Treatment of infertility does not increase the risk of ovarian cancer among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation

Fertility Preservation in BRCA1/2 Germline Mutation Carriers: An Overview

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are responsible for a higher incidence of breast and ovarian cancer (from 55% up to 70% vs. 12% in the general population). If their functions have been widely investigated in the onset of these malignancies, still little is known about their role in fertility impairment. Cancer patients treated with antineoplastic drugs can be susceptible to their gonadotoxicity and, in women, some of them can induce apoptotic program in premature ovarian follicles, progressive depletion of ovarian reserve and, consequently, cancer treatment-related infertility (CTRI). BRCA variants seem to be associated with early infertility, thus accelerating treatment impairment of ovaries and making women face the concrete possibility of an early pregnancy. In this regard, fertility preservation (FP) procedures should be discussed in oncofertility counseling-from the first line of prevention with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) to the new experimental ovarian stem cells (OSCs) model as a new way to obtain in vitro-differentiated oocytes, several techniques may represent a valid option to BRCA-mutated patients. In this review, we revisit knowledge about BRCA involvement in lower fertility, pregnancy feasibility, and the fertility preservation (FP) options available.

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.

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

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

Ovulation induction drug and ovarian cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the association between ovulation induction drugs and ovarian cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Women without ovarian cancer who ever or never underwent ovarian induction.

INTERVENTION(S)

An extensive electronic search of the following databases was performed: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and CNKI, from inception until January 2022. A total of 34 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) and random-effects model were used to estimate the pooled effects. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. Funnel plots and Egger tests were used to assess publication bias.

MAIN OUTCOMES

New diagnosed borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) and invasive ovarian cancer (IOC) between ovulation induction (OI) group and control (CT) group considering fertility outcome, OI cycles and specific OI drugs.

RESULTS

Primarily, there was no significant difference in the incidence of IOC and BOT between the OI and CT groups. Secondly, OI treatment did not increase the risk of IOC and BOT in the multiparous women, nor did it increase the risk of IOC in the nulliparous women. However, the risk of BOT appeared to be higher in nulliparous women treated with OI treatment. Thirdly, among women exposed to OI, the risk of IOC and BOT was higher in nulliparous women than in multiparous women. Fourthly, the risk of IOC did not increase with increasing OI cycles. Lastly, exposure to specific OI drugs also did not contribute to the risk of IOC and BOT.

CONCLUSION

Overall, OI treatment did not increase the risk of IOC and BOT in most women, regardless of OI drug type and OI cycle. However, nulliparous women treated with OI showed a higher risk of ovarian cancer, necessitating their rigorous monitoring and ongoing follow-up.

Should Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT) Systematically Be Proposed to BRCA Pathogenic Variant Carriers?

Over the past years, BRCA genes pathogenic variants have been associated to reproductive issues. Indeed, evidence indicate that BRCA-mutated patients are not only at higher risk of developing malignancies, but may also present a reduction of the follicular stockpile. Given these characteristics, BRCA patients may be candidates to fertility preservation (FP) techniques or preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) to avoid the transmission of this inherited situation. Since the success rates of both procedures are highly related to the number of oocytes that could be recovered after ovarian stimulation, predicted by ovarian reserve tests, they are ideally performed before the diagnosis of cancer and its treatment. Despite the specific reproductive challenges related to BRCA status, no international guidelines for the application of PGT and FP in this subgroup of patients is currently available. The present article aims to review the available data regarding BRCA carriers' ovarian reserve and PGT success rates in oncologic and non-oncologic contexts, to determine the actual indication of PGT and further to improve patients' care pathway.

