Fertility preservation before breast cancer treatment appears unlikely to affect disease‐free survival at a median follow‐up of 43 months after fertility‐preservation consultation

Changing the Perspective on Fertility Preservation for Women with Metastatic or Advanced Stage Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this Perspective we share the personal story of a 33-year-old patient diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer and her journey through fertility preservation, surrogacy, and eventually motherhood, highlighting misconceptions about fertility preservation in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are nearly 1 million women under the age of 50 diagnosed and living with cancer in the USA. These patients are met with life-altering decisions, including those that may limit their reproductive ability. While there have been tremendous advances and advocacy in the field of oncofertility, there has been limited focus on patients with advanced stage or metastatic cancer. We describe five key misconceptions surrounding fertility preservation in patients with advanced stage cancer, offering a review of the literature and our approach to challenging topics like desiring fertility preservation in the face of Stage 4 disease, the safety and timing of ovarian stimulation during cancer treatment, and passing away following fertility preservation. We review the importance of assessing perceptions of fertility preservation in patients with metastatic cancer and highlight the lack of research in this area as a call to action.

Fertility outcomes several years after urgent fertility preservation for patients with breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To study the fertility outcomes of women who tried to conceive after breast cancer (BC) treatment and fertility preservation.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational, bicentric cohort study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients with BC.

INTERVENTION

All patients who had undergone fertility preservation before BC treatment between January 2013 and July 2019 were included (n = 844). The endpoint date was March 1, 2022. Patients with missing data on pregnancy attempts after a cancer diagnosis (n = 195) were excluded from the pregnancy analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cumulative incidences of pregnancy and live birth (LB) were calculated. For women who became pregnant, the time to conception was calculated between the first fertility preservation consultation and the estimated day of conception. For those who did not conceive, we considered the time between the first fertility preservation consultation and the endpoint date, or the date of patient death. A Cox regression model was used to study the predictive factors for pregnancy and LB.

RESULTS

Among the 649 patients with available data on pregnancy attempts after BC diagnosis, 255 (39.3% [35.5-43.2]) tried to conceive (median follow-up of 6.5 years). Overall, 135 (52.9% [46.6-59.2]) of these patients achieved a pregnancy, mainly through unassisted conception (79.3% [72.8-84.8]), and 99 reported an LB (representing 38.8% of patients who attempted conception). In our cohort, 48 months after the first fertility preservation consultation, the cumulative incidence of pregnancy was 33.1% ([27.6-37.9]). After adjustment for age, parity, type of chemotherapy administration, and endocrine therapy, only multiparity at diagnosis and absence of chemotherapy were positive predictive factors of pregnancy after cancer. Of the 793 patients who had vitrified oocytes and embryos, 68 used them (27% [21.3-32.5] of the patients who tried to conceive), resulting in 8 LBs (11.8% [5.2-21.9]). Women who used their cryopreserved oocytes and embryos were older at the first consultation of fertility preservation (hazard ratio 1.71 [1.42-2.21]), and chose more often to vitrify embryos (hazard ratio 1.76 [1.28-2.23]).

CONCLUSION

Although pregnancy rates after fertility preservation for patients with BC are low, most conceptions are achieved without medical assistance. Our findings provide useful information to advise women on the different techniques of fertility preservation, their efficacy, and safety, as well as the relatively high chances of unassisted conception.

Characterizing attitudes related to future child-bearing in young women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

This study characterizes attitudes and decision-making around the desire for future children in young women newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and assesses how clinical factors and perceived risk may impact these attitudes.

METHODS

This is a prospective study in women < 45 years with newly diagnosed stage 1-3 breast cancer. Patients completed a REDCap survey on fertility and family-building in the setting of hypothetical risk scenarios. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were collected through surveys and medical record.

RESULTS

Of 140 study patients [median age = 41.4 (range 23-45)], 71 (50.7%) were interested in having children. Women interested in future childbearing were younger than those who were not interested (mean = 35.2 [SD = 5.2] vs 40.9 years [3.90], respectively, p < 0.001), and more likely to be childless (81% vs 31%, p < 0.001). 54 women (77.1% of patients interested in future children) underwent/planned to undergo oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before chemotherapy. Interest in future childbearing decreased with increasing hypothetical recurrence risk, however 17% of patients wanted to have children despite a 75-100% hypothetical recurrence risk. 24.3% of patients wanted to conceive < 2 years from diagnosis, and 35% of patients with hormone receptor positive tumors were not willing to complete 5 years of hormone therapy.

CONCLUSION

Many young women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer prioritize childbearing. Interest in having a biologic child was not associated with standard prognostic risk factors. Interest decreased with increasing hypothetical recurrence risk, though some patients remained committed to future childbearing despite near certain hypothetical risk. Individual risk assessment should be included in family-planning discussions throughout the continuum of care as it can influence decision-making.

Impact of Systemic Therapy on Fertility in Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Purpose of Review

Fertility concerns are common among young women diagnosed with breast cancer, as systemic therapy increases the risk of premature ovarian insufficiency and delays family planning. Here, we review the impact of systemic therapies, including chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, HER-2 directed therapy, PARP inhibitors, and immunotherapy, on ovarian reserve.

Recent Findings

With an improved understanding of disease biology, fewer women are treated with gonadotoxic chemotherapy. There are limited data on the fertility impact of novel targeted treatments and immunotherapy, though preclinical and preliminary studies suggest an impact on fertility is possible. Notably, a recent study investigated the outcomes in women who interrupted adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy.

Summary

Further research is needed to characterize the fertility impact of novel therapies in breast cancer. Individualized fertility counseling should be offered to all women to discuss the possible impact of therapy on ovarian reserve and options for fertility preservation and timing of pregnancy.

Prevalence and impact of fertility concerns in young women with breast cancer

Survey data from the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry were used to assess fertility counseling and fertility preservation strategies in a modern cohort of young women with breast cancer. One hundred respondents were identified who were under age 50 at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and who expressed interest in future childbearing near the time of diagnosis and/or 1 year later. Ninety-three percent of the 81 respondents to the year one survey recalled fertility counseling prior to cancer treatment. Most who reported a high level of fertility concern declared that this concern had impacted their treatment decisions, often shortening their planned duration of endocrine therapy. Approximately half had taken steps to preserve future fertility, and a third had used a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist either alone or combined with another method (e.g., embryo or oocyte cryopreservation).

Is controlled ovarian stimulation safe in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

INTRODUCTION

Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation is the method of choice for fertility preservation (FP) in young patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (eBC). Nevertheless, some challenges still question its role, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting, where concerns arise about potential delay in the onset of anticancer treatment, and in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) disease, as cancer cells may proliferate under the estrogenic peak associated with stimulation. Therefore, this review aims to examine the available evidence on the safety of COS in eBC patients eligible for neoadjuvant treatment (NAT), particularly in HR+ disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies evaluating the feasibility and safety of COS in eBC and including patients referred to NAT and/or with HR+ disease. Time to NAT and survival outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the three matched cohort studies assessing the impact of COS on time to start NAT, only one reported a significant small delay in the cohort undergoing COS compared with the control group, whereas the other studies found no difference. Regarding survival outcomes, overall, no increased risk of recurrence or death was found, either in patients undergoing COS in the neoadjuvant setting regardless of HR expression or in HR+ disease regardless of the timing of COS relative to surgery. However, there are no data on the safety of COS in the specific combined scenario of HR+ disease undergoing NAT.

CONCLUSION

Neither the indication to NAT nor the HR positivity constitutes per se an a priori contraindication to COS. Shared decision making between clinicians and patients is essential to carefully weigh the risks and benefits in each individual case. Prospective studies designed to specifically investigate this issue are warranted.

Disparity in Breast Cancer Care: Current State of Access to Screening, Genetic Testing, Oncofertility, and Reconstruction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women, accounting for an estimated 30% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2022. Advances in breast cancer treatment have reduced the mortality rate over the past 25 years by up to 34% but not all groups have benefitted equally from these improvements. These disparities span the continuum of care from screening to the receipt of guideline-concordant therapy and survivorship. At the 2022 American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress, a panel session was dedicated to educating and discussing methods of addressing these disparities in a coordinated manner. While there are multilevel solutions to address these disparities, this article focuses on screening, genetic testing, reconstruction, and oncofertility.

Fertility preservation, its effectiveness and its impact on disease status in pre-menopausal women with breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Preservation of reproductive function is a key concern for many premenopausal women with breast cancer, given the known gonadotoxic effects of treatments. The present systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of fertility preservation strategies in pre-menopausal women with breast cancer.

METHODS

Primary research assessing fertility preservation strategies of any type was identified. Markers of preservation of fertility including return of menstrual function, clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates were selected as main outcome measures. An additional analysis of safety data was also performed.

RESULTS

Fertility preservation interventions were overall associated with higher fertility outcomes: with a pooled odds ratio 4.14 (95% CI 3.59-4.77) for any kind of fertility preservation intervention. This was seen both for return of menstruation and for clinical pregnancy rate, but not for live birth rates. Fertility preservation was associated with a reduced rate of disease recurrence (OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.49-0.81)), while there was no significant difference in disease free survival (OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.74-1.05)) or in overall survival (OR 0.9 (95% CI 0.74-1.10)) between the fertility preservation group and those who had not undergone fertility preservation.

CONCLUSION

Fertility preservation is both effective in preserving reproductive function, and safe with regard to disease recurrence, disease free survival and overall survival in premenopausal women with breast cancer.

Fertility-sparing options for cancer patients

Fertility preservation is becoming an integral part of cancer care among women of reproductive age. Despite advances in the treatment of pelvic malignancies, all the currently available treatment approaches, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, place women at high risk for future fertility impairment. With improved long-term survival rates associated with cancer, expanding the reproductive options available is of high priority. Several fertility preservation options are available today for women with gynecologic and non-gynecologic malignancies. Depending on the underlying oncological entity, these can include the following procedures whether alone or in combination: oocyte cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, ovarian tissue cryopreservation, ovarian transposition, and trachelectomy. The purpose of this review is to provide the most up-to-date information on the aforementioned fertility-preserving approaches and highlight the current challenges, drawbacks, and areas of research where more data are still very necessary to optimize outcomes in young female oncological patients desiring pregnancy in the future.

Disease-free survival does not differ according to fertility preservation technique for young women with breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To study whether fertility preservation strategies using ovarian stimulation or without using it impact long-term disease-free survival of patients with breast cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective bicentric cohort study.

SETTING

Two university hospitals.

PATIENT(S)

In this study, 740 women with breast cancer, aged 18-43 years, who received primary fertility preservation between 2013 and 2019 after a diagnosis of localized breast cancer were included.

INTERVENTION(S)

Overall, 328 patients underwent at least 1 ovarian stimulation cycle (STIM group) and 412 had a technique without hormonal administration (no STIM group).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Disease-free survival and overall survival up to May 2021 were compared between the 2 groups by log-rank test. Cox proportional-hazard regression model was used for multivariable analyses.

RESULT(S)

Out of the 740 women who underwent fertility preservation, follow-up data were available for 269 women in the STIM group (82%) and 330 (80%) in the no STIM group. Kaplan-Meier estimates of disease-free survival at 4 years were 87.9% (82.8%-92.2%) and 83.1% (78.4%-87.3%) in the STIM and no STIM groups, respectively. After adjustment on prognostic parameters, no significant difference in breast cancer recurrence rate was observed between the STIM and no STIM groups (hazard ratios, 0.83 [0.64-1.08]). Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival at 4 years was 97.6% (95.3%-99.2%) and 93.6% (90.9%-95.9%) in the STIM and no STIM groups, respectively. Overall survival was higher in the STIM group than no STIM group (log-rank test). After adjustment on prognostic parameters, the risk of death remained significantly lower in the STIM group (Hazard Ratio, 0.55 [0.35-0.85]).

CONCLUSION(S)

In our cohort, STIM for fertility preservation in breast cancer did not significantly impact disease-free survival but was associated with higher overall survival. The disease-free survival and overall survival of young patients with breast cancer were not impacted by fertility preservation techniques irrespective of the timing of chemotherapy (neoadjuvant or adjuvant) and the use of ovarian stimulation. Nevertheless, because death and recurrence were rare events, these results should be taken with caution.

Fertility preservation decisions in young women with breast cancer: a qualitative study of health care professionals' views and experiences

Fertility preservation (FP) discussions prior to breast cancer treatment are an important aspect of care and considered routine practice. However, studies show that women diagnosed with breast cancer have unmet needs about FP discussions. To better understand them, a qualitative study was conducted to explore the perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding FP for young women diagnosed with breast cancer. Semi-structured interviews were performed in a University teaching hospital to explore the knowledge, attitudes and reported behaviours of HCPs (oncologists, breast surgeons, breast care specialist nurses and fertility specialists) who offer FP discussions (n = 20). Data were analysed thematically. HCPs in this study were aware of the need to discuss FP with patients but were not confident in their knowledge and were unsure of their role in the discussion. Patient characteristics of younger age, nulliparity and ethnicity appeared to influence if and how HCPs discussed FP, in addition to the personal attitudes and knowledge of HCPs. Specialist nurses were identified as having an important role in FP discussions. Raising awareness of the essential components of FP discussions by a checklist or algorithm may help in addressing ambiguity and promoting consistent FP discussions by HCPs.

Expert consensus on fertility preservation in patients with breast cancer occurring during pregnancy

The prevalence of breast cancer currently ranks first among Chinese women with malignant tumors, occurring during premenopausal childbearing age in more than 60% of patients. With the increasing age of women at childbirth, the wide application of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and the rejuvenation of tumor patients, the prevalence of breast cancer occurring during pregnancy (PrBC) is gradually increasing. There are many domestic and foreign expert consensus articles and guidelines on fertility preservation for children and patients of childbearing age with malignant tumors, but there is a lack of expert consensus or guidelines on fertility preservation for patients with PrBC. Considering the uniqueness of PrBC patients, there is an urgent need for a standardized suggestion regarding their fertility preservation. The Committee of Fertility Protection and Preservation of China Association for the Promotion of Health Science and Technology together with the Chinese Society of Gynecological Endocrinology affiliated with the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology (CSGE-ISGE) organized relevant experts from different disciplines to formulate this consensus to guide fertility preservation of PrBC patients.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States due to the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate triennially to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries, vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Database are presented for the most prevalent cancer types by race, and cancer-related and treatment-related side-effects are also briefly described. More than 18 million Americans (8.3 million males and 9.7 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2022. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,523,230), melanoma of the skin (760,640), and colon and rectum (726,450) among males and breast (4,055,770), uterine corpus (891,560), and thyroid (823,800) among females. More than one-half (53%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and two-thirds (67%) were aged 65 years or older. One of the largest racial disparities in treatment is for rectal cancer, for which 41% of Black patients with stage I disease receive proctectomy or proctocolectomy compared to 66% of White patients. Surgical receipt is also substantially lower among Black patients with non-small cell lung cancer, 49% for stages I-II and 16% for stage III versus 55% and 22% for White patients, respectively. These treatment disparities are exacerbated by the fact that Black patients continue to be less likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease than White patients for most cancers, with some of the largest disparities for female breast (53% vs 68%) and endometrial (59% vs 73%). Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based strategies and equitable access to available resources are needed to mitigate disparities for communities of color and optimize care for people with a history of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:409-436.

Fertility Preservation in Young Women with Breast Cancer: Impact on Treatment and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The impact of chemotherapy timing on the fertility preservation (FP) decision is poorly understood. Here we evaluate factors associated with FP completion among women age ≤ 45 years with breast cancer who received chemotherapy and consulted with a reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) specialist, and report pregnancy and oncologic outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective review included all women age ≤ 45 years diagnosed with stage I-III unilateral breast cancer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2009 and 2015 who received chemotherapy and consulted with an REI specialist. Clinicopathologic features and factors associated with the decision to undergo FP were analyzed, and comparisons were made with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Chi-square test, or Fisher's exact test. Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Among the 172 women identified, median age was 34 years (interquartile range 31-37 years). The majority of women were single (n = 99, 57.6%) and nulliparous (n = 134, 77.9%). Most women underwent FP (n = 121, 70.3%). Factors associated with the decision to undergo FP included younger median age (33 vs. 37 years, p < 0.001), having private insurance (p < 0.001), nulliparity (p < 0.001), and referral from Breast Surgery (p = 0.004). Tumor characteristics and treatments were similar between women who underwent FP and those who declined. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival were also similar between groups. Women who underwent FP were more likely to have a biological child after breast cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Women underwent FP at high rates independent of timing of chemotherapy and oncologic factors. FP is associated with having a biological child and does not compromise oncologic outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with or without letrozole for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Fertility preservation (FP) is recommended in young breast cancer (BC) patients before (neo)adjuvant treatment. Letrozole-associated controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (LetCOH) is used worldwide to collect mature oocytes for FP, but its efficacy and safety compared to conventional protocols (cCOH) are still debated.

AIMS

To compare efficacy and safety of FP procedure using LetCOH or cCOH in BC patients in terms of oocyte maturation rate and disease-free survival rates after at least two years of follow-up.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study compared outcomes of 107 cycles in 97 non-metastatic BC patients aged ≤40 years who underwent cCOH (n = 56) or LetCOH (n = 41) for FP in CHU-Lille and Erasme Hospital, respectively, between December 2012 and January 2017.

RESULTS

Patients and oncological characteristics were similar except for tumor size and HER2 status which were less favorable in the LetCOH group. Patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy in 96.4% and 48.8% of the cases in cCOH and LetCOH groups, respectively. Hence, 51.2% of LetCOH patients underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.001). Estradiol peak at ovulation trigger was lower in LetCOH compared to cCOH group while oocyte maturation rates were significantly higher (p < 0.001), without impacting the final number of mature oocytes collected. Seven and four patients relapsed in LetCOH and cCOH groups, respectively, and one patient died in each group after a median follow-up of four years.

CONCLUSION

LetCOH is as effective as cCOH for FP. At this time point, there were no safety concerns regarding cCOH in the adjuvant setting but a longer follow-up is warranted.

A synopsis of global frontiers in fertility preservation

Since 2007, the Oncofertility Consortium Annual Conference has brought together a diverse network of individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and professional levels to disseminate emerging basic and clinical research findings in fertility preservation. This network also developed enduring educational materials to accelerate the pace and quality of field-wide scientific communication. Between 2007 and 2019, the Oncofertility Consortium Annual Conference was held as an in-person event in Chicago, IL. The conference attracted approximately 250 attendees each year representing 20 countries around the world. In 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this paradigm and precluded an in-person meeting. Nevertheless, there remained an undeniable demand for the oncofertility community to convene. To maintain the momentum of the field, the Oncofertility Consortium hosted a day-long virtual meeting on March 5, 2021, with the theme of "Oncofertility Around the Globe" to highlight the diversity of clinical care and translational research that is ongoing around the world in this discipline. This virtual meeting was hosted using the vFairs ® conference platform and allowed over 700 people to participate, many of whom were first-time conference attendees. The agenda featured concurrent sessions from presenters in six continents which provided attendees a complete overview of the field and furthered our mission to create a global community of oncofertility practice. This paper provides a synopsis of talks delivered at this event and highlights the new advances and frontiers in the fields of oncofertility and fertility preservation around the globe from clinical practice and patient-centered efforts to translational research.

Risk of recurrence and pregnancy outcomes in young women with breast cancer who do and do not undergo fertility preservation

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of fertility preservation (FP) requiring ovarian stimulation on breast cancer outcomes and pregnancy after breast cancer.

