Embryo banking among women diagnosed with cancer: a pilot population-based study in New York, Texas, and Illinois

Female fertility preservation for family planning: a position statement of the Italian Society of Fertility and Sterility and Reproductive Medicine (SIFES-MR)

PURPOSE

This position statement by the Italian Society of Fertility and Sterility and Reproductive Medicine (SIFES-MR) aims to establish an optimal framework for fertility preservation outside the standard before oncological therapies. Key topics include the role of fertility units in comprehensive fertility assessment, factors impacting ovarian potential, available preservation methods, and appropriate criteria for offering such interventions.

METHODS

The SIFES-MR writing group comprises Italian reproductive physicians, embryologists, and scientists. The consensus emerged after a six-month period of meetings, including extensive literature review, dialogue among authors and input from society members. Final approval was granted by the SIFES-MR governing council.

RESULTS

Fertility counselling transitions from urgent to long-term care, emphasizing family planning. Age, along with ovarian reserve markers, is the primary predictor of female fertility. Various factors, including gynecological conditions, autoimmune disorders, and prior gonadotoxic therapies, may impact ovarian reserve. Oocyte cryopreservation should be the preferred method. Women 30-34 years old and 35-39 years old, without known pathologies impacting the ovarian reserve, should cryopreserve at least 12-13 and 15-20 oocytes to achieve the same chance of a spontaneous live birth they would have if they tried to conceive at the age of cryopreservation (63% and 52%, respectively in the two age groups).

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal fertility counselling necessitates a long-term approach, that nurtures an understanding of fertility, facilitates timely evaluation of factors that may affect fertility, and explores fertility preservation choices at opportune intervals.

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.

Outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in women with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

What are the associations between a history of cancer and outcomes after ART?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Compared to women without cancer, on average, women with cancer had a lower return for embryo transfer and a lower likelihood of clinical pregnancy and live birth after ART.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Small, single-institution studies have suggested that cancer and its treatment may negatively affect ART outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing ART outcomes between women with and without cancer. PubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched for original, English-language studies published up to June 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Inclusion criteria required reporting of ART outcomes after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) among women with a history of cancer compared to women without cancer who used ART for any indication. Outcomes of interest ranged from duration of COS to likelihood of live birth after embryo transfer. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs and 95% prediction intervals (PIs). We assessed heterogeneity by age-adjustment, referent group indication for ART, study location and among women with breast cancer and women who initiated ART before cancer treatment. We used visual inspection, Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method to assess funnel plot asymmetry.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Of 6094 unique records identified, 42 studies met inclusion criteria, representing a median per study of 58 women with cancer (interquartile range (IQR) = 159) and 114 women without cancer (IQR = 348). Compared to women without cancer, on average, women with cancer had a lower return for embryo transfer (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.74; 95% PI: 0.00, 64.98); lower likelihood of clinical pregnancy (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.73; 95% PI: 0.19, 1.35); and lower likelihood of live birth (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.83; 95% PI: 0.19, 1.69). Substantial among-study heterogeneity was observed for COS duration, gonadotropin dose, cycle cancellation, total oocytes and mature oocytes. Fertilization percentage showed less heterogeneity, but study-specific estimates were imprecise. Similarly, number of embryos showed less heterogeneity, and most studies estimated minimal differences by cancer history. Funnel plot asymmetry was observed for estradiol peak and oocyte maturation percentage.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Appreciable confounding is possible in 11 studies that lacked adequate control for group differences in age, and among-study heterogeneity was observed for most outcomes. Lack of data limited our ability to assess how cancer clinical factors (e.g. cancers other than breast, cancer stage and treatment) and ART cycle characteristics (e.g. fresh versus frozen embryo transfers and use of gestational carriers) may affect outcomes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Women with cancer may be less likely to achieve pregnancy and live birth after embryo transfer. Further examination of reproductive outcomes and sources of heterogeneity among studies is warranted to improve evidence of the expected success of ART after a cancer diagnosis.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported in part by R01 CA211093 and P30 ES010126. C.M. was supported by the University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Control Education Program (T32 CA057726) and the National Cancer Institute (F31 CA260787). J.A.R.-H. was supported by the National Cancer Institute (K08 CA234333, P30 CA016672). J.A.R.-H. reports receiving consulting fees from Schlesinger Group and Guidepoint. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

What should be done in terms of fertility preservation for patients with cancer? The French 2021 guidelines

AIM

To provide practice guidelines about fertility preservation (FP) in oncology.

