But Silber thinks all young patients beginning certain cancer treatment regimes should freeze ovarian tissue regardless of the model. "These young women do lose their fertility. They do become menopausal," Silber says. "Maybe they do hit menstruation, but they do go into menopause early. Up to 90 percent of young women with cancer will lose their fertility from the treatment that cures them."
The procedure costs roughly $4,000, according to Silber, an expense that he says should be (and usually is) covered by health insurance providers. "Insurance is paying $200,000 for cancer treatment; $4,000 isn't too much to preserve fertility," he says.
In the early days of the procedure (about five years ago) the frozen ovarian tissue was re-implanted under the skin of the forearm (for ease of egg retrieval) where it became revascularized and, under stimulation, resumed its natural role producing eggs, despite the very unnatural environment. The eggs would then be collected from the arm and fertilized in vitro. But Silber says that re-implanting the tissue at the ovary site where it belongs using microsurgical techniques allows the woman to conceive naturally.
Wallace and Kelsey's model also predicts that by the age of 30, the ovarian reserve for a normal woman is roughly 12 percent of its original capacity, dropping to three percent by age 40. Unlike some women with cancer, healthy women who put off childbearing because of career demands or a lack of a partner can freeze their eggs. But a 30 to 50 percent in vitro fertilization rate makes this a risky bet. Silber says that rather than putting all their eggs in one basket, so to speak, even healthy women should freeze an ovary to ensure fertility later in life.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentIf an individual has such degraded genes that they're getting cancer at an early age, is going to such lengths to pass those genes on to another generation of offspring doomed to suffer the same fate not highly unethical?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reproductive system is pretty fragile. When you've been blessed with bad enough health, you don't reproduce. The mechanism at play here seems fairly obvious.
How narcissistic do you have to be to say, oh but I what I want, and I want a baby so I'm going to go against all nature and have one whatever the cost or consequences.
There are about a millions of kids in this world that need parents. Adopt for chrissakes, & get over your simple biological urges.
As well, in every other branch of science, the primary destructive factor is almost universally identified as the exploding human population to unsustainable levels. Yet reproductive science seems to still be stuck in the "everybody must procreate!" mode. Why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReproductive science is about giving people the choice of whether or not to procreate, not claiming that everyone must. Cancers are often caused by environmental triggers, so assuming that a cancer patient is passing on 'bad genes' is extremely simplistic. While I am concerned about the human population, I think limiting the choices of any particular group (e.g. cancer patients) is the wrong approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Cancers are often caused by environmental triggers,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point remains. In any species we observe, when their population is too dense, disease, whether behavioral, genetic, or environmental increases and the effect is that it keeps the population in check. Cheating this enables a society destructive enough to make itself sick, to perpetuate beyond self-control, simply raising the stakes, and I'm having a hard time finding an ethical ground to defend them.