Fertility preservation with ovarian stimulation and time to treatment in women with stage II-III breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy

Effect of breast cancer prognostic factors on ovarian reserve and response in fertility preservation

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do breast cancer prognostic factors influence ovarian reserve and response to ovarian stimulation in the context of fertility preservation?

DESIGN

Observational, bicentric retrospective study of 352 women with breast cancer who underwent ovarian stimulation using a random start gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist protocol and vitrified oocytes between November 2015 and August 2022. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and antral follicle count (AFC) were measured. The number of oocytes recovered, maturation rate and follicular output rate (FORT) were analysed according to patients' characteristics and breast cancer prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Median age was 34 years (31.1-37.1). Median AFC and serum AMH level were 17 (12-26) follicles and 2 (1.2-3.4) ng/ml, respectively. After ovarian stimulation, 10.5 (6.0-16.0) oocytes were recovered, with eight (4-13) being mature. Mean oocyte maturation rate was 79% (62-92). Antral follicle count (>12) significantly affected the risk of recovering fewer than eight mature oocytes (P < 0.0001, multivariate analysis). Follicular responsiveness to FSH, assessed by the follicular output rate (FORT index) and number of oocytes recovered, were 31% (21-50) and 10.5% (6.0-16.0), respectively. FORT index and ovarian stimulation outcomes were not influenced by breast cancer prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer prognostic factors do not influence ovarian reserve markers or response to ovarian stimulation in fertility preservation. Therefore, tumour grade, triple-negative status, HER2 overexpression and high Ki67 should not alter the fertility-preservation strategy when considering ovarian stimulation for oocyte vitrification.

Use of tamoxifene-controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for fertility preservation before breast cancer treatment: A prospective cohort study with a 5-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Fertility issues are of great concern for young women undergoing treatment for breast cancer (BC). Fertility preservation (FP) protocols using controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with letrozole have been widely used with overall good results. However, letrozole cannot be used in every country in this context. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of tamoxifen for COS in women with early BC undergoing FP.

METHODS

This multicentric prospective study included patients aged 18-40, diagnosed with stage I, II and III invasive BC, undergoing tamoxifen-COS before adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The primary endpoint was the efficacy of tamoxifen-COS protocol evaluated by the number of oocytes collected and vitrified. Secondary endpoints included the time interval before chemotherapy, breast cancer (BC) recurrence rates, and reproductive outcomes.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were included between 2014 and 2017, aged 31.5 ± 4 years on average. 37.9 % received NAC and 62.1 % received adjuvant chemotherapy. FP procedure was successful in 89.5 % of the cycles. The mean number of collected and vitrified oocytes was 12.8 ± 7.9 and 9.8 ± 6.2, respectively. The mean duration of COS was 10.4 ± 1.9 days. Median time before chemotherapy initiation was 3.6 weeks (IQR 3.1; 4.1) for women receiving NAC. Five-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were in-line with those expected in this population. Twenty-one women had spontaneous full-term pregnancies, while 5 underwent IVF cycles with frozen-thawed oocytes, without pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Tamoxifen-COS protocols appear to be feasible before adjuvant or NAC treatment in young BC patients and efficient in terms of oocyte yield.

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.

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.

Breast Cancer and Fertility Preservation in Young Female Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer affects almost 1.5 million women worldwide below the age of 45 years each year. Many of these women will be advised to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy to minimize the risk of death or recurrence of the tumor. For these patients, chemotherapy is a known cause of infertility, as it can damage primordial follicles, which can lead to early menopause or premature ovarian insufficiency. This systematic review aims to synthesize the current evidence of the most suitable treatments for fertility preservation.

METHODOLOGY

This review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. The authors conducted an extensive search from the last 15 years. Relevant studies were pursued in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up until 31 July 2023. A total of seven eligible studies were identified.

