Fertility Preservation in Female Patients with Breast Cancer - a Current Overview

Gonadotrophin stimulation and risk of relapse in breast cancer

STUDY QUESTION

Is gonadotrophin stimulation as part of IVF associated with an increased risk of relapse in breast cancer?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in connection with IVF in women with previous breast cancer was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer relapse.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women worldwide and the leading cause of cancer death among females. The use of COS with gonadotrophins with subsequent cryopreservation of oocytes or embryos in order to enhance the chances of pregnancy after cancer treatment is the current most established fertility preservation method for women with breast cancer. To date, there are only a few small retrospective hospital-based controlled studies evaluating the risk of breast cancer relapse in patients undergoing fertility preservation with or without COS, showing no evident risk of relapse in breast cancer after the use of gonadotoxic agents.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study comprising 5857 women with previous breast cancer of whom 337 were exposed to COS. Exposure (COS) and outcomes (relapse and death) were identified for all patients from 2005 to 2014 by assessing the National Quality Register for Assisted Reproduction, the Swedish Medical Birth Register, the National Patient Register, the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, the Swedish Cause of Death Register, the National Breast Cancer Register and the Swedish Cancer Register. Matching according to set criteria was possible for 334 women, who constituted the control group. A total of 274 women had undergone IVF after completing breast cancer treatment and 63 women had undergone COS for fertility preservation at the time of breast cancer diagnosis.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women aged 20–44 years previously diagnosed with breast cancer and exposed to COS were matched for age at breast cancer diagnosis ±5 years, tumour size and lymph node involvement with a non-exposed control group, including women with known T- and N-stages. In a subsequent analysis, the matched cohort was assessed by also including women with unknown T- and N-stages. A secondary analysis comprised the entire non-matched cohort, including all women with known T- and N-stages. Also here, a subsequent analysis included women with missing data for T- and N-stages. The risk of relapse in breast cancer was estimated as crude hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI using Cox proportional hazards models in the primary and secondary analyses where T- and N-stages were known: otherwise the risks of relapse were only given descriptively.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In the primary matched analysis, relapse occurred in 20 of 126 women exposed to COS (15.9%) compared with 39 of 126 (31.0%) in the control cohort (HR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.39–1.45; P = 0.22). In the subsequent analysis, also including women with unknown T- and N-stages, relapse occurred in 27 of 337 (8.0%) women having undergone COS compared with 71/334 (21.3%) among the non-exposed. In the secondary adjusted analysis, relapse occurred in 20 of 126 (15.9%) exposed women and in 918 of 3729 (24.6%) non-exposed women (HR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.49–1.33; P = 0.70). In the subsequent analysis, including unknown T- and N-stages, relapse occurred in 27 of 337 (8.0%) women in the exposed group and 1176 of 5520 (21.3%) in the non-exposed cohort.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

A substantial degree of missing data on important prognostic variables was a limitation, particularly when analysing the total cohort. Furthermore, data on confounding factors, such as BMI, were not completely covered. Another limitation was that a pre-specified variable for relapse was not in use for the majority of the National Breast Cancer Register. Furthermore, the follow-up time from available register data (2005–2014) is rather short. Finally, we cannot be sure whether the prognostic information from receptor status, showing a lower incidence in the exposed group, is representative. Information on T- and N-stages was missing in more than half of the patients.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

In this large, retrospective, matched cohort study, we found no increased risk of relapse in breast cancer among women who had been exposed to gonadotrophins as part of IVF. This is reassuring but might be confounded by the selection of a group of women with a more favourable prognosis than those not undergoing IVF. The present study strengthens previous findings by being large, national and register based. Its results are applicable to women undergoing fertility preservation as well as to those undergoing regular IVF treatment.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Supported in part by grants from the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils the ALF-agreement (ALFGBG-720291), The Assar Gabrielsson Fund (FB 15-20), The Breast Cancer Fund and the Swedish Association of Local authorities and Regions, SKR. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A

Is There a Need to Alter the Timing of Anti-Müllerian Hormone Measurement During the Menstrual Cycle?