METHODS

We selected 400 articles after a PubMed review of the literature (1987-2019).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Any child, adolescent and adult of reproductive age should be informed about the risk of treatment gonadotoxicity. In women, systematically proposed FP counselling between 15 and 38 years of age in case of treatment including bifunctional alkylating agents, above 6 g/m2 cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED), and for radiation doses on the ovaries ≥3 Gy. For postmenarchal patients, oocyte cryopreservation after ovarian stimulation is the first-line FP technique. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be discussed as a first-line approach in case of treatment with a high gonadotoxic risk, when chemotherapy has already started and in urgent cases. Ovarian transposition is to be discussed prior to pelvic radiotherapy involving a high risk of premature ovarian failure. For prepubertal girls, ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be proposed in the case of treatment with a high gonadotoxic risk. In pubertal males, sperm cryopreservation must be systematically offered to any male who is to undergo cancer treatment, regardless of toxicity. Testicular tissue cryopreservation must be proposed in males unable to cryopreserve sperm who are to undergo a treatment with intermediate or severe risk of gonadotoxicity. In prepubertal boys, testicular tissue preservation is: - recommended for chemotherapy with a CED ≥7500 mg/m2 or radiotherapy ≥3 Gy on both testicles. - proposed for chemotherapy with a CED ≥5.000 mg/m2 or radiotherapy ≥2 Gy. If several possible strategies, the ultimate choice is made by the patient.

Contraception in cancer survivors: insights from oncofertility follow-up visits

OBJECTIVE

Current literature suggests that cancer survivors are less likely to receive adequate contraception counseling. However, limited data existed on barriers to contraception usage in this population and on the efficacy of dedicated consultations. This study aims to describe how contraception is perceived by cancer survivors after counseling and acceptance rates of highly effective contraceptives.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical records from 313 consecutive cancer survivors at their first follow-up visit at the Oncofertility Unit of a tertiary hospital, from 2014 to 2019. Contraception acceptance and choice were examined stratified for the type of malignancy (hormone-sensible or not). A multivariate logistic regression model was used to evaluate possible predictors of acceptance.

RESULTS

Thity-three women were excluded from the analysis because trying to conceive or already pregnant. Out of the remaining 280, only 9 (3.2%) asked spontaneously for contraception, in all the other visits the issue was brought up by the physician. After counseling 44.3% of the women without contraindications still opted out effective methods for fear of hormones or refusal of more medications. Age < 33 years and being in a relationship were correlated with acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

Even after a complete counseling in a dedicated service, fears of hormones and refusal of more medications remain strong issues for these patients. Family planning needs to be discussed with cancer survivors, preferably in the context of a long-term healthcare relationship. The Oncofertility Unit should become a privileged place for this type of counseling.

Beyond fertility preservation: role of the oncofertility unit in the reproductive and gynecological follow-up of young cancer patients

STUDY QUESTION

Are there reasons that motivate young cancer survivors to ask for follow-up visits at an oncofertility unit?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Cancer survivors request oncofertility follow-up visits for the management of treatment-related side effects or ovarian reserve evaluation, even if not (or not yet) wishing for a pregnancy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Personalised oncofertility counselling before gonadotoxic therapies is considered standard of care for young women with newly diagnosed cancer. However, the long-term follow-up of these patients in an oncofertility unit is not described in the literature other than for the use of cryopreserved material.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We retrospectively examined rates and reasons for the first follow-up visits of 154 consecutive young female cancer patients (age range: 18-40 years) who underwent a pre-treatment consultation between January 2012 and June 2017. Demographic and clinical data were collected, as well as information about the chosen fertility preservation method, if any.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Rates and reasons for follow-up visits were collected and expressed as percentages. Different reasons were examined in the whole cohort and stratified for type of malignancy. Possible predictive factors for return to the follow-up visit (age, nulliparity, presence of a partner, neoplasm, having cryopreserved material) were investigated through logistic regression.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Out of 154 patients, 74 returned to the oncofertility unit (48.1%) for a follow-up visit. The first visit was requested mostly at the end of anticancer therapies (51.3% versus 40.5% during therapies and 8.1% after cancer relapse). Among these patients, only 10.8% returned for the first time because they were actively desiring a pregnancy. For the others, the most common reasons for consultations were management of gynecological adverse effects of therapies (29.7%) and evaluation of ovarian reserve not linked to an immediate desire for a pregnancy (39.2%). Other patients asked for contraception (4.1%), menopause counselling (5.4%), or new fertility preservation counselling because of cancer relapse (10.8%). None of the examined factors were significantly predictive of return to the oncofertility unit.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

These findings represent the experience of a single centre. A longer duration of follow-up would be needed to provide more precise information on this regard.

WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS

The role of an oncofertility unit should not be limited to proposing fertility preservation procedures. In the management of young adult cancer patients, the reproductive medical specialist should be considered a key figure not only before but also during and after anticancer treatments to explore salient aspects of gynecological and reproductive health.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research did not receive any specific funding. M.L. served as a consultant for Teva and received honoraria from Theramex outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N.A.