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

Current practices in oncofertility counseling: updated evidence on fertility preservation and post-treatment pregnancies in young women affected by early breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Anticancer treatments have significantly contributed to increasing cure rates of breast cancer in the last years; however, they can also lead to short- and long-term side effects, including gonadotoxicity, and compromised fertility in young women. Oncofertility is a crucial issue for young patients who have not yet completed their family planning at the time of cancer diagnosis.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to cover all the latest available evidence in the field of oncofertility, including the gonadotoxicity of currently adopted anticancer therapies in the curative breast cancer setting, the available strategies for fertility preservation and the feasibility of achieving a pregnancy following anticancer treatment completion.

EXPERT OPINION

Over the past years, a significant progress has been made in oncofertility care for young women with breast cancer. In the context of the currently available evidence, every young woman with newly diagnosed breast cancer should receive a proper and complete oncofertility counseling before starting any anticancer treatment to increase her chances of future pregnancies.

Endocrine consequences of breast cancer therapy and survivorship

Breast cancer survivorship is increasing, due to earlier diagnosis of the disease and more effective therapies. Long-term endocrine sequelae, including early menopause, bone health, fertility implications and menopausal symptoms, are important survivorship issues. Ovarian failure is common with chemotherapy and options for preserving fertility in young women include ovarian suppression during chemotherapy and oocyte or embryo cryopreservation before chemotherapy. Tamoxifen as adjunct therapy in premenopausal women leads to ovarian stimulation, sometimes ovulation and occasionally pregnancy with important teratogenic implications. Aromatase inhibitor therapy with or without gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist leads to profound bone loss and anti-resorptive therapy is advised to prevent fracture. Tamoxifen acts to preserve bone in postmenopausal women but not premenopausal women. Pregnancy is not discouraged in young women with early breast cancer, even to the point of pausing adjunct therapy in order to conceive. However, menopausal hormone therapy is discouraged even years later. Non-hormonal therapy for menopausal symptoms in breast cancer survivors is available but, in some cases, estrogen-containing therapy may be worthy of consideration for quality of life in the informed patient.

Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: time to stop?

Fertility preservation is currently offered to young women with breast cancer to increase their chances of motherhood after a potentially gonadotoxic treatment. Ovarian stimulation with oocyte vitrification and cryopreservation of ovarian tissue remain the most commonly used methods of choice. Whichever method is preferred is very much dependent on the practice and experience of the clinics, although for breast cancer in particular one method might be superior to the other. Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is inevitably associated with the iatrogenic reduction of the ovarian reserve of a patient and should only be offered to women with a high risk of premature ovarian insufficiency following treatment. However, for younger breast cancer survivors, pregnancy and delivery rates are reassuringly high, even after chemotherapy. Despite its widespread use, few women come back to make use of their cryopreserved tissue. It is argued here that cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is not an appropriate option for breast cancer patients and discuss the reasons for this opinion.

Fertility and Pregnancy-Related Issues in Young BRCA Carriers With Breast Cancer

Approximately 10% to 15% of breast cancer cases in young women are diagnosed in patients harbouring germline (g) pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs) in the BReast CAncer 1 (BRCA1) or BReast CAncer 2 (BRCA2) genes. Preclinical and clinical studies showed a potential negative effect of germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) PVs on ovarian reserve and reproductive potential, even before starting anticancer therapies. The aim of this article is to summarize the current literature on the fertility potential of young gBRCA1/2 PVs carriers with breast cancer and the risk of gonadotoxicity associated with anticancer treatments. Moreover, we describe the available evidence on the efficacy of fertility preservation techniques in young gBRCA1/2 PVs carriers and the safety data on having a pregnancy after breast cancer treatment.

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.

Needle biopsy accelerates pro-metastatic changes and systemic dissemination in breast cancer: Implications for mortality by surgery delay

Increased breast cancer (BC) mortality risk posed by delayed surgical resection of tumor after diagnosis is a growing concern, yet the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. Our cohort analyses of early-stage BC patients reveal the emergence of a significantly rising mortality risk when the biopsy-to-surgery interval was extended beyond 53 days. Additionally, histology of post-biopsy tumors shows prolonged retention of a metastasis-permissive wound stroma dominated by M2-like macrophages capable of promoting cancer cell epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and angiogenesis. We show that needle biopsy promotes systemic dissemination of cancer cells through a mechanism of sustained activation of the COX-2/PGE2/EP2 feedforward loop, which favors M2 polarization and its associated pro-metastatic changes but are abrogated by oral treatment with COX-2 or EP2 inhibitors in estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) syngeneic mouse tumor models. Therefore, we conclude that needle biopsy of ER+ BC provokes progressive pro-metastatic changes, which may explain the mortality risk posed by surgery delay after diagnosis.

Fertility and Sexual Health in Young Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Fertility and sexual health may be impaired by early breast cancer treatment in young women, and these issues should be addressed at diagnosis and through survivorship. Future fertility interest and risk should be considered and communicated, and early referral made to an infertility specialist for those interested. Data regarding safety of fertility preservation options as well as pregnancy after breast cancer are overall reassuring. Patients should be counseled about the impact of systemic therapies and breast surgeries on sexual health outcomes and educated about and referred as needed for available strategies for prevention and management of impairment.