Introduction There are numerous conflicting studies which have addressed the question whether the measurement of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentrations should be done at a certain time during the menstrual cycle. We aimed to investigate AMH fluctuations during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle and to determine whether AMH variations, if present, might influence the clinical utility of ovarian reserve markers.

Materials and Methods A total of 257 infertile women eligible for inclusion were categorized into three groups based on their total antral follicle count: 1. hypo-response group (< 7 follicles, n = 66), 2. normo-response group (7 – 19 follicles, n = 98), and 3. hyper-response group (> 19 follicles, n = 93).

Results Mean follicular AMH levels were elevated compared to levels in the luteal phase in all response groups (p < 0.001). There were significant and strong positive correlations between follicular and luteal AMH levels in all response groups (Spearmanʼs r = 0.822, r = 0.836, and r = 0.899, respectively; p < 0.001 for all groups). Fisherʼs Z-test comparisons of these correlations in all response groups demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference (Z = 0.277, Z = − 1.001, and Z = − 1.425, respectively; p < 0.001).

Conclusion We found that serum AMH levels in the follicular phase were higher than those in the luteal phase in all three response groups. In current practice, fluctuations in serum AMH concentrations are not large enough to alter the timing of AMH measurements during the menstrual cycle. The issue is important for the assessment of ovarian reserve in infertile women with AMH levels near to the cut-off value.

Adjuvant gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure in premenopausal women

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11, and updated in 2015, Issue 4.Chemotherapy has significantly improved prognosis for women with malignant and some non-malignant conditions. This treatment, however, is associated with ovarian toxicity. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, both agonists and antagonists, may have a protective effect on the ovaries. The primary mechanism of action of GnRH analogues is to suppress the gonadotropin levels to simulate pre-pubertal hormonal milieu and subsequently prevent primordial follicles from maturation and therefore decrease the number of follicles that are more vulnerable to chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of GnRH analogues given before or in parallel to chemotherapy to prevent chemotherapy-related ovarian damage in premenopausal women with malignant or non-malignant conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

The search was run for the original review in July 2011, and for the first update in July 2014. For this update we searched the following databases in November 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Chinese Biomedicine Database (CBM).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in all languages, which examined the effect of GnRH analogues for chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in premenopausal women, were eligible for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed binary data using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and for continuous data, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD) to combine trials. We applied the random-effects model in our analyses. We used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table for our main outcomes of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs involving 1369 women between the ages of 12 and 51.1 years. Participants were diagnosed with breast malignancy, ovarian malignancy, or Hodgkin's lymphoma, and most of them received alkylating, or platinum complexes, based chemotherapy. The included studies were funded by a university (n = 1), research centres (n = 4), and pharmaceutical companies (n = 1). Trials were at high or unclear risk of bias.Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy aloneThe incidence of menstruation recovery or maintenance was 178 of 239 (74.5%) in the GnRH agonist group and 110 of 221 (50.0%) in the control group during a follow-up period no longer than 12 months (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.24; 5 studies, 460 participants; I² = 79%; low-certainty evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH agonist (P = 0.006). However, we observed no difference during a follow-up period longer than 12 months between these two groups (P = 0.24). In the GnRH agonist group, 326 of 447 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (72.9%) in comparison to the control group, in which 276 of 422 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (65.4%) during a follow-up period longer than 12 months (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22; 8 studies, 869 participants; I² = 56%; low-certainty evidence).The incidence of premature ovarian failure was 43 of 401 (10.7%) in the GnRH agonist group and 96 of 379 (25.3%) in the control group (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.61; 4 studies, 780 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH agonist (P < 0.00001).The incidence of pregnancy was 32 of 356 (9.0%) in the GnRH agonist group and 22 of 347 (6.3%) in the control group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.70; 7 studies, 703 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.09). However, we are cautious about this conclusion because there were insufficient data about whether the participants intended to become pregnant.The incidence of ovulation was 29 of 47 (61.7%) in the GnRH agonist group and 12 of 48 (25.0%) in the control group (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.26; 2 studies, 95 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH (P = 0.001).The most common adverse effects of GnRH analogues included hot flushes, vaginal dryness, urogenital symptoms, and mood swings. The pooled analysis of safety data showed no difference in adverse effects between GnRH agonist group and control group.Comparison 2: GnRH agonist-antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy aloneOnly one RCT discussed GnRH agonist-antagonist cotreatment. The limited evidence showed the incidence of menstruation recovery or maintenance was 20 of 25 (80%) in both cotreatment group and control group during a 12-month follow-up period (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 1.00). In the cotreatment group, 13 of 25 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (52.0%) in comparison to the control group, in which 14 of 25 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (56.0%) during a follow-up period longer than 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.55; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.78). The incidence of pregnancy was 1 of 25 (4.0%) in the cotreatment group and 0 of 25 (0%) in the control group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.30; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.49).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

