is preferred for fertility preservation. Between 2012 and 2014, a smaller proportion of females have undergone fertility preservation in the Nordic centers, in comparison to males (1:3).Conclusions: Overall, ovarian tissue cryopreservation was reported to be safe. Slow freezing methods are still preferred. Promising results of recovery of fertility have been reported in Nordic countries that have initiated ovarian tissue transplantation procedures.

Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)? No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI. DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART. The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes. Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies. The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians’ decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient’s case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations. The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, the literature searches, and the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. DPB declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter. She is a member of ESHRE EXCO, and the Mediterranean Society for reproductive medicine and the president of the Croatian Society for Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. CDG is the past Chair of the ESHRE EIM Consortium and a paid deputy member of the Editorial board of Human Reproduction. IR declared receiving reimbursement from ESHRE and EDCD for attending meetings. She holds an unpaid leadership role in OBBCSSR, ECDC Sohonet, and AER. KAR-W declared receiving grants for clinical researchers and funding provision to the institution from the Swedish Cancer Society (200170F), the Senior Clinical Investigator Award, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder (Dnr: 201313), Stockholm County Council FoU (FoUI-953912) and Karolinska Institutet (Dnr 2020-01963), NovoNordisk, Merck and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. She received consulting fees from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Welfare. She received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Organon for chairmanship and lectures. She received support from Organon for attending meetings. She participated in advisory boards for Merck, Nordic countries, and Ferring. She declared receiving time-lapse equipment and grants with payment to institution for pre-clinical research from Merck pharmaceuticals and from Ferring. SS-R received research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeo-Richter. He received consulting fees from Organon/MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Serono. He declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. He received support for attending Gedeon Richter meetings and participated in the Data Safety Monitoring Board of the T-TRANSPORT trial. He is the Deputy of ESHRE SQART special interest group. He holds stock options in IVI Lisboa and received equipment and other services from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. KT declared receiving payment for honoraria for giving lectures from Merck Serono and Organon. She is member of the safety advisory board of EDQM. She holds a leadership role in the ICCBBA board of directors. ZV received reimbursement from ESHRE for attending meetings. She also received research grants from ESHRE and Juhani Aaltonen Foundation. She is the coordinator of EHSRE SQART special interest group. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (full disclaimer available at https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal).