Effect of repeated assisted reproductive technology on ovarian response

Could art cycles have a detrimental effect on ovarian reserve? A retrospective case control study

BACKGROUND

Even if it is supposed damage of repeated ART (assisted reproductive technology) cycles on oocyte pool, there is still no evidence in literature. Aim of the study is to investigate whether infertile women who undergo to several ART cycles can show a lower ovarian reserve measured by AMH (Anti-Mullerian hormone) levels.

METHODS

The study includes 282 infertile women, between 18 and 42 years, and allocated into two groups: 159 women previously submitted to two or more ART cycles (group A) and 123 women never submitted naïve to-ART cycles (group B). We tested whether AMH, FSH, LH and E2 levels were significantly different between the two groups, stratifying according to age.

RESULTS

Regardless to the age ranges bands, the AMH in group A was statistically significant lower than in group B with a statistical significance (P=0.047). In particular women aged over 35 previously submitted to one or more ART cycles showed lower AMH levels, than those paired with age, which had never been treated with ART.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of the study, our data demonstrate a reduced AMH levels in women aged over 35 previously submitted to two or more repeated ART-cycles compared to patients never treated before. The strength of this study is the actuality of the topic that has not been discussed before in detail.

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The original review included published and unpublished observational studies from 1990 to February 2013.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.

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

BACKGROUND

The use of assisted reproductive techniques is increasing, but the possible link between fertility drugs and ovarian cancer remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the risk of ovarian cancer in women treated with ovulation stimulating drugs for subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished observational studies from 1990 to February 2013. The following databases were used: the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Collaborative Review Group's Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 1, MEDLINE (to February week 4 2013), EMBASE (to 2013 week 09) and databases of conference abstracts. We also scanned reference lists of retrieved articles. The search was not restricted by language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies, and case series including more than 30 participants, reporting on women with exposure to ovarian stimulating drugs for treatment of subfertility and histologically confirmed borderline or invasive ovarian cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and 'Risk of bias' assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on the fertility drug used for two outcomes: borderline ovarian tumours and invasive ovarian cancer. We expressed findings as adjusted odds ratio (OR), risk ratio (RR), hazard ratio (HR) or crude OR if adjusted values were not reported and standardised incidence ratio (SIR) where reported. We conducted no meta-analyses due to expected methodological and clinical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 case-control studies and 14 cohort studies, which included a total of 182,972 women.Seven cohort studies showed no evidence of an increased risk of invasive ovarian cancer in subfertile women treated with any drug compared with untreated subfertile women. Seven case-control studies showed no evidence of an increased risk, compared with control women of a similar age. Two cohort studies reported an increased incidence of invasive ovarian cancer in subfertile women treated with any fertility drug compared with the general population. One of these reported a SIR of 5.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 15), based on three cancer cases, and a decreased risk when cancer cases diagnosed within one year of treatment were excluded from the analysis(SIR 1.67, 95% CI 0.02 to 9.27). The other cohort study reported an OR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.39 to 3.12), based on 26 cases.For borderline ovarian tumours, exposure to any fertility drug was associated with a two to three-fold increased risk in two case-control studies. One case-control study reported an OR of 28 (95% CI 1.5 to 516), which was based on only four cases. In one cohort study, there was more than a two-fold increase in the incidence of borderline tumours compared with the general population (SIR 2.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 4.6) and in another the risk of a borderline ovarian tumour was HR 4.23 (95% CI 1.25 to 14.33) for subfertile women treated with in vitro fertilisation (IVF) compared with a non-IVF treated group with more than one year of follow-up.There was no evidence of an increased risk in women exposed to clomiphene alone or clomiphene plus gonadotrophin, compared with unexposed women. One case-control study reported an increased risk in users of human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG)(OR 9.4, 95% CI 1.7 to 52). However, this estimate is based on only six cases with a history of HMG use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence of an increase in the risk of invasive ovarian tumours with fertility drug treatment. There may be an increased risk of borderline ovarian tumours in subfertile women treated with IVF. Studies showing an increase in the risk of ovarian cancer had a high overall risk of bias, due to retrospective study design, lack of accounting for potential confounding and estimates based on a small number of cases. More studies at low risk of bias are needed.

Effect of repeated assisted reproduction techniques on the ovarian response

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the increasing success of assisted reproduction techniques, most couples need more than one cycle of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation to achieve a pregnancy. The effect of several cycles on the ovarian response in subsequent cycles is a concern for gynaecologists and patients. In addition, egg donors have the possible risk of an ovarian reserve decrease. In this review, we present published evidence on the effects of repeated assisted reproduction techniques on the ovarian response.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent available data indicate that ovarian response persists with subsequent cycles of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of oocytes being retrieved, although it is not clear whether an increased level of gonadotropins is required to achieve this response. There is a decrease in the number of oocytes retrieved in subsequent cycles due to increased female age as more cycles are needed. The oocytes retrieved in one cycle seem to come from the antral pool that otherwise would be atretic due to dominant follicle selection.

SUMMARY

The mechanisms involved in the recruitment from atresia of more than one follicle are discussed and it is shown that repetitive ovarian stimulation does not appear to affect the ovarian reserve. Published evidence shows that gonadotropins alter the physiologic selection of one single dominant follicle but do not accelerate the recruitment of follicles from further cycles, confirming that there is no detrimental effect on ovarian function after repetitive controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.

Recurrent implantation failure in assisted reproduction: how to counsel and manage. A. General considerations and treatment options that may benefit the couple

Recurrent implantation failure is a distressing phenomenon, both for the infertile couple and for the physician responsible for their treatment. Aetiology is often not clear and treatment options are vague. Particularly when transferred embryos are of good quality, recurrent implantation failure may be attributed to less than optimal embryo transfer technique, pathological lesions of the uterine cavity, the presence of hydrosalpinges, fibroids and endometriosis. Poor embryo quality, especially when repetitive, is a major impediment to successful implantation and cannot be corrected at the present time. Molecular abnormalities at the endometrial level and abnormal embryo-endometrium dialogue may be responsible for some cases of recurrent implantation failure. Furthermore, there may be over- or under-expressed genes that may be related to successful implantation. At the present time, the physician confronted with a couple presenting with recurrent implantation failure should discuss openly the potential causes of this phenomenon, with special emphasis on correctable causes, and offer remedies that are evidence based.