Oocyte Cryopreservation for Medical and Planned Indications: A Practical Guide and Overview

Oocyte cryopreservation (OC) is the process in which ovarian follicles are stimulated, the follicular fluid is retrieved, and mature oocytes are isolated and vitrified. Since the first successful pregnancy utilizing previously cryopreserved oocytes in 1986, OC has become increasingly utilized as an option for future biologic children in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies, such as for the treatment of cancer. Planned OC, also termed elective OC, is growing in popularity as a means to circumvent age-related fertility decline. In this narrative review, we describe both medically indicated and planned OC, focusing on the physiology of ovarian follicular loss, OC technique and risks, timing of when OC should be performed, associated financial considerations, and outcomes.

Advances in the Management of Menopausal Symptoms, Fertility Preservation, and Bone Health for Women With Breast Cancer on Endocrine Therapy

In patients with hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine treatment administered for up to 5-10 years after diagnosis significantly reduces the risk of recurrence and death. However, this benefit comes with the cost of short- and long-term side effects that may negatively affect patients' quality of life (QoL) and treatment adherence. Among them, the prolonged estrogen suppression associated with the use of adjuvant endocrine therapy in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women can induce life-altering menopausal symptoms, including sexual dysfunction. Moreover, a decrease in bone mineral density and an increased risk of fractures should be carefully considered and prevented whenever indicated. For young women diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer with unfulfilled childbearing plans, several challenges should be addressed to manage their fertility and pregnancy-related concerns. Proper counseling and proactive management of these issues are critical components of survivorship and should be pursued from diagnosis through the breast cancer care continuum. This study aims to provide an updated overview of the available approaches for improving the QoL of patients with breast cancer receiving estrogen deprivation therapy, focusing on advances in the management of menopausal symptoms, including sexual dysfunction, fertility preservation, and bone health.

Oocyte vitrification for fertility preservation following COS does not delay the initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer compared to IVM

PURPOSE

The objective of the present study was to evaluate whether oocyte vitrification following controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation (FP) delays the initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer (BC) as compared to in vitro maturation (IVM).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study including all BC patients eligible for oocyte vitrification following COS or in vitro maturation (IVM) before initiation of NAC between January 2016 and December 2020. The inclusion criteria were female patients aged between 18 and 40, with confirmed non metastatic BC, with indication of NAC, who have had oocyte retrieval for FP after COS, or IVM + / - cryopreservation of ovarian tissue (OTC). Various time points related to cancer diagnosis, FP, or chemotherapy were obtained from a medical record review.

RESULTS

A total of 197 patients with confirmed BC who had oocyte retrieval following COS (n = 57) or IVM + / - OTC (n = 140) for FP prior to NAC were included. Overall, the average time from cancer diagnosis to chemotherapy start was similar between patients having undergone COS or IVM before oocyte vitrification (37.3 ± 13.8 vs. 36. 8 ± 13.5 days; p = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

The indication of NAC for BC should not be considered as an impediment to urgent COS for oocyte vitrification for FP.

BRCA, infertility, and fertility preservation: a review for counseling

BRCA mutations as a triggering factor in breast cancer have been reported to result in fertility problems and oocyte aging in young patients with cancer diagnosis. These patients are concerned about fertility problems and family planning before undergoing treatment modalities that may result in infertility. In this review, we conducted analysis of the literature on the association between BRCA mutations and infertility, possible fertility preservation options, and their safety and tried to gather results from different disciplines and points of view on the matter. Our aim is to provide a general summary of recent studies to provide further insight on the matter for counseling BRCA mutation carriers on fertility preservation methods and their implications.

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.

Time to cancer treatment and reproductive outcomes after fertility preservation among adolescent and young adult women with cancer

BACKGROUND

Fertility preservation (FP) may be underused after cancer diagnosis because of uncertainty around delays to cancer treatment and subsequent reproductive success.

METHODS

Women aged 15 to 39 years diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2015 were identified from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) after cancer diagnosis between 2004 and 2018 (including FP) was assessed through linkage to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Linear regression was used to examine time to cancer treatment among women who did (n = 95) or did not (n = 469) use FP. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for pregnancy and birth based on timing of ART initiation relative to cancer treatment (n = 18 initiated before treatment for FP vs n = 26 initiated after treatment without FP).

RESULTS

The median time to cancer treatment was 9 to 33 days longer among women who used FP compared with women who did not, matched on clinical factors. Women who initiated ART before cancer treatment may be more likely to have a live birth given pregnancy compared with women who initiated ART after cancer treatment (age-adjusted RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.98-2.23), though this may be affected by the more frequent use of gestational carriers in the former group (47% vs 20% of transfer cycles, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

FP delayed gonadotoxic cancer treatment by up to 4.5 weeks, a delay that would not be expected to alter prognosis for many women. Further study of the use of gestational carriers in cancer populations is warranted to better understand its effect on reproductive outcomes.

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.

A synopsis of the 2021 International Society of Fertility Preservation bi-annual meeting

On November 19, 2021, the first virtual meeting of the International Society for Fertility Preservation (ISFP) took place. Eight experts in the field of reproductive medicine presented important updates on their research in the field of fertility preservation and reproductive surgery for absolute uterine factor infertility. Presentations included talks on ovarian stem cell therapy for premature ovarian insufficiency, practical aspects of oocyte vitrification, ovarian stimulation for patients with breast cancer, in vitro maturation of oocytes at the time of ovarian tissue harvesting, male fertility preservation, and uterine transplantation. These presentations are summarized below and can be viewed in their entirety at www.isfp-fertility.org.

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.