RESULTS

From the reviewed literature, ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists showed promising results in preserving fertility for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Additionally, oocyte and embryo cryopreservation demonstrated successful outcomes, with embryo cryopreservation being the most effective option. Notably, the slow-freezing and vitrification methods were both effective in preserving embryos, with vitrification showing superior results in clinical-assisted reproductive technologies. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation emerged as a viable option for prepubertal girls and those unable to undergo conventional ovarian stimulation. The potential of in vitro maturation (IVM) as an alternative method presents a promising avenue for future fertility preservation research.

DISCUSSION

The most suitable treatments for fertility preservation in young patients is the temporary suppression with luteinizing hormone-releasing analogs, while the patient undergoes chemotherapy and cryopreservation. For cryopreservation, the physicians might deem it necessary to either cryopreserve ovarian tissue taken from the patient before any treatment or cryopreserve embryos/oocytes. Cryopreservation of oocytes and/or embryos is the most effective solution for fertility preservation in women of reproductive age, who have a sufficient ovarian reserve and are diagnosed with breast cancer, regardless of the histological type of the tumor. Because approximately 50% of young breast cancer patients are interested in becoming pregnant right after completion of therapy, the evolution and development of fertility preservation techniques promise to be very exciting.

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.

Underutilization of pretreatment fertility preservation counseling in reproductive-age women with gastrointestinal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Young patients with cancer face unique challenges, including disruption of family planning and fertility. Young adults represent an increasing proportion of gastrointestinal cancer patients, and the prevalence of pretreatment fertility preservation counseling in this population is unknown.

METHODS

Women 18-40 years who underwent surgery for gastric, colorectal, hepatobiliary, or pancreatic cancer from 2004 to 2019 were identified through the Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry. Natural language processing was used to search electronic medical records and identify documentation of pretreatment fertility counseling.

RESULTS

In total, 216 reproductive-age women who underwent resection of gastrointestinal cancers were identified. Pretreatment fertility preservation counseling by any provider was documented in 29 (13%) of the entire cohort. This increased to 26 (23%) in women who also received systemic therapy. This rate did not change over time (p > 0.05). Women who had pretreatment fertility preservation counseling were younger, had higher stage disease, and were more likely to undergo chemotherapy (all p < 0.05). Of the 29 women who had a documented pretreatment discussion, 22 (76%) met with a fertility specialist and 14 (48%) eventually underwent a fertility preservation procedure.

CONCLUSION

A small subset of reproductive-age women who underwent surgery for gastrointestinal cancer had documented pretreatment fertility preservation counseling and only one in ten women met with a fertility specialist. The high rate of proceeding to fertility preservation treatment further supports the importance of this discussion in all patients and represents an opportunity for improvement.

Live birth rate after female fertility preservation for cancer or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the three main techniques; embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation

STUDY QUESTION

What are the chances of achieving a live birth after embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) in female cancer survivors?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The live birth rates (LBRs) following embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are 41% and 32%, respectively, while for IVF and spontaneous LBR after tissue cryopreservation and transplantation, these rates are 21% and 33%, respectively.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Currently, fertility preservation (FP) has become a major public health issue as diagnostic and therapeutic progress has made it possible to achieve an 80% survival rate in children, adolescents and young adults with cancer. In the latest ESHRE guidelines, only oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are considered as established options for FP. OTC is still considered to be an innovative method, while it is an acceptable FP technique in the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines. However, given the lack of studies on long-term outcomes after FP, it is still unclear which technique offers the best chance to achieve a live birth.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published controlled studies. Searches were conducted from January 2004 to May 2021 in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library using the following search terms: cancer, stem cell transplantation, FP, embryo cryopreservation, oocyte vitrification, OTC and reproductive outcome.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 126 full-text articles were preselected from 1436 references based on the title and abstract and assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The studies were selected, and their data were extracted by two independent reviewers according to the Cochrane methods. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with high heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Data from 34 studies were used for this meta-analysis. Regarding cryopreserved embryos, the LBR after IVF was 41% (95% CI: 34-48, I2: 0%, fixed effect). Concerning vitrified oocytes, the LBR was 32% (95% CI: 26-39, I2: 0%, fixed effect). Finally, the LBR after IVF and the spontaneous LBR after ovarian tissue transplantation were 21% (95% CI: 15-26, I2: 0%, fixed-effect) and 33% (95% CI: 25-42, I2: 46.1%, random-effect), respectively. For all outcomes, in the sensitivity analyses, the maximum variation in the estimated percentage was 1%.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The heterogeneity of the literature prevents us from comparing these three techniques. This meta-analysis provides limited data which may help clinicians when counselling patients.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study highlights the need for long-term follow-up registries to assess return rates, as well as spontaneous pregnancy rates and birth rates after FP.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from GEDEON RICHTER France. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021264042.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

A comparison of fertility preservation outcomes in patients who froze oocytes, embryos, or ovarian tissue for medically indicated circumstances: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare obstetric outcomes in patients cryopreserving reproductive cells or tissues before gonadotoxic therapy.

DESIGN

A literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines on Embase, Medline, and Web of Science. Studies reporting obstetric outcomes in cancer patients who completed cryopreservation of oocyte, embryo, or ovarian tissue were included.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Cancer patients attempting pregnancy using cryopreserved cells or tissues frozen before cancer therapy.

INTERVENTION(S)

Oocyte, embryo, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation for fertility preservation in cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The total numbers of clinical pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages in women attempting pregnancy using cryopreserved reproductive cells or tissues were calculated. A meta-analysis determined the effect size of each intervention.

RESULT(S)

The search returned 4,038 unique entries. Thirty-eight eligible studies were analyzed. The clinical pregnancy rates were 34.9%, 49.0%, and 43.8% for oocyte, embryo, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively. No significant differences were found among groups. The live birth rates were 25.8%, 35.3%, and 32.3% for oocyte, embryo, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively, with no significant differences among groups. The miscarriage rates were 9.2%, 16.9%, and 7.5% for oocyte, embryo, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively. Significantly fewer miscarriages occurred with ovarian tissue cryopreservation than with embryo cryopreservation.

CONCLUSION(S)

This enquiry is required to counsel cancer patients wishing to preserve fertility. Although the limitations of this study include heterogeneity, lack of quality studies, and low utilization rates, it serves as a starting point for comparison of reproductive and obstetric outcomes in patients returning for family-planning after gonadotoxic therapy.

A retrospective study evaluating the impact of scattering radiation from imaging procedures on oocyte quality during ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Ovarian stimulation for oocyte and embryo cryopreservation is the standard of care for fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients before gonadotoxic chemotherapy. The procedure should be started as soon as possible to avoid delay of treatment; thus, it is often performed concomitantly with tumor staging assessments. However, questions remain regarding the potential negative impact on oocyte quality that may occur due to exposure to scattered ionizing radiation from imaging techniques when staging assessment is conducted at the same time as ovarian stimulation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on all breast cancer patients who performed ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation at our center between November 2012 and May 2020.

RESULTS

Gynecologic and oncological characteristics were similar between patients exposed (n = 14) or not (n = 60) to ionizing radiation. Exposed patients started the ovarian stimulation sooner after diagnosis than non-exposed patients (11.5 vs 28 days, respectively, P < 0.01). Cycle parameters, including the median number of oocytes collected (10.5 vs 7, P = 0.16), maturation rates (92.5% vs 85.7%, P = 0.54), and fertilization rates (62.2% vs 65.4%, P = 0.70), were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that scattered ionizing radiation due to staging assessment appears to be safe without compromising follicular growth and maturation. Larger studies on fertility and obstetrical outcomes are needed to confirm these preliminary data.

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.

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.

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.

Predictors and outcomes in breast cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in reproductive age women, and treatment can affect fertility; however, there is often concern regarding the safety of increased estradiol (E₂) levels and potential delays in treatment with ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation (FP). The aim of this study was to compare recurrence and survival in breast cancer patients who pursued FP without concurrent letrozole to those who did not (non-FP).

