{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,2]],"date-time":"2026-10-02T04:55:17Z","timestamp":1790916917199,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":10,"publisher":"Frontiers Media SA","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,2]],"date-time":"2026-10-02T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1790899200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["frontiersin.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Front. Oncol."],"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Introduction<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>age and ovarian reserve markers are commonly used in clinical practice to predict ovarian response to controlled stimulation for assisted reproductive techniques in infertile patients. In oncofertility, some reports suggest the predictive performance of these markers may be lower in specific subgroups. We evaluated the performance of a prespecified age + log(AMH) model for predicting metaphase-II (MII) oocyte yield in women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation before gonadotoxic treatment.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This retrospective single-center cohort study included consecutive oocyte cryopreservation cycles performed before gonadotoxic treatment between January 2015 and January 2025. MII yield was modelled using negative-binomial regression with age and log-transformed AMH as predictors. Regression coefficients were estimated in the current cohort. Model performance was assessed using calibration measures and patient-level bootstrap internal validation, with all cycles from the same woman kept together during resampling. Analyses were performed overall and by cancer type. Threshold-based underestimation analyses and the incremental value of antral follicle count (AFC) were also explored.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A total of 179 oocyte cryopreservation cycles performed in 167 women were included. The model showed good overall calibration using aggregated out-of-bootstrap predictions, with calibration-in-the-large of 0.00 (95% CI \u22120.08 to 0.09) and calibration slope of 0.98 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.15). Mean prediction error was \u22120.10 MII (95% CI \u22120.97 to 0.80), indicating minimal average directional bias. Mean absolute error was 4.12 MII (95% CI 3.53 to 4.76), and root mean squared error was 5.94 MII (95% CI 4.92 to 7.00). Substantial underestimation, defined as observed MII yield exceeding predicted yield by more than 4 MII, was more frequent in hematologic malignancies than in solid tumors (31.8% [14\/44] vs 12.6% [17\/135]; risk difference +19.2 percentage points, 95% CI\u00a0+\u00a04.4 to +34.1; Fisher\u2019s exact p=0.006). This finding remained consistent in the one-cycle-per-woman sensitivity analysis. Adding AFC did not improve predictive performance in the complete-case analysis.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>age and AMH are useful tools for counseling regarding the expected mature oocyte yield, including in our subset of oncofertility patients. As we found substantial underestimation of mature oocyte yield to be more frequent in hematologic malignancies, the results should be interpreted cautiously in this subgroup.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3389\/fonc.2026.1940599","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,2]],"date-time":"2026-10-02T04:36:02Z","timestamp":1790915762000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Age- and AMH-based prediction of mature oocyte yield in oncofertility is well calibrated overall, but substantial underestimation is more frequent in hematologic malignancies"],"prefix":"10.3389","volume":"16","author":[{"given":"Claudia","family":"Massarotti","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Genova, Dipartimento di Neuroscienze- Riabilitazione- Oftalmologia- Genetica e Scienze Materno-Infantili (DINOGMI Department)","place":["Genova, Italy"]},{"name":"AOM IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica","place":["Genova, Italy"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sara","family":"Stigliani","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"AOM \u2013 IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, SSD Physiopathology of Human Reproduction","place":["Genova, Italy"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Paola","family":"Scaruffi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"AOM \u2013 IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, SSD Physiopathology of Human Reproduction","place":["Genova, Italy"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Fausta","family":"Sozzi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"AOM \u2013 IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, SSD Physiopathology of Human Reproduction","place":["Genova, Italy"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Andrea","family":"Amaroli","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Genova, BIO-Photonics Overarching Research Laboratory (BIOPHOR), Department of Earth, Environmental and Life Sciences (DISTAV)","place":["Genova, Italy"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Paola","family":"Anserini","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"AOM \u2013 IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, SSD Physiopathology of Human Reproduction","place":["Genova, Italy"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1965","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,2]]},"reference":[{"key":"B1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/hropen\/hoaa052","article-title":"Eshre guideline: female fertility preservation","volume":"2020","author":"Anderson","year":"2020","journal-title":"Hum Reprod Open"},{"key":"B2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"459","DOI":"10.1016\/j.fertnstert.2015.10.026","article-title":"Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval","volume":"105","author":"Doyle","year":"2016","journal-title":"Fertil Steril"},{"key":"B3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/aogs.13334","article-title":"The use of anti-m\u00fcllerian hormone for controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology, fertility assessment and -counseling","volume":"97","author":"Pilsgaard","year":"2018","journal-title":"Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand"},{"key":"B4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1080\/09513590.2020.1737668","article-title":"Influence of age on response to controlled ovarian stimulation in women with low levels of serum anti-m\u00fcllerian hormone","volume":"36","author":"Massarotti","year":"2020","journal-title":"Gynecol Endocrinol"},{"key":"B5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.maturitas.2014.12.005","article-title":"Uses of anti-m\u00fcllerian hormone (AMH) measurement before and after cancer treatment in women","volume":"80","author":"Dunlop","year":"2015","journal-title":"Maturitas"},{"key":"B6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/humrep\/deaf071","article-title":"Hematologic cancers in women: from fertility preservation to post-cancer fertility outcomes","volume":"40","author":"Goldenberg","year":"2025","journal-title":"Hum Reprod"},{"key":"B7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.rbmo.2024.103978","article-title":"Fertility preservation parameters in patients with haematologic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"49","author":"Katzir","year":"2024","journal-title":"Reprod BioMed Online"},{"key":"B8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.rbmo.2019.06.001","article-title":"Five-year study assessing the clinical utility of anti-m\u00fcllerian hormone measurements in reproductive-age women with cancer","volume":"39","author":"Palinska-Rudzka","year":"2019","journal-title":"Reprod BioMed Online"},{"key":"B9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3389\/fendo.2018.00327","article-title":"Impact of maternal age on oocyte and embryo competence","volume":"9","author":"Cimadomo","year":"2018","journal-title":"Front Endocrinol"},{"key":"B10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s10815-024-03197-4","article-title":"Female fertility preservation for family planning: a position statement of the Italian Society of Fertility and Sterility and Reproductive Medicine (SIFES-MR)","volume":"41","author":"Massarotti","year":"2024","journal-title":"J Assist Reprod Genet"}],"container-title":["Frontiers in Oncology"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fonc.2026.1940599\/full","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,2]],"date-time":"2026-10-02T04:36:11Z","timestamp":1790915771000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fonc.2026.1940599\/full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,2]]},"references-count":10,"alternative-id":["10.3389\/fonc.2026.1940599"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fonc.2026.1940599","relation":{},"ISSN":["2234-943X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2234-943X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,2]]},"article-number":"1940599"}}