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

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.

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.

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.

Disparities in Female Oncofertility Care in the United States: More Questions Than Answers

As cancer therapies continue to improve, the survival rates of adolescent and young adult patients have increased. Consequently, considering patient quality of life after cancer, including family building, has become an essential aspect of establishing a treatment plan. However, the gonadotoxic nature of many chemotherapeutic agents limits the option of using one's own gamete for family building. In recent years, significant advancements have been made in oncofertility, particularly vitrification of oocytes. Unfortunately, as with many areas of medicine, health disparities limit those that can access and utilize fertility preservation prior to cancer treatment. This review aims to shed light on existing disparities in oncofertility for female patients, to offer recommendations to enhance education, access, and advocacy, as well as identify potential areas for future research.

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.

Oocyte Quality Assessment in Breast Cancer: Implications for Fertility Preservation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of breast cancer on the ovarian response and on oocyte quality following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study evaluated the effects of breast cancer on the ovarian response and on the oocyte quality. Oncological patients with breast cancer undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation cycles for fertility preservation, and age- and date-matched controls undergoing COH for in vitro fertilization (IVF) for male or tubal factor infertility were included in the study. Two hundred and ninety-four women were enrolled: 105 affected by breast cancer and 189 healthy women in the control group. Both groups were comparable in terms of age, BMI, and AMH value. Maximal estradiol levels on the triggering day, duration of stimulation, total amount of gonadotropins administered, number of oocytes retrieved, rate of metaphase 2 oocyte production, and numbers of immature and dysmorphic oocytes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Considering factors influencing the oocyte quality, such as age, BMI, AMH, duration of stimulation, E2 level on the triggering day, total FSH cumulative dose, stage, histotype, BRCA status, and hormone receptors, the univariate and multivariate analyses identified breast cancer as a risk factor for the presence of dysmorphic oocytes.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of breast cancer does not seem to be associated with the impairment of the ovarian reserve, but is linked to a worsening oocyte quality.

Relapse Rates and Disease-Specific Mortality Following Procedures for Fertility Preservation at Time of Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Question

Is fertility preservation at time of breast cancer diagnosis associated with any increased risk of disease-specific relapse or mortality?

Findings

In this population-based Swedish nationwide cohort study that included 1275 women with breast cancer, fertility preservation at time of breast cancer diagnosis was not statistically significantly associated with any increased risk of disease-specific mortality or relapse.

Meaning

Findings of this study support the safety of fertility preservation in women with breast cancer, which is highly relevant for reproductive counseling of women with breast cancer diagnosed at a young age.

Importance

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common indication for fertility preservation (FP) in women of reproductive age. Procedures for FP often include hormonal stimulation, but current data are scarce regarding whether using hormonal stimulation for FP is associated with any deterioration in BC prognosis.

Objective

To investigate the risk of disease-specific mortality and relapse in women who underwent FP with or without hormonal stimulation compared with women who did not at time of BC diagnosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This Swedish nationwide prospective cohort study was conducted to assess the safety of hormonal and nonhormonal FP procedures indicated by BC in Sweden from January 1, 1994, through June 30, 2017. Women were identified from any of the regional FP programs located at Swedish university hospitals. A total of 425 women were found to have undergone FP, and 850 population comparators who had not undergone FP were sampled from regional BC registers and matched on age, calendar period of diagnosis, and region. Relapse-free survival was assessed in a subcohort of 241 women who underwent FP and 482 women who had not, with complete data. Nationwide demographic and health care registers provided data on outcome, disease- and treatment-related variables, and socioeconomic characteristics. Data analyses were performed between November 2021 and March 2022 and completed in June 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Relapse and disease-specific mortality after a diagnosis of BC.

Results

The final study population included 1275 women (mean [SD] age, 32.9 [3.8] years) at the time of BC diagnosis. After stratification by the matching variables age, calendar period, and region, and adjustment for country of birth, education, parity at diagnosis, tumor size, number of lymph node metastases, and estrogen receptor status, disease-specific mortality was similar in women who underwent hormonal FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.32-1.09), women who underwent nonhormonal FP (aHR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20-1.29), and women who were not exposed to FP (reference). In a subcohort with detailed data on relapse, adjusted rate of disease-specific mortality and relapse were also similar among the groups who underwent hormonal FP (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.49-1.37), underwent nonhormonal FP (aHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.62), and were not exposed to FP (reference).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, FP with or without hormonal stimulation was not associated with any increased risk of relapse or disease-specific mortality in women with BC. Results of this study provide much needed additional evidence on the safety of FP procedures in women with BC and may influence current health care practice to the benefit of young women with BC who wish to preserve their fertility.

Fertility preservation in patients of childbearing age treated for breast cancer: A nationwide cohort study

Background

Approximately 7% of breast cancers are diagnosed in women under 40. Question of subsequent fertility has become fundamental. We aimed to evaluate the rate of fertility preservation (FP) by oocyte retrieval (OR) after ovarian stimulation in patients of childbearing age, managed for breast cancer with adjuvant chemotherapy in France, reuse rate of frozen gametes and live births rate (LBR) after treatment.

Methods

We included 15,774 women between 18 and 40 years old, managed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, between January 2011 and December 2020 from a French health registry. Patients with OR after breast surgery and before chemotherapy were considered as FP group; those with no OR as no FP group. To compare LBR with French population independently of age, we calculated Standardized Incidence Rates (SIR) of live births using indirect standardization method.