METHODS

Women aged ≤ 40 years diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2007 and 2018 and referred for FP consultation prior to systemic therapy were identified from a British Columbia fertility center database. The primary endpoint was invasive breast cancer-free survival (iBCFS) and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and achievement of pregnancy. Survival and pregnancy endpoints were compared using Cox and logistic regression analyses, respectively, for patients who did and did not undergo FP.

RESULTS

The study included 153 patients, with 71 (46%) in the FP group and 82 (54%) in the non-FP group. Patients who underwent FP were more likely to be ECOG 0 (99% vs. 88%, p = 0.011) and receive chemotherapy (93% vs. 67%, p < 0.001), but had similar ER positivity status to non-FP patients (70% vs. 79%, p = 0.21). Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years, there were no differences in iBCFS (HR 1.006, 95% CI 0.416-2.438, p = 0.988) or OS (HR 0.789, 95% CI 0.210-2.956, p = 0.725) between FP and non-FP groups. Patients who underwent FP had higher odds of conceiving at least once (OR 3.024, 95% CI 1.312-6.970, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

At a median follow-up of 4.1 years, FP did not impact iBCFS or OS, supporting its safety in young women with breast cancer. In addition, patients who underwent FP were more likely to become pregnant after breast cancer, highlighting the value of pre-oncologic treatment FP in survivorship family planning.

Safety of fertility preservation techniques before and after anticancer treatments in young women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

Is it safe to perform controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation before starting anticancer therapies or ART after treatments in young breast cancer patients?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Performing COS before, or ART following anticancer treatment in young women with breast cancer does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in terms of breast cancer recurrence, mortality or event-free survival (EFS).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

COS for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before starting chemotherapy is standard of care for young women with breast cancer wishing to preserve fertility. However, some oncologists remain concerned on the safety of COS, particularly in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors, even when associated with aromatase inhibitors. Moreover, limited evidence exists on the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors for achieving pregnancy after the completion of anticancer treatments.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The present systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by three blinded investigators using the keywords 'breast cancer' and 'fertility preservation'; keywords were combined with Boolean operators. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 30 June 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

To be included in this meta-analysis, eligible studies had to be case-control or cohort studies comparing survival outcomes of women who underwent COS or ART before or after breast cancer treatments compared to breast cancer patients not exposed to these strategies. Survival outcomes of interest were cancer recurrence rate, relapse rate, overall survival and number of deaths. Adjusted relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI were extracted. When the number of events for each group were available but the above measures were not reported, HRs were estimated using the Watkins and Bennett method. We excluded case reports or case series with <10 patients and studies without a control group of breast cancer patients who did not pursue COS or ART. Quality of data and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 1835 records were retrieved. After excluding ineligible publications, 15 studies were finally included in the present meta-analysis (n = 4643). Among them, 11 reported the outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent COS for fertility preservation before starting chemotherapy, and 4 the safety of ART following anticancer treatment completion. Compared to women who did not receive fertility preservation at diagnosis (n = 2386), those who underwent COS (n = 1594) had reduced risk of recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73) and mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76). No detrimental effect of COS on EFS was observed (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.06). A similar trend of better outcomes in terms of EFS was observed in women with hormone-receptor-positive disease who underwent COS (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20-0.65). A reduced risk of recurrence was also observed in patients undergoing COS before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.80). Compared to women not exposed to ART following completion of anticancer treatments (n = 540), those exposed to ART (n = 123) showed a tendency for better outcomes in terms of recurrence ratio (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70) and EFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17-1.11).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This meta-analysis is based on abstracted data and most of the studies included are retrospective cohort studies. Not all studies had matching criteria between the study population and the controls, and these criteria often differed between the studies. Moreover, rate of recurrence is reported as a punctual event and it is not possible to establish when recurrences occurred and whether follow-up, which was shorter than 5 years in some of the included studies, is adequate to capture late recurrences.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our results demonstrate that performing COS at diagnosis or ART following treatment completion does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in young women with breast cancer, including among patients with hormone receptor-positive disease and those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Partially supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; grant number MFAG 2020 ID 24698) and the Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds 2017 (no grant number). M.L. acted as consultant for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Ipsen, Takeda, Libbs, Knight, Sandoz outside the submitted work. F.S. acted as consultant for Novartis, MSD, Sun Pharma, Philogen and Pierre Fabre and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. I.D. has acted as a consultant for Roche, has received research grants from Roche and Ferring, has received reagents for academic clinical trial from Roche diagnostics, speaker's fees from Novartis, and support for congresses from Theramex and Ferring outside the submitted work. L.D.M. reported honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis and had an advisory role for Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Breast cancer grade and stage do not affect fertility preservation outcomes

PURPOSE

To investigate if breast cancer stage and grade affect fertility preservation outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study that included premenopausal women with breast cancer undergoing fertility preservation diagnosed between January 2011 and January 2019. The primary outcome measure was the number of mature oocytes (MII) per antral follicle count (AFC). Secondary outcome measures included total oocytes retrieved, total mature oocytes retrieved, and greater than 10 mature oocytes preserved. Univariate and multivariate models were used to assess the association of low vs. high stage (low stage I-II and high stage III-IV) and grade I vs. grade II/III with each outcome, with adjustment for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 267 premenopausal breast cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation were included in our study, with the majority presenting with low stage (N = 215, 80.5%), grade II/III (N = 235, 88.1%) disease. Baseline AFC, total gonadotropin dose, days of stimulation, and follicles [Formula: see text] 13 mm on the day of trigger did not differ by stage or grade. After adjusting for age, BMI, and baseline AFC, we found that the mean MII per AFC did not differ by stage (1.0 vs. 1.1, P = 0.3) or grade (1.0 vs. 1.0, P = 0.92). Similarly, total oocytes retrieved, total MII retrieved, and percentage of patients who were able to preserve greater than 10 MII did not differ by breast cancer stage or grade (all P > 0.2).

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer grade and stage do not impact ovarian stimulation or fertility preservation outcome.