GnRH agonist appears to be effective in protecting the ovaries during chemotherapy, in terms of maintenance and resumption of menstruation, treatment-related premature ovarian failure and ovulation. Evidence for protection of fertility was insufficient and needs further investigation. Evidence was also insufficient to assess the effect of GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist cotreatment on ovarian protection against chemotherapy. The included studies differed in some important aspects of design, and most of these studies had no age-determined subgroup analysis. Large and well-designed RCTs with longer follow-up duration should be conducted to clarify the effects of GnRH analogues in preventing chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure, especially on different age groups or different chemotherapy regimens. Furthermore, studies should address the effects on pregnancy rates and anti-tumour therapy.

Can a University Reproductive Medicine Centre Be Financed Under the Pre-Existing General Conditions in Germany?

Background Reduced resources for financing healthcare services are available to the German health system. For this reason, demographic development represents one of the greatest challenges for the German health system. Reproductive medicine can offer potential solutions and counteract the ageing of the population through an increase in the birth rate. Most reproductive medical treatments take place in private centres. For the development of new, innovative therapeutic approaches, continuing education and scientific advancement, university centres are essential. Materials and Methods Using multistage contribution margin accounting, IVF and ICSI treatments at the University Fertility Centre Franken (UFF) were investigated in 2012. The cost situation from the perspective of the patient couple and the statutory payer were contrasted with the cost and revenue situation of the service provider as a university reproductive medicine centre. Results The costs for the patient couple for an IVF treatment cycle were 538.71 € and for an ICSI cycle, 700.07 €. For the payer, the costs, including the university flat rate (194.80 €) to be paid, amount to 733.51 € for an IVF cycle and 894.87 € for an ICSI cycle. The payments of the patient couple and the payer were added and this yielded total costs of 1272.22 € and 1594.94 €. The University Fertility Centre Franken, as a part of the Department of Gynaecology of the Erlangen University Hospital, incurred costs of 1364.47 € for an IVF treatment cycle and 1423.48 € for an ICSI treatment cycle. In addition, the OB/GYN clinic had to pay the university hospital a flat general expense rate of 14.9% of the income. There was thus a loss for the department of gynaecology of 281.81 € for an IVF cycle and 66.19 € for an ICSI cycle. Discussion From the perspective of a university reproductive medicine centre, IVF and ICSI treatments currently cannot be performed in a cost-covering manner. At the same time, a reproductive medicine treatment cycle represents a significant financial burden on the patient couple due to only partial cost coverage by most statutory health insurance funds. This therefore demonstrates a need for action in health policy to revise and, in the interest of the patient couples, reproductive medicine centres and, not least of all, in the interest of society, to improve existing cost absorption policies and thus also benefit from this as a society over the long term.