Controversies and Open Questions in Management of Cancer-Free Carriers of Germline Pathogenic Variants in BRCA1/BRCA2

Females harboring germline BRCA1/BRCA2 (BRCA) P/LPV are offered a tight surveillance scheme from the age of 25−30 years, aimed at early detection of specific cancer types, in addition to risk-reducing strategies. Multiple national and international surveillance guidelines have been published and updated over the last two decades from geographically diverse countries. We searched for guidelines published between 1 January 2015 and 1 May 2022. Differences between guidelines on issues such as primary prevention, mammography screening in young (<30 years) carriers, MRI screening in carriers above age 65 years, breast imaging (if any) after risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, during pregnancy, and breastfeeding, and hormone-replacement therapy, are just a few notable examples. Beyond formal guidelines, BRCA carriers’ concerns also focus on the timing of risk-reducing surgeries, fertility preservation, management of menopausal symptoms in cancer survivors, and pancreatic cancer surveillance, issues that, for some, there are no data to support evidence-based recommendations. This review discusses these unsettled issues, emphasizing the importance of future studies to enable global guideline harmonization for optimal surveillance strategies. Moreover, it raises the unmet need for personalized risk stratification and surveillance in BRCA P/LPV carriers.

Management Strategies of Breast Cancer Patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Germline Variants

Most of breast cancer cases are sporadic; however, 15–20% are associated with family history, and some are inherited. Among those, deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumor suppressor genes are the most commonly encountered pathogenic germline variants (PGVs). Given the availability and affordability of multi-gene panel sequencing technologies, testing for PGVs is commonly practiced. With our enhanced understanding of cancer genetics and specific molecular alterations, the better acceptance of risk-directed screening and prevention, and the recent introduction of novel targeted therapies, management of BRCA-positive breast cancers is taking a new direction, focusing more on risk-reducing interventions, including mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy, and incorporating special treatment regimens, including platinum-based chemotherapy, and the recently-introduced PARP (poly (ADP)-ribose polymerase) inhibitors. Given the recent advances in reproductive technology and molecular medicine, younger women with PGVs may have the option of embryo selection through preimplantation genetic testing and diagnosis, thus preventing the potential transmission of the implicated genes to the next generations. In this review, we cover the clinical implications of identifying a pathogenic germline mutation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer patients, and their relatives, across the continuum of care – from cancer prevention and early detection, through active treatment and up to survivorship issues.

BRCA1/2 pathogenetic variant carriers and reproductive decisions: Gender differences and factors associated with the choice of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and prenatal diagnosis (PND)

Purpose

To investigate the way carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenetic variant make their reproductive decisions and to examine the factors associated with the choice of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and prenatal diagnosis (PND).

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method.

Results

A total of 16 articles published from 2000 to 2021 were included in this review. Data were overall collected from 3564 participants (86% females). Three important themes were identified across studies: changes in family planning, factors associated with family plans, and with acceptance or regret of PGD and PND.

Conclusion

This review may contribute to the knowledge of the experience of those who have a BRCA1/2 mutation and want a child. These results may help genetic counselors and healthcare professionals that support people with a BRCA pathogenetic variant with reproductive issues.

Carcinogenic Potential Of Ovulation Stimulation In BRCA1/2 Gene Mutation Carriers In Assisted Reproductive Technology Programs

Mutations of the BRCA1/2 genes constitute a fundamental and independent risk factor in the genesis of both breast cancer and ovarian cancer. The specifics of the infertility treatment effect on the risk of developing cancer in carriers of mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes remain unclear and require a comprehensive investigation. In this review, we analyzed published sources on the possible relationship between the infertility treatment and the risk of ovarian and breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Subfertility, use of fertility treatments and BRCA mutation status and the risk of ovarian cancer

PURPOSE

The objective of the study is to evaluate the possible association between history of subfertility, fertility treatments, BRCA mutations and the risk of ovarian cancer.

METHODS

This Israeli National Case-Control study included 1269 consecutive ovarian cancer cases and 2111 individually matched healthy controls. All participants were interviewed and molecular analysis of BRCA mutations were performed to 896 cases. The main outcome measure was reported history of subfertility and exposure to fertility treatments.