METHODS

We reviewed charts of women with breast cancer who contacted the FP patient navigator (PN) at Northwestern University from 01/2005-01/2018. Oncology and fertility outcome data were collected. Data were analyzed by Chi-square test or regression, as appropriate. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to examine breast cancer recurrence and survival. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS IBM Statistics 26.0 for Windows.

RESULTS

332 patients were included, of which 157 (47.3%) underwent FP. Median days to treatment after consulting the PN was 35 in the FP group and 21 in non-FP (p < 0.05). Cancer recurrence was noted in 7 (4.7%) FP patients and 13 (7.9%) non-FP patients (NS), and mortality in 5 (3.2%) FP patients and 7 (4.2%) non-FP patients (NS). Within the FP group, no significant differences were found in recurrence or mortality based on ER status, age, BMI, peak E₂ level or total gonadotropin dose. Likelihood of pursuing FP was primarily a function of age and parity, and was not affected by breast cancer stage. To date, 21 have used cryopreserved specimens, and 13 (62%) had a live birth.

CONCLUSIONS

FP is safe and effective in breast cancer patients, regardless of receptor status; E₂ elevations and the 2-week delay in treatment start are unlikely to be clinically significant. These findings are unique in that our institution does not use concomitant letrozole during stimulation to minimize E₂ elevations in breast cancer patients.

Preimplantation genetic testing for carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants

The detection of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant has relevant implications for the patients and their family members. Family planning, prophylactic surgery and the possibility of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M) to avoid transmittance of pathogenic variants to the offspring are relevant topics in this setting. PGT-M is valuable option for BRCA carriers, but it remains a controversial and underdiscussed topic. Although the advances in PGT technologies have improved pregnancy rate, there are still several important challenges associated with its use. The purpose of this review is to report the current evidence on PGT-M for BRCA1/2 carriers, ethical concerns and controversy associated with its use, reproductive implications of BRCA pathogenic variants, underlying areas in which an educational effort would be beneficial as well as possibilities for future research efforts in the field.

[Oncofertility and breast cancer at Montpellier University Hospital: Retrospective analysis of patients management since 2011]

OBJECTIVE

Five to 7% of breast cancers affect women under 40 years old. The survival of these patients has been improved thanks to therapeutic advances, often to the detriment of their fertility. The objective of this study is to evaluate the activity of oncofertility and the future of young women with breast cancer managed at the Montpellier University Hospital.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study including women aged from 18 to 43 years-old diagnosed with breast cancer and referred in oncofertility consultation at the Montpellier University Hospital between July 2011 and December 2018.

RESULTS

190 patients were eligible, three refused to participate to the study, hence 187 patients were included. We estimate that only 33% of young breast cancer patients potentially eligible for fertility preservation (FP) benefited from an oncofertility consultation in our region. Of these 187 patients, 58 (31%) underwent ovarian stimulation for oocyte or embryo vitrification. They were significantly younger: 32.9 vs 34.6 years old (P=0.01) and had fewer invaded lymph nodes. A total of 66 cycles were achieved and 11.4 oocytes or 3 embryos were vitrified per patient. The reuse rate was 3.6% with 91% of post cancer pregnancies being spontaneous.

CONCLUSION

The oncofertility care network seems effective at the regional level. Enhancing health professionals' awareness and creating a regional register could improve our long-term follow-up.

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.

Fertility preservation does not delay the initiation of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate whether fertility preservation (FP) in adult women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) may impact the time interval between diagnosis and start of chemotherapy in an adjuvant or neo-adjuvant setting.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of breast cancer patients diagnosed between January 2012 and December 2017 undergoing FP at a tertiary-care academic fertility centre before neo-adjuvant (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), and matched control breast cancer patients who had no FP. FP interventions included oocyte vitrification following ovarian stimulation or after in-vitro maturation (IVM) of immature oocytes, and/or ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Controls from the patient database of the affiliated Breast Cancer Clinic were matched for tumour characteristics and type of treatment. Time intervals between cancer diagnosis and the start of chemotherapy were analysed.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine BC patients underwent FP: 29 received NAC and 30 received AC. The average interval between diagnosis and chemotherapy in BC patients with NAC was 28.5 days (27.3 (range: 14.0-44.0) days in cases and 29.6 (range: 14.0-62.0) days in controls (NS)); this interval was 58.9 days in BC patients with AC (57.2 (range: 36.0-106.0) days in cases and 60.7 (range: 31.0-105.0) days in controls (NS)).