Is ovarian recovery after chemotherapy in young patients with early breast cancer influenced by controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for fertility preservation or tumor characteristics? Results of a prospective study in 126 patients

Young individuals, aged <40 years, represent 7% of all patients with early breast cancer (EBC), most of whom receive chemotherapy. Preserving future fertility in these patients has become a major concern. This prospective study assessed ovarian function during and after chemotherapy according to patient and tumor characteristics and evaluated the outcome of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). Ovarian reserve was evaluated in terms of amenorrhea duration and by longitudinal serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level variations measured at study entry, during treatment, and until 24 months thereafter. COH has been proposed for patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. We studied the association between clinical factors and ovarian function using Cox models and logistic regression. In this young population (age <38 years, median=32), 85 of 90 evaluable patients (94%) experienced chemo-induced amenorrhea, including six persistent amenorrhea and one chemotherapy-induced definitive ovarian failure. Overall, 33% of patients still had undetectable AMH values 12 months after the end of chemotherapy, although most had recovered spontaneous and regular menstrual function. No specific factor was associated with clinical or biological late ovarian dysfunction, except for age and baseline AMH value. Overall, 58 patients underwent COH. The mean number of total retrieved oocytes and metaphase II oocytes were of 11.7 and 6.9, respectively. Thus, our study confirms the importance of fertility preservation in young patients with EBC. Our findings indicates that sequential chemotherapy is associated with a higher risk of persistent amenorrhea. There was no significant association between tumor characteristics, fertility preservation, or recovery of ovarian reserve. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation before gonadotoxic treatments: Principles of safe ovarian stimulation, a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Review the safety of fertility preservation through ovarian stimulation with oocyte or embryo cryopreservation, including cycle and medication options.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review of peer-reviewed sources revealed 2 applicable randomized control trials and 60 cohort studies as well as 20 additional expert opinions or reviews.

RESULTS

The capacity for future family building is important for the majority of reproductive age people, despite life-altering medical or oncologic diagnosis. Modern fertility preservation generates a high rate of oocyte yield while utilizing protocols that can be started at multiple points in the menstrual cycle and suppressing supra-physiologic levels of estrogen. Finally, more than one quarter of fertility preservation patients will return to later utilize fertility services.

CONCLUSION

For most patients, fertility preservation can safely be pursued and completed within 2 weeks without affecting disease severity or long-term survival.

Controlled ovarian stimulation outcomes of fertility preservation procedures in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: a retrospective study from a single-tertiary-IVF centre

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) using the letrozole-supplemented stimulation protocol in breast cancer (BC) patients prior to their cancer treatment. Sixty-one BC patients (Stages 0-3) who were referred to a university IVF unit for fertility preservation (FP) and underwent embryo and/or oocyte cryopreservation between 2008 - 2020 were included in this retrospective study. Time intervals between breast surgery and initial fertility consultation (IFC)/completion of FP procedures were evaluated. COS outcomes were assessed and compared between the early follicular phase (EFP) and the random-start (RS) protocols. The patients' mean age was 33.3 ± 4.9 years. The mean time interval between breast surgery and IFC was 20.6 ± 11 (day, mean ± SD) and from IFC to completion of FP procedure was 14.7 ± 5.3. Overall, 9.1 ± 5.9 mature oocytes were obtained, with a peak serum oestradiol level of 388 ± 358 pg/mL. The number of oocytes obtained (11.5 ± 9.3 vs. 10.9 ± 6.9, p = .9) and maturation rates (84.3 ± 17.5% vs. 89.2 ± 11.7, p = .5) were not statistically different between the EPF and RS protocols. The study results support that oocyte or embryo freezing can be performed effectively in a limited time period with letrozole-supplemented COS protocols before the initiation of oncological treatments in breast cancer patients.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Currently, embryo and oocyte freezing are considered the most established fertility preservation (FP) methods for newly diagnosed cancer patients.What do the results of this study add? This study reports the COS outcomes of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients for FP over a period of twelve years from a single IVF unit. The results support that a considerable number of oocytes can be harvested with letrozole-supplemented COS protocol, which appears to be an effective protocol for BC patients.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? There is a need for additional studies evaluating long-term follow-up of patients with their pregnancy outcomes.

Treatment-related amenorrhea in a modern, prospective cohort study of young women with breast cancer

Young women with breast cancer experience unique treatment and survivorship issues centering on treatment-related amenorrhea (TRA), including fertility preservation and management of ovarian function as endocrine therapy. The Young Women's Breast Cancer Study (YWS) is a multi-center, prospective cohort study of women diagnosed at age ≤40, enrolled from 2006 to 2016. Menstrual outcomes were self-reported on serial surveys. We evaluated factors associated with TRA using logistic regression. One year post-diagnosis, 286/789 (36.2%) experienced TRA, yet most resumed menses (2-year TRA: 120/699; 17.2%). Features associated with 1-year TRA included older age (OR≤30vs36-40 = 0.29 (0.17-0.48), OR31-35vs36-40 = 0.67 (0.46-0.94), p = 0.02); normal body mass index (BMI) (OR≥25vs18.5-24. =0.59 (0.41-0.83), p < 0.01); chemotherapy (ORchemo vs no chemo = 5.55 (3.60-8.82), p < 0.01); and tamoxifen (OR = 1.55 (1.11-2.16), p = 0.01). TRA rates were similar across most standard regimens (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab +/- pertuzumab: 55.6%; docetaxel/cyclophosphamide +/- trastuzumab/pertuzumab: 41.8%; doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/paclitaxel +/- trastuzumab/pertuzumab: 44.1%; but numerically lower with AC alone (25%) or paclitaxel/trastuzumab (11.1%). Among young women with breast cancer, lower BMI appears to be an independent predictor of TRA. This finding has important implications for interpretation of prior studies, future research, and patient care in our increasingly obese population. Additionally, these data describe TRA associated with use of docetaxel/cyclophosphamide, which is increasingly being used in lieu of anthracycline-containing regimens. Collectively, these data can be used to inform use of fertility preservation strategies for women who need to undergo treatment as well as the potential need for ovarian suppression following modern chemotherapy for young women with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer.Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01468246.

Concomitant tamoxifen or letrozole for optimal oocyte yield during fertility preservation for breast cancer: the TAmoxifen or Letrozole in Estrogen Sensitive tumors (TALES) randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether concomitant tamoxifen 20 mg with gonadotropins (tamoxifen-gonadotropin) versus letrozole 5 mg with gonadotropins (letrozole-gonadotropin) affects mature oocyte yield.

METHODS

Open-label, single-institution, randomized trial. Inclusion criteria included the following: females, ages 18-44 years old, with new diagnosis of non-metastatic breast cancer, who were undergoing fertility preservation with either oocyte or embryo cryopreservation. Those with estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer were randomized to tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin. Another group with estrogen-receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer was recruited, as a prospectively collected comparison arm who took neither letrozole nor tamoxifen (gonadotropin only). The primary outcome was the number of mature oocytes obtained from the cycle. The randomized groups were powered to detect a difference of three or more mature oocytes.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were randomized to tamoxifen-gonadotropin and fifty-one to letrozole-gonadotropin. Thirty-eight patients completed gonadotropin only. Age, antral follicle count, and body mass index were similar between the randomized groups. Our primary outcome of mature oocyte yield was similar between the tamoxifen-gonadotropin and letrozole-gonadotropin groups (12±8.6 vs. 11.6±7.5, p=0.81, 95%CI of difference =-2.9 to 3.7). In a pre-specified secondary comparison, mature oocyte yield was also similar with tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin versus gonadotropin only (12±8.6 vs. 11.6±7.5 vs. 12.4±7.2). There were no serious adverse events in any of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamoxifen-gonadotropin and letrozole-gonadotropin produced a similar number of mature oocytes. Women who received either tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin had a similar number of oocytes to the gonadotropin-only group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03011684 (retrospectively registered 1/5/2017, after 9% enrolled).