RESULTS

The rate of reported subfertility was 15.1% and 14.3% in ovarian cancer cases and controls, respectively. However, subfertility was more prevalent in cases with borderline ovarian cancer (but not for invasive ovarian cancer cases) than controls. Multivariate conditional logistic regression revealed that the risk of borderline ovarian cancer was elevated in both women treated for subfertility and those that were not treated for subfertility, (OR = 1.74; 95% CI 0.9-3.36 and OR = 1.79; 95% CI 0.98-3.26, respectively). In non-carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, fertility treatments were associated with a decreased risk of invasive ovarian cancer while a significant increased risk of borderline ovarian cancer was observed (OR = 2.92, 95%CI 1.67-5.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Reported subfertility and exposure to fertility treatments were associated with borderline but not with invasive ovarian tumors. This association was more prominent in women who are non-carriers of a BRCA mutation.

Controversies in Hereditary Cancer Management

Personalized management of patients at risk ideally should involve a multidisciplinary team of not only genetic counselors and surgeons, but also women's health or menopause specialists, knowledgeable psychologists, and primary care providers or obstetrician-gynecologists aware of the risks and fears "previvors" (survivors of a predisposition to cancer who have not had the disease) face as well as the issues that are common postoperatively. Identification of patients at risk for hereditary cancer, understanding of current genetic testing modalities and potential results, knowledge about screening and prevention including timing of surveillance, preventive medication and risk-reducing surgeries, understanding limitations and comorbidities associated with these risk management strategies and long-term psychological support are all important in hereditary cancer management. We describe issues surrounding the identification of the high-risk patient, universal testing in breast and ovarian cancer, and testing in special populations. We describe a simplified approach to understanding and communicating genetic testing results and nuances of testing including direct-to-consumer testing. We highlight concerns surrounding breast cancer screening during pregnancy and lactation. A framework for practical management and counseling of women who opt for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or risk-reducing mastectomy or both is provided. We provide an in-depth discussion of questions that arise in relation to timing of surgery, fertility preservation, management of menopausal symptoms, and surgical technique. Alternative choices in women who choose to delay bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy are reviewed. Finally, the psychosocial effects of carrying a genetic mutation and the issues that women face when undergoing to risk-reducing surgery including adjustment, sexuality issues, and cosmesis are addressed.

A Potential Pathogenic Link Between Cancer of Female Reproductive System and Infertile Women Treated With Assisted Reproduction Techniques

Prevention and treatment of infertility remains a priority for developed countries where a large proportion of women undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF) after ovarian stimulation. Latest data suggest that, in the USA alone, almost eight million women of fertile age will have sought medical advice for fertility problems by 2025. However, over the last years, attention has been increasingly focused, and questions have risen, on the long-term health effects in women who underwent assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). Since the emergence of ART, reports highlight a possible connection of ovarian stimulation and several types of gynaecological cancer, including ovarian, endometrial and cervical types, but due to limited scientific evidence, such a speculation is still under investigation. The objective of this review is to summarize the latest data of ovarian hyperstimulation and IVF, associated with the risk of gynecological tract cancer development.

Mechanisms of High-Grade Serous Carcinogenesis in the Fallopian Tube and Ovary: Current Hypotheses, Etiologic Factors, and Molecular Alterations

Ovarian high-grade serous carcinomas (HGSCs) are a heterogeneous group of diseases. They include fallopian-tube-epithelium (FTE)-derived and ovarian-surface-epithelium (OSE)-derived tumors. The risk/protective factors suggest that the etiology of HGSCs is multifactorial. Inflammation caused by ovulation and retrograde bleeding may play a major role. HGSCs are among the most genetically altered cancers, and TP53 mutations are ubiquitous. Key driving events other than TP53 mutations include homologous recombination (HR) deficiency, such as BRCA 1/2 dysfunction, and activation of the CCNE1 pathway. HR deficiency and the CCNE1 amplification appear to be mutually exclusive. Intratumor heterogeneity resulting from genomic instability can be observed at the early stage of tumorigenesis. In this review, I discuss current carcinogenic hypotheses, sites of origin, etiologic factors, and molecular alterations of HGSCs.