CONCLUSION

Fertility preservation does not delay the start of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

Factors Influencing the Onset of Neoadjuvant Therapy in Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Time to treatment onset (TTTO) is critical in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). We therefore investigated possible delaying factors of therapy onset.

METHODS

All patients were included who qualified for NACT in our hospital from 2015 to 2017. The time interval between core biopsy of tumor and date of therapy onset was defined as primary endpoint. Among other things, age, out- and in-patient presentation, and study or standard treatment were investigated as potentially delaying factors.

RESULTS

We analyzed 139 patients scheduled for NACT; 90 (64.7%) received standard NACT, and 49 (35.3%) were recruited for trials. The average age was 53 years (±13.2 years). A time interval of 30.7 days (±11.8 days) was seen between diagnosis and therapy onset. Patients had a mean of 5 (±1.9) pretherapeutic presentations, 4 (±1.8) on outpatient and 1 (±0.5) on inpatient basis, being of significant influence on TTTO.

CONCLUSION

Any outpatient presentation extended the time interval by 2 days, inpatient presentation by 4 days. These presentations should be merged in order to minimize TTTO. Neither the site of pathology examinations, additional consultations (genetics, reproductive medicine), nor study participation delayed therapy onset.

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.

Counseling young women with early breast cancer on fertility preservation

PURPOSE

Women with early-stage breast cancer may still have a future child wish, while chemotherapy may impair fertility. To pursue on fertility preservation shortly after breast cancer diagnosis is complex. This review holds a critical reflection on all topics that need to be counseled to give them the opportunity to make a well-informed decision before starting any oncological treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed on papers published in English language on breast cancer in young women, risk of chemotherapy-induced infertility, fertility preservation techniques, impact of possible mutation carriership, and future pregnancy outcome.

RESULTS

Below 40 years of age, the risk of permanent chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure is approximately 20%, where taxanes do not significantly add to this risk. Overall, 23% of reported women who performed fertility preservation by cryopreserving oocytes or embryos returned for embryo transfer. Of these, 40% gave live birth. Both fertility preservation in women diagnosed with breast cancer and pregnancy after treatment seem safe with respect to breast cancer survival. Women who have a genetic predisposition for breast cancer like BRCA gene mutation should also be informed about the possibility of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with an early stage of breast cancer and a possible future child wish should be referred to an expertise center in breast cancer, fertility preservation, and genetics in this complex decision-making process, shortly after diagnosis.

Influence of stage and grade of breast cancer on fertility preservation outcome in reproductive-aged women

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does breast cancer spread and aggressiveness affect fertility-preservation results?

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of women with breast cancer undergoing fertility-preservation treatment.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

age 18-38 years and use of gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist protocol; exclusion criteria: recurrent cancer, previous oncological treatment, previous ovarian surgery and known ovarian pathology. Stimulation cycle outcomes of women with low-stage breast cancer were compared with those with high-stage disease. Patients with low-grade (G_1-2) were compared with those with high-grade (G₃) malignancies.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

total number of mature oocytes; secondary outcomes: oestradiol level and number of follicles wider than 14 mm on the day of trigger, number of retrieved oocytes and cryopreserved embryos.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 155 patients. Patients with high-grade tumours (n = 80; age 32 years [28-35]) had significantly lower number of mature oocytes compared with patients with low-grade cancer (n = 75; age 32 years [28-35]; seven mature oocytes [4-10] versus 13 mature oocytes [7-17]; P = 0.0002). The number of cryopreserved embryos was also lower in the high-grade group (three [2-5] versus five [3-9]; P = 0.02). Stage-based analysis revealed a similar number of mature oocytes in high-stage (n = 73; age 32 years [28-35]) compared with low-stage group (n = 82; age 33 years [28-35]; eight mature oocytes [4-13] versus nine mature oocytes [7-15]; P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

High-grade breast cancer has a negative effect on total number of mature oocytes and cryopreserved embryos.