The impact of fertility preservation on the timing of breast cancer treatment, recurrence, and survival

BACKGROUND

Many young women with breast cancer undergo fertility preservation (FP) before cancer treatment. This study examined the impact of FP on breast cancer outcomes.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of 272 women aged 20 to 45 years with newly diagnosed stage 0 to III breast cancer who underwent an FP consultation between 2005 and 2017. Among these women, 123 (45.2%) underwent FP (fertility preservation-positive [FP+]). The remaining 149 women did not undergo FP (fertility preservation-negative [FP-]).

RESULTS

The characteristics at enrollment were similar with the exception of ethnicity (FP+, 87.8% White; FP-, 67.8% White; P = .002) and BRCA status (FP+, 27.7% BRCA+; FP-, 15.5% BRCA+; P = .021). The median follow-up was approximately 4 years. Women who underwent FP had longer times to first treatment (FP+, 37 days; FP-, 31 days; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74; confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.99) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (FP+, 36 days; FP-, 26 days; aHR, 0.41; CI, 0.24-0.68) and from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy (FP+, 41 days; FP-, 33 days; aHR, 0.58; CI, 0.38-0.90). Adjusted 3- and 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rates were comparable between the 2 groups (3-year IDFS: FP+, 85.4%; FP-, 79.4%; P = .411; 5-year IDFS: FP+, 73.7%; FP-, 67.1%; P = .288). Similarly, no difference in overall survival (OS) was observed between the 2 groups (3-year OS: FP+, 95.5%; FP-, 93.5%; P = .854; 5-year OS: FP+, 84.2%; FP-, 81.4%; P = .700).

CONCLUSIONS

FP after a breast cancer diagnosis delays the time to treatment by a small amount, but this delay does not lead to inferior IDFS or OS.

Success and risks of pregnancy after breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. The number of childbearing-age women diagnosed with early breast cancer (eBC) is increasing, raising questions over their subsequent fertility.

PURPOSE

The main objective of this study was therefore to assess, in a cohort of eBC patients with pregnancy desire, the rate of live births achieved spontaneously or by assisted reproductive technology.

METHODS

We conducted an observational, descriptive, retrospective study including patients aged 18-40, treated for eBC at the Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest (ICO) Pays de Loire between July 2010 and July 2016, with pregnancy desire. The primary outcome was the rate of live births. Secondary outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, time to conception, and spontaneous or assisted pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

61 patients were included, with a live birth rate of 19.7% (12/61). We observed no recurrence or death in women with a pregnancy. Pregnancy started with a median time of 36.4 months after the end of treatment (4.1-51.3 months). All pregnancies in this cohort were achieved spontaneously.

CONCLUSION

The results of our cohort are consistent with previous results showing that spontaneous pregnancy remains possible after treatment for eBC without increasing the risk of recurrence or death.

Hot Topics on Fertility Preservation for Women and Girls-Current Research, Knowledge Gaps, and Future Possibilities

Fertility preservation is a novel clinical discipline aiming to protect the fertility potential of young adults and children at risk of infertility. The field is evolving quickly, enriched by advances in assisted reproductive technologies and cryopreservation methods, in addition to surgical developments. The best-characterized target group for fertility preservation is the patient population diagnosed with cancer at a young age since the bulk of the data indicates that the gonadotoxicity inherent to most cancer treatments induces iatrogenic infertility. Since improvements in cancer therapy have resulted in increasing numbers of long-term survivors, survivorship issues and the negative impact of infertility on the quality of life have come to the front line. These facts are reflected in an increasing number of scientific publications referring to clinical medicine and research in the field of fertility preservation. Cryopreservation of gametes, embryos, and gonadal tissue has achieved quality standards for clinical use, with the retrieval of gonadal tissue for cryopreservation being currently the only method feasible in prepubertal children. Additionally, the indications for fertility preservation beyond cancer are also increasing since a number of benign diseases and chronic conditions either require gonadotoxic treatments or are associated with premature follicle depletion. There are many remaining challenges, and current research encompasses clinical health care and caring sciences, ethics, societal, epidemiological, experimental studies, etc.

Fertility preservation in endocrine responsive breast cancer: data and prejudices

Even if current guidelines suggest an early referral of young breast cancer (BC) patients to fertility preservation counselling, physicians still lack knowledge about the different available strategies. Hormonal stimulation to harvest mature oocytes is considered unsafe by many oncologists and experts in reproductive medicine, particularly in the setting of oestrogen receptor-positive BC. The aim of this mini-review is to provide an overview on the available data about this topic in order to clarify potential misunderstandings and to highlight the new trends in the oncofertility field with their pros and limitations.

Fertility preservation for cancer patients: treatment gaps and considerations in patients' choices

PURPOSE

Women with cancer may desire fertility preservation (FP) prior to initiating cancer treatment, but undergoing FP may result in treatment delays. This study sought to determine whether such delays existed in our population and which factors were associated with patients' decision to proceed with FP.

METHODS

This was a historical cohort study performed at Montefiore Medical Center's Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Health. Reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer and consulted for FP were included. The main outcome measure was the number of days between FP consultation and cancer treatment initiation. Factors associated with patients' decisions to proceed with FP were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty out of 51 women in our study underwent FP including embryo cryopreservation, oocyte cryopreservation, ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC), both oocyte and embryo cryopreservation, or GnRH agonist treatment. The majority of women who underwent FP chose embryo cryopreservation (36.7%), followed by oocyte cryopreservation (33.3%). Of the 20 patients with partners who underwent FP, 13 (65%) froze embryos. Only 4 of the 30 women who underwent FP had all, or a portion of their services, covered by insurance. The mean treatment delay was 18 days (p = 0.007), with a mean consultation to oncologic treatment gap of 23 ± 16.8 and 41.4 ± 25.9 days in the non-FP and FP groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Women with cancer diagnosis who underwent FP prior to initiating cancer treatment experienced a statistically significant delay in initiating cancer treatment. However, the clinical significance of this finding is unknown since FP treatments have not been associated with increased recurrence or mortality.

