Social freezing - A debate

 Traditionally oocytes were only frozen for the purpose of fertility preservation, including for women who may be undergoing chemotherapy.

However, in recent years the concept of social freezing has flourished, where oocytes are frozen for non-medical reasons. This decision to delay conception and pregnancy may be taken for a number of different reasons. Indeed overall, research suggests that both age of marriage and pregnancy are generally rising in high economic countries.

At COGI we were treated to an engaging debate on the key discussions surrounding social freezing, considering whether it truly is a benefit or whether it should be seen as a purely commercial function.

Dr. Ana Cobo opened the discussion, explaining that social freezing can provide effective results in younger women. Oocyte quality is affected by age, therefore the younger the age when the oocyte frozen, the better the chance of a positive clinical outcome later on. However, Dr. Cobo discussed that the majority of patients desiring social freezing were over 35 years old. 16% were 40 years or older. She explained that the outcomes in older women were significantly reduced and that the quality of the oocytes would be severely impacted.

Even in younger healthy women, there is not a complete success rate, with survival failure still a risk. Dr. Cobo shared data from a cohort of younger women which also demonstrated that after a single cycle failure, risk of a second cycle failure was 4x greater. It is therefore important to manage expectations and provide clear information to all women desiring to undertake social freezing.

 

Is social  freezing a purely commercial product?

In his presentation, Dr. Norbert Gleicher reiterated the importance of providing women with accurate and evidence based information in order for them to make an informed decision before undertaking social freezing.

He argued that social freezing can be seen as a purely commercial product. In the US, misinformation and aggressive advertising results in misunderstanding that oocytes can be frozen at any age and will be able to be used to deliver a healthy child when desired. Dr. Gleicher explained that social freezing is often advertised as an insurance, when in fact the success of the process is much less certain.

We must also consider the low number of returning women to actually use the frozen oocytes. In one framework, Dr. Gliecher discussed that only 12% women actually returned. With the high upfront costs associated with freezing oocytes, the low level of returning women and the uncertain level of success, we can see why it is so important to understand why ensuring a high level of informed consent and transparency is so important.

 

Is social freezing cost effective?

Dr. Zion Ben Rafael closed the debate by arguing that social freezing is not cost effective. He explained that the cost is an estimated $1million per birth and that the process is only cost effective after the age of 37. However, with live birth rates known to be lower in women over 35, while the process may be cost effective there is no guarantee of success. While success rates are higher in younger women, Dr. Rafael explained that the younger a woman is, the less likely it is that they will use their frozen oocytes as it more likely that they will have a natural birth.