[Regional state-of-the-art of the access to oncofertility consultation for young women with breast cancer]

OBJECTIVES

According to the 2004 Bioethics Act, oncofertility counselling must be systematically offered to all women of childbearing age before they are exposed to potentially gonadotoxic treatment. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the proportion of women under 40 years of age treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer in Midi-Pyrénées who have received an oncofertility consultation. A secondary objective was to assess practitioners' knowledge on the subject.

METHODS

A cross-reference was made between the databases of the oncology network in Midi-Pyrénées and the two approved centres for the preservation of fertility in the region. A computerized practitioner questionnaire was sent to all surgeons and oncologists who could manage these patients.

RESULTS

From 2012 and 2017, 667 women aged≤40 years received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy treatment: only 156 (23.4%) had access to an oncofertility consultation and 58 (8.7%) received preservation. This rate (23.4%) varied according to the age of the patients, ranging from 56.9% for those aged 25-29 to 13.4% for those aged 35-39 and the managing institution. Of the 85 practitioners surveyed, 45 (55%) responded to the questionnaire, and of these 20 (44%) knew that ovarian stimulation treatment could be used even in hormone-dependent breast cancer situations and 13 (29%) of practitioners believed that the time required to preserve fertility was more than 1 month.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed a significant disparity in access to oncofertility consultation. It is essential to set up information and awareness-raising actions on the subject.

Oncofertility: Meeting the Fertility Goals of Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer

Adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 39 years who are diagnosed with cancer (AYA survivors) undergo a range of therapies for cancer cure but subsequently may be at risk of treatment-related infertility, and for female AYA survivors, adverse pregnancy outcomes. Future fertility is important to AYA survivors. Meeting their fertility goals requires awareness of this importance, knowledge of cancer treatment-related fertility risks, appropriate fertility counseling on these risks, and access to fertility care. Epidemiologic and dissemination and implementation research are needed to estimate more precise risks of traditional and novel cancer therapies on fertility and pregnancy outcomes and improve the delivery of fertility care.

Fertility-related experiences after breast cancer diagnosis in the Sister and Two Sister Studies

BACKGROUND

Commonly used chemotherapies can be toxic to the ovaries. To the authors' knowledge, the majority of studies evaluating receipt of fertility counseling for women in their reproductive years have been performed in specific settings, thereby limiting generalizability.

METHODS

A nationwide sample of US women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 45 years completed a survey assessing the prevalence of fertility counseling. Age-adjusted log-binomial regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs for fertility counseling.

RESULTS

Among 432 survivors diagnosed between 2004 and 2011, 288 (67%) had not discussed the effects of treatment on fertility with a health care provider before or during treatment. Fertility discussion was associated with younger age (PR, 3.49 [95% CI, 2.66-4.58] for aged <35 years vs ≥40 years) and lower parity (PR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.29-2.53] for parity 1 vs 2). Approximately 20% of respondents reported that they were interested in future fertility (87 of 432 respondents) at the time of their diagnosis, but not all of these individuals (66 of 87 respondents) received counseling regarding the impact of treatment on their fertility, and few (8 of 87 respondents) used fertility preservation strategies. Among 68 women with a fertility interest who provided reasons for not taking steps to preserve fertility, reasons cited included concern for an adverse impact on cancer treatment (56%), lack of knowledge (26%), decision to not have a child (24%), and cost (18%).

CONCLUSIONS

Across multiple treatment settings, the majority of women of reproductive age who are diagnosed with breast cancer did not discuss fertility with a health care provider or use fertility preservation strategies. Discussing the potential impact of cancer treatment on future fertility is an important aspect of patient education.