Impact of ARTs on oncological outcomes in young breast cancer survivors

STUDY QUESTION

What is the risk of recurrence in young breast cancer survivors who undergo ARTs following completion of anticancer treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

ART in breast cancer survivors does not appear to have a negative impact on disease-free survival.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

In healthy women, fertility treatment does not increase the risk of developing breast cancer. At the time of breast cancer diagnosis and before starting anticancer treatments, several studies have shown the safety of performing ART. However, the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors following completion of anticancer treatment remains under-investigated. In general, breast cancer survivors are counselled to avoid any hormonal treatment but there are limited data available on the effect of short exposure to high oestradiol levels during ART. The largest study in this regard included 25 breast cancer survivors exposed to ART and did not show a detrimental effect of ART on patient survival. Hence, taking into account that pregnancy after breast cancer does not affect cancer prognosis, defining the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors remains a priority.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We conducted a retrospective multicentric matched cohort study including a cohort of breast cancer survivors who underwent ART (exposed patients) between January 2006 and December 2016. Exposed patients who were eligible for the study were matched according to known breast cancer prognostic factors. Matched breast cancer survivors did not undergo ART (non-exposed patients) and were disease-free for a minimum time that was not less than the time elapsed between breast cancer diagnosis and first ART for the matched ART-exposed patients.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Data were retrieved from all survivors who had been diagnosed with breast cancer in eight participating centres at an age of ≤40 years, without metastasis, ongoing pregnancy, pre-existing neoplasia or ovarian failure. ART included ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI, clomiphene citrate treatment and hormone replacement therapy for embryo transfer. Data were collected from an oncological database for the selection of breast cancer patients in the non-exposed group. Exposed patients were matched (1:2) for germline BRCA status, tumour stage, anticancer treatment and age, whenever feasible. Matched groups were compared at baseline according to characteristics using conditional logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to compare time to recurrence between groups, with the time of ART as starting point that has been adjusted in the non-exposed group. The analyses were performed using Stata IC/15.1.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 39 breast cancer patients in the ART group were eligible for the analysis and were matched with 73 controls. There was no statistical difference between the two groups for the presence of BRCA mutation, tumour characteristics, use of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Exposed patients were younger than non-exposed patients (mean age 31.8 vs 34.3 years, respectively; P < 0.001). In the ART group, 89.7% were nulliparous at diagnosis compared to 46.6% of controls (P < 0.001). ART was performed at a mean age of 37.1 years old, after a median time of 4.1 years following breast cancer diagnosis (range: 1.5-12.5). Median anti-Müllerian hormone at the time of ART was 0.28 ng/ml (range: 0-4.4) and median serum oestradiol peak level was 696.5 pg/ml (range: 139.7-4130). Median follow-up time from first attempt of ART was 4.6 years (range: 2.4-12.5) in the ART group. Adjusted follow-up time for the non-exposed group was 6.9 years (range: 1.1-16.5 years) (P = 0.004). In the ART group, 59% of patients had a pregnancy after breast cancer compared to 26% in the non-exposed patients (P = 0.001). Breast cancer relapsed in 7.7% versus 20.5% women in the ART and non-exposed groups, respectively (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.13-1.62, P = 0.23). Median time to relapse was 1.3 (range: 0.3-2.7) years versus 4.5 (range: 0.4-11.1) years after ART and adjusted time in the ART and non-exposed groups, respectively (P = 0.14).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Although this is the first and largest multicentric study addressing the impact of ART on breast cancer recurrence to provide data on oestrogen exposure, only a small number of patients could be included. This reflects the reluctance of breast cancer survivors and/or oncologists to perform ART, and highlights the need for a prospective data registry to confirm the safety of this approach. This would offer the possibility for these patients, who are at a high risk of infertility, to fully benefit from ART.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Although recent studies have proven that pregnancy after breast cancer has no detrimental impact on prognosis, counselling patients about the safety of ART remains challenging. Our study provides reassuring data on the use of ART in breast cancer survivors with favourable prognostic factors, for when natural conception fails.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

M.C. and I.D. are funded by FNRS, Télévie-FNRS and Fonds Erasme. M.D.V. is a CooperSurgical scientific advisory board member and receives lecture fees for MSD, Gedeon-Richter and Ferring, outside the submitted work. M.L. has acted as a consultant for Roche and Novartis and has received honoraria from Theramex, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis and Takeda, outside the submitted work. I.D. has acted as a consultant for ROCHE and has received speaker's fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. E.d.A. has received honoraria and is a Roche/GNE, Novartis, SeaGen and Zodiac scientific advisory board member, has received travel grants from Roche/GNE and GSK/Novartis, and has received research grants from Roche/GNE, Astra-Zeneca, GSK/Novartis and Servier, outside the submitted work. A.D. is a recipient of a research grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals and receives lecture and/or consultancy fees from Merck, Gedeon-Richter and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Reproductive Outcomes After Breast Cancer in Women With vs Without Fertility Preservation

Question

What are the long-term reproductive outcomes after breast cancer in women with vs without a history of fertility preservation?

Findings

In this population-based nationwide cohort study of 425 Swedish women with breast cancer who underwent fertility preservation, fertility preservation at the time of breast cancer diagnosis was associated with a significantly higher rate of postdiagnosis live births and assisted reproduction treatments, without any negative association with all-cause survival following fertility preservation.

Meaning

The findings of this study may be relevant for reproductive counseling of women with breast cancer diagnosed at reproductive age.

Importance

The practice of fertility preservation (FP) in women with breast cancer (BC) is spreading, but long-term reproductive outcomes after FP are largely unknown.

Objective

To investigate the long-term reproductive outcomes in women who did or did not undergo FP at the time of BC diagnosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A Swedish nationwide cohort study was conducted to investigate the long-term reproductive outcomes of women with BC receiving FP at 1 of the regional FP programs from 1994 to 2017 (n = 425). Population comparators with BC but without history of FP (n = 850) were sampled from regional BC registers, matched on age, calendar period of diagnosis, and county. Data on live births, assisted reproductive technology (ART) use, and mortality were retrieved from population-based registers. Data analysis was performed from January to September 2020.

Exposures

History of having received FP compared with no history of FP (unexposed).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was hazard ratios (HRs) of live births and ART treatments following BC in women with vs without FP and the cumulative incidence of these events in the presence of the competing risk of death.