Fertility preservation in patients with BRCA mutations or Lynch syndrome

Guidelines and expert consensus are lacking on fertility preservation in BRCA mutation carriers and in patients with Lynch syndrome. The safety of fertility preservation in this setting is still a topic of debate and multiple factors need to be carefully considered. The aim of this review was to analyze the reproductive potential of women harboring a genetic mutation affecting the DNA repair system and explore the efficacy and safety of existing fertility preservation strategies in these patients.

Fertility preservation for genetic diseases leading to premature ovarian insufficiency (POI)

PURPOSE

The current review aims to summarize the data available concerning the applicability of fertility preservation techniques to genetic conditions at risk of premature ovarian insufficiency (POI).

METHODS

A literature review through the PubMed Database was carried out.

RESULTS

About 10% of cases of POI is related to genetic diseases. The most frequent conditions associated with POI are Turner syndrome and fragile X pre-mutation; mutation of BRCA 1-2 genes and several other mutations and genetic syndromes have recently been highlighted, although they rarely occur. If a diagnosis is issued before POI onset, counseling on currently available fertility preservation techniques is advisable. In case of spontaneous menarche (this can occur variably depending on the mutation) established techniques like embryo or oocyte cryopreservation can be proposed, even if, in some cases, their effectiveness may be reduced by ovarian alterations connected to the mutation. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation has recently been defined as an established medical procedure for fertility preservation in young cancer patients and may be an option for prepubertal patients. However, it is still experimental in special populations with genetic diseases causing POI. New innovative experimental techniques, like in vitro maturation of immature oocytes (IVM) and vitro activation (IVA) of immature follicles on ovarian tissue, have shown limited but encouraging data and they will be probably available in the near future. For a correct risk-benefit evaluation, the following aspects should be considered: actual knowledge about the pathology-specific efficacy of the various techniques, the average age of onset of POI, the possible risks associated with the procedure in relation to the underlying pathology, the probability of spontaneous conception, as well as the health implications of a possible future pregnancy..

CONCLUSIONS

Fertility preservation techniques represent a crucial opportunity for patients with genetic risk of POI. Early diagnosis increases the chances to apply these techniques. No specific recommendations concerning fertility preservation for each genetic pathology are available, and clinicians should first counsel the patient and her relatives about known risks and benefits of the available techniques, both those established and those considered as experimental.

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.

Fertility in BRCA mutation carriers: counseling BRCA-mutated patients on reproductive issues

Objectives Genetic testing rates for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have steadily increased during the past decades resulting in a growing population of young and healthy mutation carriers. Available data on fertility issues in BRCA mutation carriers is rising but the results remain to some extent still conflicting. We have performed a systematic literature review in order to get an overview concerning the current evidence on fertility issues in BRCA mutation carriers. Data were analyzed critically with the aim to deliver physicians a solid basis for (onco) fertility counseling in women with BRCA mutations. Content We present the latest data on cancer risks in women with HBOC and analyze the influence of cancer treatment and preventive surgery on the reproductive potential. Epidemiological studies on fertility issues in BRCA mutation carriers showed heterogeneous results. However, several authors showed a decreased ovarian reserve with lower Anti-Müllerien hormone (AMH) levels and poorer response to ovarian stimulation in BRCA positive women. The diagnosis of BRCA mutations influences reproductive decision-making. Additionally, the shortened reproductive window and the need to complete family planning early has a significant psychological impact. Summary and Outlook This article highlights the importance of fertility counseling in BRCA mutation carriers. Individual fertility counseling is mandatory. Fertility preservation strategies should be discussed.

Breastfeeding and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation

OBJECTIVE

BRCA mutation carriers face a high lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer. The strong inverse association between breastfeeding and the risk of ovarian cancer is established in the general population but is less well studied among women with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

METHOD

Thus, we conducted a matched case-control analysis to evaluate the association between breastfeeding history and the risk of developing ovarian cancer. After matching for year of birth, country of residence, BRCA gene and personal history of breast cancer, a total of 1650 cases and 2702 controls were included in the analysis. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) associated with various breastfeeding exposures.

RESULTS

A history of ever-breastfeeding was associated with a 23% reduction in risk (OR = 0.77; 95%CI 0.66-0.90; P = 0.001). The protective effect increased with breastfeeding from one month to seven months after which the association was relatively stable. Compared to women who never breastfed, breastfeeding for seven or more months was associated with a 32% reduction in risk (OR = 0.68; 95%CI 0.57-0.81; P < 0.0001) and did not vary by BRCA gene or age at diagnosis. The combination of breastfeeding and oral contraceptive use was strongly protective (0.47; 95%CI 0.37-0.58; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support a protective effect of breastfeeding for at least seven months among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, that is independent of oral contraceptive use.

Use of fertility treatments in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and risk for ovarian and breast cancer: a systematic review

Purpose

Mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 represent a significant risk factor for ovarian and breast cancer. With increasing number and success rates, fertility protection and treatment are gaining importance also for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. However, the effect on primary cancer risk and risk for recurrence remains unclear. This review analyses the published data on fertility treatment and risk of ovarian and breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Methods

In this review, we included all relevant articles published in English from 1995 to 2018. Literature was identified through a search on PubMed and Cochrane Library.

Results

We identified one retrospective cohort and one case–control study regarding the association of fertility treatments and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers. The studies show no increase in ovarian cancer risk. Furthermore, one case–control study on the association between fertility treatment and breast cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers and one prospective cohort study on the long-term safety of medication used for fertility preservation in women with a history of breast cancer were identified. One of the studies shows a possible adverse effect for gonadotropin-containing medication.

Conclusion

Possible increases in cancer risk associated with fertility treatments in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers cannot be excluded at this time. Based on the existing studies, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers should not be generally excluded from fertility treatments. However, they have to be informed about limited data and possible increases in cancer risk.

Fertility preservation in patients with BRCA mutation

Evidence suggests a likely negative impact of deleterious BRCA mutations on female fertility. Hence, different studies have aimed to address the reproductive potential and performance of fertility preservation strategies in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients with a prime focus on their safety and efficacy. However, several uncertainties exist in many domains of this field. The aim of the current paper is to overview the reproductive potential and fertility preservation options in breast and ovarian cancer patients harbouring a BRCA mutation. We also discuss pre-implantation genetic testing in an attempt to help physicians during oncofertility counselling of these patients.

Use of oral contraceptives in BRCA mutation carriers and risk for ovarian and breast cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

BRCA mutation carriers have an increased risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer. Oral contraception (OC) is known to increase breast cancer and reduce ovarian cancer risk in the general population. This review analyses the published data on OC and risk of cancer in BRCA mutation carriers.

METHODS

We included all relevant articles published in English from 1995 to 2018. Literature was identified through a search on PubMed and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

We included four meta-analyses, one review, one case-control study and one retrospective cohort study on the association between ovarian cancer and OC in BRCA mutation carriers. All report a risk reduction for the OC users and several also describe an inverse correlation with duration of use. Regarding breast cancer, we included four meta-analyses, one review, one case-control study, two case-only studies, one prospective and one retrospective cohort study. Some studies report a risk elevation, while others did not find an association between OC use and breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. In other studies, the association was limited to early-onset breast cancer and/or associated with young age at first start of OC.

CONCLUSION

Oral contraception leads to a risk reduction of ovarian cancer also in BRCA mutation carriers. An increase in breast cancer risk due to OC cannot be excluded. Women with BRCA mutation who consider OC use have to be informed about possible increase in breast cancer risk and alternative contraceptive methods. OC should not be used for the prevention of ovarian cancer in this population.

Reproductive and hormonal considerations in women at increased risk for hereditary gynecologic cancers: Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Society for Reproductive Medicine Evidence-Based Review

Providers who care for women at risk for hereditary gynecologic cancers must consider the impact of these conditions on reproductive and hormonal health. This document reviews potential options for cancer prevention, family building, genetic testing and management of surgical menopause in this patient population.