Time from referral to ovarian tissue cryopreservation in a cohort of Danish women

INTRODUCTION

Young women with a cancer diagnosis often have very little time to decide whether or not to commence fertility-preserving strategies before initiating potentially sterilizing cancer treatment. Minimizing the interval from opting for fertility preservation to completion of the procedure will reduce the potential risk of delaying cancer treatment. In the current study, we have evaluated the period of time from referral to ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) to actual freezing of the tissue in a cohort of Danish women.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study population comprised 277 consecutive patients with both malignant and nonmalignant diseases referred for OTC from four centers in the Danish network. Statistical analysis was conducted to analyze the impact of age, diagnosis, and referring center on the time from OTC-referral to OTC. A literature search for "random start" protocols for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation in cancer patients was performed.

RESULTS

The time from OTC-referral to OTC was significantly influenced by diagnosis, age, and referring center. Women with malignant diseases other than breast cancer, such as sarcomas, pelvic cancers, and hematological cancers, experienced a significantly shorter interval to OTC (5 days) than women with breast cancer (7 days) and nonmalignant diseases including systemic, ovarian, and hereditary conditions (13-17.5 days). Women over the age of 30 years experienced a significantly longer time to OTC (P < 0.03), and the diagnosis determined the length of the interval (P < 0.001). According to the literature, fertility preservation by oocyte vitrification requires 13-14 days, as the average time for 1 round of COS was 11 days and oocyte collection can be performed 2 days later.

CONCLUSIONS

It is in the interest of both cancer patients and clinicians to perform fertility preservation as quickly and safely as possible. In a Danish setting, OTC provides a short interval of around 6 days from the patient choosing this option to completion of the procedure. This is considerably less time than what is needed to perform COS and oocyte vitrification, and therefore OTC might be considered the preferred choice of fertility preservation when urgency is needed.

Factors associated with treatment delay in women with primary breast cancer who were referred to reproductive specialists

Purpose

Cancer treatment delay due to fertility preservation procedures is a barrier for patients with breast cancer who wish to preserve their fertility. This study aimed to describe the associations between fertility preservation and treatment delay in patients with breast cancer with reproductive concerns and assess the factors related to treatment delay.

Methods

Patients with primary breast cancer who visited the reproductive unit at our institution before cancer treatment between 2007 and 2015 were enrolled. The treatment delay cut-off was defined as follows: time to chemotherapy (TTC) >8 weeks for patients intending to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, TTC >12 weeks for patients intending to receive adjuvant chemotherapy, time to endocrine therapy (TTE) >12 weeks for patients intending to receive endocrine therapy without radiation therapy and TTE >20 weeks for patients intending to receive endocrine therapy after radiation therapy. Multivariable models were constructed to examine the factors of treatment delay.

Results

Overall, 212 patients met the inclusion criteria. Using the defined cut-offs, treatment delay was noted in 18% of the patients. Endocrine therapy was related to treatment delay (OR 4.49, 95% CI 1.02 to 19.7; p=0.05), but fertility preservation by artificial reproductive treatment (ART) was not. Pregnancy and delivery following treatment for breast cancer were achieved in 18 (19%) and 15 (16%) patients who underwent fertility preservation with ART.

Conclusion

Fertility preservation with ART was not associated with treatment delay in patients with breast cancer who were referred to reproductive specialists before cancer treatment.