Results

Women who had undergone FP (n = 425) had lower parity (302 [71.1%] were nulliparous compared with 171 [20.1%] in the unexposed group), were younger (mean [SD] age, 32.1 [4.0] vs 33.3 [3.6] years), more often had estrogen receptor–positive tumors (289 [68.0%] vs 515 [60.6%]), and were more often scheduled for chemotherapy (399 [93.9%] vs 745 [87.7%]). Of 425 women exposed to FP, 97 (22.8%) had at least 1 post-BC live birth (mean follow-up, 4.6 years), compared with 74 of 850 women (8.7%) unexposed to FP (mean follow-up, 4.8 years). Overall, live birth rates after BC were significantly higher among women with FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.3). The 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidence of post-BC live births was 19.4% and 40.7% among FP-exposed women vs 8.6% and 15.8% among comparators, respectively. Rates of ART use were also higher in the FP group (aHR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.2-10.7). The all-cause mortality rate was lower in women exposed to FP (aHR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7), with 5-year cumulative incidence of death of 5.3% (95% CI, 3.1%-9.0%) vs 11.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-14.1%) for women with vs without FP.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of Swedish women after a BC diagnosis, successful pregnancy after BC was possible both in women with and without FP at the time of diagnosis, but a significantly higher likelihood of post-BC live births and ART treatments was observed in women who underwent FP, without any negative association with all-cause survival. This information is valuable for health care clinicians responsible for oncologic treatment and reproductive counseling of women diagnosed with breast cancer at reproductive age.

Current Approaches to Fertility Preservation

The 5 principal reasons a patient may consider fertility preservation are: treatment for cancer that may affect fertility, treatment for nonmalignant medical conditions that may affect fertility, planned indications, planned gender-affirming hormone therapy or surgery, or in the setting of genetic conditions that may increase the risks of premature ovarian insufficiency or early menopause. This paper will focus on describing who may consider preserving their fertility, how to provide the best clinical evaluation of those seeking fertility preservation, and current and future fertility preservation techniques. Last, we will highlight a need to continue to expand access to fertility preservation technologies.

Does Use of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Affect the Decision to Pursue Fertility Preservation Options in Young Women with Breast Cancer?

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend early referral to reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) specialists for young women diagnosed with breast cancer. Current practice patterns demonstrate an increased utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We evaluated premenopausal women with breast cancer after consultation with a Fertility Nurse Specialist (FNS) and determine factors associated with referral to REI specialists.

METHODS

This retrospective review included all premenopausal women diagnosed at our institution with stage 0-III unilateral breast cancers between 2009 and 2015 who completed an FNS consultation. Clinicopathologic features and factors associated with referral to REI after FNS consultation were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 334 women were identified. Median age was 35 years (interquartile range 32-38). The majority of women were single (n = 198, 59.3%) and nulliparous (n = 239, 71.6%). REI referrals were common (n = 237, 71.0%). The Breast Surgery service was the most frequent referring service (n = 194, 58.1%), with significantly more REI referrals compared to Breast Medicine and Genetics services (p = 0.002). Nulliparity was associated with REI referral (p < 0.0001). Adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.003) was associated with pursuing REI referral, whereas NAC (p < 0.001) was associated with declining REI referral.

CONCLUSIONS

Most women elected to consult with an REI specialist, confirming strong interest in fertility preservation among premenopausal women with breast cancer. However, women receiving NAC more frequently declined referral to REI, suggesting that the need to start NAC may influence decisions regarding fertility preservation. With increasing utilization of NAC, our study supports the need for further counseling and education regarding fertility preservation for women undergoing NAC.

Efficacy and Safety of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation With or Without Letrozole Co-administration for Fertility Preservation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The co-administration of letrozole during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with gonadotropins is used to limit the potentially harmful effects of a supra-physiological rise in estrogen levels on hormone-sensitive cancers. However, the efficacy and safety of adding letrozole to COS remain debated.

Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that compared the efficacy and safety of COS with co-administration of letrozole vs. COS without letrozole in all patient populations. A secondary analysis was done including only the studies in breast cancer patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of retrieved mature Metaphase II (MII) oocytes. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were total number of oocytes, maturation rate, fertilization rate, number of cryopreserved embryos, peak estradiol levels, progesterone levels, and total gonadotropin dose. Data for each endpoint were reported and analyzed thorough mean ratio (MR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: A total of 11 records were selected including 2,121 patients (990 patients underwent COS with letrozole and 1,131 COS without letrozole). The addition of letrozole to COS did not have any negative effect on the number of mature oocytes collected (MR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.87–1.16; P = 0.967) and the other efficacy endpoints. COS with letrozole was associated with significantly decreased peak estradiol levels (MR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.24–0.32; P < 0.001). Similar results were observed in the secondary analysis including only breast cancer patients.

Conclusions: These findings are reassuring on the efficacy and safety of COS with gonadotropins and letrozole and are particularly important for fertility preservation in women with hormone-sensitive cancers.

Burning Questions in the Oncofertility Counseling of Young Breast Cancer Patients

The improved prognosis of breast cancer patients makes survivorship issues an area of crucial importance. In this regard, an increased attention is needed toward the development of potential anticancer treatment-related long-term side-effects, including gonadal failure and infertility in young women. Therefore, fertility preservation and family planning are crucial issues to be addressed in all young women of reproductive age with newly diagnosed cancer. Despite a growing availability of data on the efficacy and safety of fertility preservation options and the fact that conceiving after prior history of breast cancer has become more accepted over time, there are still several gray zones in this field so that many physicians remain uncomfortable to deal with these topics. The purpose of this review is to answer some of the most controversial questions frequently asked by patients during their oncofertility counseling, in order to provide a detailed and up-to-date overview on the evidence available in this field to physicians involved in the care of young women with breast cancer.

Preserving fertility in young women undergoing chemotherapy for early breast cancer; the Maastricht experience

Purpose

We assessed the uptake of fertility preservation (FP), recovery of ovarian function (OFR) after chemotherapy, live birth after breast cancer, and breast cancer outcomes in women with early-stage breast cancer.

Methods

Women aged below 41 years and referred to our center for FP counseling between 2008 and 2015 were included. Data on patient and tumor characteristics, ovarian function, cryopreservation (embryo/oocyte) and transfer, live birth, and disease-free survival were collected. Kaplan–Meier analyses were performed for time-to-event analyses including competing risk analyses, and patients with versus without FP were compared using the logrank test.

Results

Of 118 counseled women with a median age of 31 years (range 19–40), 34 (29%) chose FP. Women who chose FP had less often children, more often a male partner and more often favorable tumor characteristics. The 5-year OFR rate was 92% for the total group of counseled patients. In total, 26 women gave birth. The 5-year live birth rate was 27% for the total group of counseled patients. Only three women applied for transfer of their cryopreserved embryo(s), in two combined with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) because of BRCA1-mutation carrier ship. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 91% versus 88%, for patients with versus without FP (P = 0.42).

Conclusions

Remarkably, most women achieved OFR, probably related to the young age at diagnosis. Most pregnancies occurred spontaneously, two of three women applied for embryo transfer because of the opportunity to apply for PGD.