Risk of ovarian cancer in women treated with ovarian stimulating drugs for infertility

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Library in 2013 (Issue 8) on the risk of ovarian cancer in women using infertility drugs when compared to the general population or to infertile women not treated. The link between fertility drugs and ovarian cancer remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the risk of invasive ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumours in women treated with ovarian stimulating drugs for subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

The original review included published and unpublished observational studies from 1990 to February 2013. For this update, we extended the searches from February 2013 to November 2018; we evaluated the quality of the included studies and judged the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. We have reported the results in a Summary of findings table to present effect sizes across all outcome types.

SELECTION CRITERIA

In the original review and in this update, we searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies and case series including more than 30 participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and 'Risk of bias' assessments and extracted data. We grouped studies based on the fertility drug used for two outcomes: borderline ovarian tumours and invasive ovarian cancer. We conducted no meta-analyses due to expected methodological and clinical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 case-control and 24 cohort studies (an additional nine new cohort and two case-control studies), which included a total of 4,684,724 women.Two cohort studies reported an increased incidence of invasive ovarian cancer in exposed subfertile women compared with unexposed women. One reported a standardised incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.19 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 2.25) based on 17 cancer cases. The other cohort study reported a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.93 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.18), and this risk was increased in women remaining nulligravid after using clomiphene citrate (HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.78) versus multiparous women (HR 1.52, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.42) (very low-certainty evidence). The slight increase in ovarian cancer risk among women having between one and three cycles of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) was reported, but this was not clinically significant (P = 0.18). There was no increase in risk of invasive ovarian cancer after use of infertility drugs in women with the BRCA mutation according to one cohort and one case-control study. The certainty of evidence as assessed using GRADE was very low.For borderline ovarian tumours, one cohort study reported increased risk in exposed women with an SIR of 3.61 (95% CI 1.45 to 7.44), and this risk was greater after treatment with clomiphene citrate (SIR 7.47, 95% CI 1.54 to 21.83) based on 12 cases. In another cohort study, the risk of a borderline ovarian tumour was increased, with an HR of 4.23 (95% CI 1.25 to 14.33), for subfertile women treated with IVF compared with a non-IVF-treated group with more than one year of follow-up. A large cohort reported increased risk of borderline ovarian tumours, with HR of 2.46 (95% CI 1.20 to 5.04), and this was based on 17 cases. A significant increase in serous borderline ovarian tumours was reported in one cohort study after the use of progesterone for more than four cycles (risk ratio (RR) 2.63, 95% CI 1.04 to 6.64). A case-control study reported increased risk after clomiphene citrate was taken, with an SIR of 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 4.5) based on 11 cases, and another reported an increase especially after human menopausal gonadotrophin was taken (odds ratio (OR) 9.38, 95% CI 1.66 to 52.08). Another study estimated an increased risk of borderline ovarian tumour, but this estimation was based on four cases with no control reporting use of fertility drugs. The certainty of evidence as assessed using GRADE was very low.However, although some studies suggested a slight increase in risks of ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumour, none provided moderate- or high-certainty evidence, as summarised in the GRADE tables.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, only a few new relevant studies have provided additional findings with supporting evidence to suggest that infertility drugs may increase the risk of ovarian cancer slightly in subfertile women treated with infertility drugs when compared to the general population or to subfertile women not treated. The risk is slightly higher in nulliparous than in multiparous women treated with infertility drugs, and for borderline ovarian tumours. However, few studies have been conducted, the number of cancers is very small, and information on the dose or type of fertility drugs used is insufficient.

Fertility preservation in women harboring deleterious BRCA mutations: ready for prime time?

Fertility issues have become critical in the management and counseling of BRCA mutation carriers. In this setting four points deserve consideration. (1) Women in general lose their ability to conceive at a mean age of 41 years, thus the suggested policy of prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at age 40 for BRCA mutation carriers does not affect the chances of natural pregnancy. Conversely, if the procedure is chosen at 35 years old, oocyte cryopreservation prior to surgery should be considered. (2) Some evidence suggests that ovarian reserve may actually be partly reduced in BRCA mutations carriers and that the mutation may affect ovarian responsiveness to stimulation. However, these findings are still controversial. (3) Breast cancer is not rare before the age of 40 and fertility preservation after diagnosis can be requested in a significant proportion of BRCA mutation carriers. Thus, a policy of oocyte cryopreservation in young healthy carriers deserves consideration. The procedure could be considered at a young age and in an elective setting, when ovarian stimulation may yield more oocytes of better quality. (4) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) could be considered in BRCA mutations carriers, particularly when good quality oocytes have been stored at a young age. Based on the current knowledge, a univocal approach cannot be recommended; in depth patient counseling is warranted.