FERTILITY PRESERVATION IN YOUNG WOMEN WITH EARLY-STAGE BREAST CANCER

Although breast cancer (BC) occurs more often in older women, it is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in women of childbearing age. Owing to the overall advancement of modern medicine and the growing global trend of delaying childbirth until later age, we find ever more younger women diagnosed and treated for BC who have not yet completed their family. Therefore, fertility preservation has emerged as a very important quality of life issue for young BC survivors. This paper reviews currently available options for fertility preservation in young women with early-stage BC and highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to fertility preservation as a very important quality of life issue for young BC survivors. Pregnancy after BC treatment is considered not to be associated with an increased risk of BC recurrence; therefore, it should not be discouraged for those women who want to achieve pregnancy after oncologic treatment. Currently, it is recommended to delay pregnancy for at least 2 years after BC diagnosis, when the risk of recurrence is highest. However, BC patients of reproductive age should be informed about the potential negative effects of oncologic therapy on fertility, as well as on the fertility preservation options available, and if interested in fertility preservation, they should be promptly referred to a reproductive specialist. Early referral to a reproductive specialist is an important factor that increases the likelihood of successful fertility preservation. Embryo and mature oocyte cryopreservation are currently the only established fertility preservation methods but they require ovarian stimulation (OS), which delays initiation of chemotherapy for at least 2 weeks. Controlled OS does not seem to increase the risk of BC recurrence. Other fertility preservation methods (ovarian tissue cryopreservation, cryopreservation of immature oocytes and ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists) do not require OS but are still considered to be experimental techniques for fertility preservation.

Patterns of Referral for Fertility Preservation Among Female Adolescents and Young Adults with Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Study

Purpose: To assess the fertility preservation (FP) referral rates and patterns of newly diagnosed breast cancer in female adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients.

Methods: Women aged 15–39 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer in Ontario from 2000 to 2017 were identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry. Exclusion criteria included prior sterilizing procedure, health insurance ineligibility, and prior infertility or cancer diagnosis. Women with a gynecology consult between cancer diagnosis and chemotherapy commencement with the billed infertility diagnostic code (ICD-9 628) were used as a surrogate for FP referral. The effect of age, parity, year of cancer diagnosis, staging, income, region, neighborhood marginalization, and rurality on referral status was investigated.

Results: A total of 4452 patients aged 15–39 with newly diagnosed breast cancer met the inclusion criteria. Of these women, 178 (4.0%) were referred to a gynecologist with a billing code of infertility between cancer diagnosis and initiation of chemotherapy. Older patients, prior parity, and advanced disease were inversely correlated with referrals. Referral rates also varied regionally: patients treated in the south-east and south-west Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) had the highest probability of referral, and patients covered by north LHINs had the lowest (central LHIN as reference). General surgeons accounted for 36.5% of all referrals, the highest percentage of all specialists. Referral rates significantly increased over time from 0.4% in 2000 to 10.7% in 2016.

Conclusion: FP referral rates remain low and continue to be influenced by patient demographics and prognosis. These findings highlight the need for further interdisciplinary coordination in addressing the fertility concerns of AYA with newly diagnosed breast cancers.

Sexuality, fertility and pregnancy following breast cancer treatment

For women facing a new diagnosis of breast cancer, treatments can result in changes to intimate issues, including sexual health. For women of reproductive age, other significant concerns include the potential impact on fertility and the safety of pregnancy after treatment. These issues are important to acknowledge and to address, as they can impact on quality of life, not only for the patient, but may impact relationships, both present and future. In this paper we review sexual health after cancer, the importance of proactively addressing fertility, and important issues related to pregnancy following breast cancer.

Fertility preservation for patients with breast cancer: The Korean Society for Fertility Preservation clinical guidelines

With advances in the methods of cancer treatment used in modern medicine, the number of breast cancer survivors has been consistently rising. As the number of women who wish to become pregnant after being diagnosed with breast cancer increases, it is necessary to consider fertility preservation in these patients. However, medical doctors may be unaware of the importance of fertility preservation among cancer patients because most patients do not share their concerns about fertility with their doctors. Considering the time spent choosing and undergoing treatment, an early referral to a reproductive specialist is the best way to prevent a delay in cancer treatment. Since it is not easy to make decisions on matters related to cancer diagnosis and fertility, patients should be provided with enough time for decision-making, and to allow for this, an early referral will provide patients with sufficient time to choose an appropriate method of fertility preservation. The currently available options of fertility preservation for patients with breast cancer include cryopreservation of embryos, oocytes, and ovarian tissue and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment before and during chemotherapy. An appropriate method of fertility preservation must be selected through consultations between individual patients and health professionals and analyses of the pros and cons of different options.