Results

FP rate increased gradually since 2011, reaching 17% in 2019. A decrease in use was observed in 2020 (13,9%). Among patients with at least 2 years of follow-up, gamete reuse rate was 5,6%. Births after cancer were mostly from spontaneous pregnancies. Among patients with at least 3 years of follow-up, LBR was 19,6% in FP group, 3,9% in second group. SIR of live births was of 1,05 (95% CI = 0.91–1.19) and 0.33 (95% CI = 0.30–0.36) in FP and no FP group respectively.

Conclusion

Oncofertility activity increased until 2019 in France, reaching 17%. Gamete reuse rate was low. Births resulted mainly from spontaneous pregnancies. SIR of live births was lower in no FP group.

•

Fertility preservation rate increased gradually since 2011, reaching 17% in 2019.

•

Among patients with at least 2 years of follow-up, gamete reuse rate was 5,6%.

•

Births after breast cancer were mostly from spontaneous pregnancies.

•

Life births rate was 19,6% in fertility preservation group, 3,9% in second group.

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.

Effect of letrozole on follicular fluid steroids concentrations in cancer patients undergoing oocytes cryopreservation

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of letrozole administration on follicular steroid hormones during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for fertility preservation.

METHODS

One hundred and nineteen women with cancer undergoing oocytes retrieval for fertility preservation were recruited. All women underwent ovarian hyperstimulation according to a random start protocol. Those with hormone-sensitive tumors also received letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor aimed at keeping peripheral estrogen levels low. At the time of oocytes retrieval, a sample of follicular fluid was collected and frozen. All samples were assayed concomitantly after thawing, by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. The concentration of 15 steroid hormones was determined and results were compared between women who did and did not receive letrozole.

RESULTS

Fifty-two women were treated with letrozole, while 67 were not. Statistically significant differences emerged for 12 of the 15 tested steroids. They were the following: cortisol, 11-deoxycortisol, 21-deoxycortisol, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), estradiol, androstenedione, testosterone, dihydrotestosterone (DHT), 17-hydroxyprogesterone, progesterone and corticosterone. The most striking differences were observed for testosterone that showed a more than 200-time increase in women receiving letrozole. Estradiol was conversely reduced to a third.

CONCLUSIONS

The endocrine microenvironment surrounding oocytes is markedly perturbed by the concomitant assumption of letrozole. Robust clinical evaluation is pressingly needed to rule out any detrimental effect on the chance of live birth with the use of these oocytes.

Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised

Purpose: Throughout COVID-19, our clinic remained operational for patients requiring urgent fertility preservation (FP). This study aimed to characterize changes to clinical protocols during the first wave of COVID-19 and compare outcomes to historical controls.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a university fertility center examining all patients who underwent medically indicated FP cycles during the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) COVID-19 Task Force-recommended suspension of fertility treatment (March 17–May 11, 2020) and patients from the same time period in 2019. FP care was modified for safety during the first wave of COVID-19 with fewer monitoring visits and infection control measures. FP cycle characteristics and outcomes were compared across years.

Results: The volume of cycles was nearly 30% higher in 2020 versus 2019 (27 vs. 19). Diagnoses, age, and anti-Mullerian hormone were similar between cohorts. More patients elected to pursue embryo cryopreservation over oocyte cryopreservation in 2020 versus 2019 (45.8% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.005). Patients managed during COVID-19 had fewer monitoring visits (5 ± 1 vs. 6 ± 1, p = 0.02), and 37.5% of cycles utilized a blind trigger injection. There was no difference in total days of ovarian stimulation (11 ± 1 vs. 11 ± 2, p > 0.05), but 2020 cycles utilized more gonadotropin (4770 ± 1480 vs. 3846 ± 1438, p = 0.04). There was no difference in total oocytes retrieved (19 ± 14 vs. 22 ± 12, p > 0.05) or mature oocytes vitrified (15 ± 12 vs. 17 ± 9, p > 0.05) per cycle.

Conclusions: FP continued during COVID-19, and more cycles were completed in 2020 versus 2019. Despite minimized monitoring, outcomes were optimal and equivalent to historical controls, suggesting FP care can be adapted without compromising outcomes.

Female Oncofertility: Current Understandings, Therapeutic Approaches, Controversies, and Future Perspectives

Recent advances in early detection and oncological therapies have ameliorated the survival rate of young cancer patients. Yet, ovarian impairment induced by chemotherapy and radiotherapy is still a challenging issue. This review, based on clinical and lab-based studies, summarizes the evidence of gonadotoxicity of chemoradiotherapy, the recent approaches, ongoing controversies, and future perspectives of fertility preservation (FP) in female patients who have experienced chemo- or radio-therapy. Existing data indicate that chemotherapeutic agents induce DNA alterations and massive follicle activation via the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt signaling pathway. Meanwhile, the radiation causes ionizing damage, leading to germ cell loss. In addition to the well-established methods, numerous therapeutic approaches have been suggested, including minimizing the follicle loss in cryopreserved ovarian grafts after transplantation, in vitro activation or in vitro growing of follicles, artificial ovarian development, or fertoprotective adjuvant to prevent ovarian damage from chemotherapy. Some reports have revealed positive outcomes from these therapies, whereas others have demonstrated conflictions. Future perspectives are improving the live birth rate of FP, especially in patients with adverse ovarian reserve, eliminating the risk of malignancy reintroducing, and increasing society’s awareness of FP importance.

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.