Do the Fertility Drugs Increase the Risk of Cancer? A Review Study

Aim: All over the world, many couples cannot conceive a child and have problems with pregnancy. Ovulation-inducing drugs are among the most important drugs used for the treatment of infertility. In recent years, there have been many debates about the relationship between fertility medication and cancer. Due to the lack of comprehensive study of this matter, and as understanding the relationship between the use of fertility drugs and cancer is of importance, the present study was conducted to investigate the relationship between infertility drugs and cancer in women. Materials and Methods: To determine the relationship between infertility treatment and cancer, a comprehensive search was carried out in databases such as; Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus using keywords words; "infertility," "ovulation induction," "cancer," "infertility treatment," "ART," "tumor," "controlled ovarian stimulation," "fertility agents," and "neoplasms." Full-text, English language, and original articles were included in this study. Results: In total, 81 articles were entered into the study. The relationship between fertility medications and breast, ovary, endometrial, uterus, colon, thyroid, skin, cervical, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cancers were studied. Although the relationship between fertility medications and cancer is theoretically justifiable, most studies have shown that risk of cancer will not increase after fertility treatment. Conclusion: The results of this study did not show that fertility medications increase the risk of cancer among users. In summary, the relationship between infertility treatment and cancer incidence remains an open question.

BRCA mutations and reproduction

Deleterious mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes have long been recognized as independent risk factors, mostly for breast and ovarian cancer. Numerous studies have evaluated the molecular processes involving these genes, the pathophysiology of BRCAness, follow up options and modes of prophylaxis. The fertility of BRCA carriers, however, has not been widely investigated. The aim of the present work is to review the literature pertaining to this issue.

Use of fertility medications and cancer risk: a review and update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is increasing use of fertility medications for ovulation induction and ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization in the treatment of female infertility. In this review, recent literature regarding the association between fertility medication and cancer risk is reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several important publications have recently addressed the relationship between use of fertility medications and cancer risk. There are methodological limitations to many of these studies, including unique challenges in studying rare cancers that often develop several years after the time of fertility medication exposure. Although infertility per se is a risk factor for some female cancers, including breast, endometrial and ovarian cancer, most studies do not show a significant risk of these cancers with the use of fertility medications. Some studies, however, have shown a possible increased relative risk of borderline ovarian cancer, although the increased absolute risk is small without a clear causal relationship.

SUMMARY

The collective data regarding the risk of developing cancer from use of fertility medications are reassuring, although several methodological issues in these studies limit definitive conclusions.

Fertility preservation in BRCA-mutated women: when and how?

BRCA 1 and 2 genes play a critical role in the safeguarding of DNA integrity. It is now well established that BRCA1 and BRCA2-mutated women are at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancers. However, several lines of evidence indicate that this genetic status may also be associated with ovarian dysfunction, in particular a reduced ovarian reserve. Considering the gonadal toxicity of cancer treatments and the recommendation of prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy around 40 years, young BRCA mutation carriers are confronted with difficult family planning decisions. Recent development in fertility preservation offers new possibilities for these women, not only before a potential cancer treatment, but also in healthy carriers. If the pregnancy seems to be safe in this population, oocyte vitrification following ovarian stimulation might help BRCA-mutated patients to conceive after cancer treatment or to undergo prenatal genetic diagnosis in order to avoid the risk of transmitting the genetic abnormality to their offspring. The present article aims to extensively discuss the fertility issues related to BRCA gene mutations and the questions raised by the possibility of fertility in this population.