Disparities in Fertility-Sparing Treatment and Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology After a Diagnosis of Cervical, Ovarian, or Endometrial Cancer

Racial and ethnic disparities in reproductive medicine in the United States: a narrative review of contemporary high-quality evidence

There has been increasing debate around how or if race and ethnicity should be used in medical research-including the conceptualization of race as a biological entity, a social construct, or a proxy for racism. The objectives of this narrative review are to identify and synthesize reported racial and ethnic inequalities in obstetrics and gynecology (ob/gyn) and develop informed recommendations for racial and ethnic inequity research in ob/gyn. A reproducible search of the 8 highest impact ob/gyn journals was conducted. Articles published between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2023 containing keywords related to racial and ethnic disparities, bias, prejudice, inequalities, and inequities were included (n=318). Data were abstracted and summarized into 4 themes: 1) access to care, 2) adherence to national guidelines, 3) clinical outcomes, and 4) clinical trial diversity. Research related to each theme was organized topically under the headings i) obstetrics, ii) reproductive medicine, iii) gynecologic cancer, and iv) other. Additionally, interactive tables were developed. These include data on study timeline, population, location, and results for every article. The tables enable readers to filter by journal, publication year, race and ethnicity, and topic. Numerous studies identified adverse reproductive outcomes among racial and ethnic minorities as compared to white patients, which persist despite adjusting for differential access to care, socioeconomic or lifestyle factors, and clinical characteristics. These include higher maternal morbidity and mortality among Black and Hispanic/Latinx patients; reduced success during fertility treatments for Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and Asian patients; and lower survival rates and lower likelihood of receiving guideline concordant care for gynecological cancers for non-White patients. We conclude that many racial and ethnic inequities in ob/gyn cannot be fully attributed to patient characteristics or access to care. Research focused on explaining these disparities based on biological differences incorrectly reinforces the notion of race as a biological trait. More research that deconstructs race and assesses efficacy of interventions to reduce these disparities is needed.

Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Stage I Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe population-level utilization of fertility-sparing surgery and outcome of reproductive-aged patients with early epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent fertility-sparing surgery in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective study queried the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Program. The study included 3,027 patients younger than age 50 years with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer receiving primary surgical therapy from 2007 to 2020. Fertility-sparing surgery was defined as preservation of one ovary and the uterus for unilateral lesion and preservation of the uterus for bilateral lesions. Temporal trend of fertility-sparing surgery was assessed with linear segmented regression with log-transformation. Overall survival associated with fertility-sparing surgery was assessed with Cox proportional hazard regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 534 patients (17.6%) underwent fertility-sparing surgery. At the cohort level, the utilization of fertility-sparing surgery was 13.4% in 2007 and 21.8% in 2020 ( P for trend=.009). Non-Hispanic White individuals (2.8-fold), those with high-grade serous histology (2.2-fold), and individuals with stage IC disease (2.3-fold) had a more than twofold increase in fertility-sparing surgery utilization during the study period (all P for trend<.05). After controlling for the measured clinicopathologic characteristics, patients who received fertility-sparing surgery had overall survival comparable with that of patients who had nonsparing surgery (5-year rates 93.6% vs 92.1%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI, 0.57-1.35). This survival association was consistent in high-grade serous (5-year rates 92.9% vs 92.4%), low-grade serous (100% vs 92.2%), clear cell (97.5% vs 86.1%), mucinous (92.1% vs 86.6%), low-grade endometrioid (95.7% vs 97.7%), and mixed (93.3% vs 83.7%) histology (all P >.05). In high-grade endometrioid tumor, fertility-sparing surgery was associated with decreased overall survival (5-year rates 71.9% vs 93.8%, adjusted hazard ratio 2.90, 95% CI, 1.09-7.67). Among bilateral ovarian lesions, fertility-sparing surgery was not associated with overall survival (5-year rates 95.8% vs 92.5%, P =.364). Among 41,914 patients who had epithelial ovarian cancer with any age and stage, those younger than age 50 years with stage I disease increased from 8.6% to 10.9% during the study period ( P for trend=.002).

CONCLUSION

Nearly one in five reproductive-aged patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer underwent fertility-sparing surgery in recent years in the United States. More than 90% of reproductive-aged patients with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent fertility-sparing surgery were alive at the 5-year timepoint, except for those with high-grade endometrioid tumors.

Patient Location and Disparities in Access to Fertility Preservation for Women With Gynecologic or Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of geographic factors on fertility-sparing treatment or assisted reproductive technology (ART) utilization among women with gynecologic or breast cancers.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of reproductive-aged patients (18-45 years) with early-stage cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer or stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2015 using linked data from the California Cancer Registry, the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate associations between distance from fertility and gynecologic oncology clinics, as well as California Healthy Places Index score (a Census-level composite community health score), and ART or fertility-sparing treatment receipt.

RESULTS

We identified 7,612 women with gynecologic cancer and 35,992 women with breast cancer. Among all patients, 257 (0.6%) underwent ART. Among patients with gynecologic cancer, 1,676 (22.0%) underwent fertility-sparing treatment. Stratified by quartiles, residents who lived at increasing distances from gynecologic oncology or fertility clinics had decreased odds of undergoing fertility-sparing treatment (gynecologic oncology clinics: Q2, odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% CI, 0.63-0.93, P =.007; Q4, OR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.56-0.94, P =.016) (fertility clinics: Q3, OR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.65-0.97, P =.025; Q4, OR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.52-0.88, P =.004), whereas this relationship was not observed among women who resided within other quartiles (gynecologic oncology clinics: Q3, OR 0.81 95% CI, 0.65-1.01, P =.07; fertility clinics: Q2, OR 0.87 95% CI, 0.73-1.05, P =.15). Individuals who lived in communities with the highest (51 st -100 th percentile) California Healthy Places Index scores had greater odds of undergoing fertility-sparing treatment (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.06-1.57, P =.01; OR 1.66, 95% CI, 1.35-2.04, P =.001, respectively). The relationship between California Healthy Places Index scores and ART was even more pronounced (Q2 OR 1.9, 95% CI, 0.99-3.64, P =.05; Q3 OR 2.86, 95% CI, 1.54-5.33, P <.001; Q4 OR 3.41, 95% CI, 1.83-6.35, P <.001).

CONCLUSION

Geographic disparities affect fertility-sparing treatment and ART rates among women with gynecologic or breast cancer. By acknowledging geographic factors, health care systems can ensure equitable access to fertility-preservation services.

Fertility-sparing surgery vs standard surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: difference in 5-year life expectancy by tumor size

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer incidence among premenopausal women is rising, and fertility-sparing surgery serves as an important option for this young population. There is a lack of evidence on what tumor size cutoff should be used to define candidacy for fertility-sparing surgery.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to describe how the association between fertility-sparing surgery (compared with standard surgery) and life expectancy varies by tumor size among patients with cervical cancers measuring ≤4 cm in largest diameter. Our secondary objective was to quantify the probability of undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy among patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery as a function of tumor size.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified patients in the National Cancer Database aged ≤45 years, diagnosed with stage I cervical cancer with tumors ≤4 cm between 2006 and 2018, who received no preoperative radiation or chemotherapy, and who underwent either fertility-sparing surgery (cone or trachelectomy, either simple or radical) or standard surgery (simple or radical hysterectomy) as their primary treatment. Propensity-score matching was performed to compare patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery with those who underwent standard surgery. A flexible parametric model was employed to quantify the difference in life expectancy within 5 years of diagnosis (restricted mean survival time) based on tumor size among patients who underwent fertility-sparing and those who underwent standard surgery. In addition, among those who underwent fertility-sparing surgery, a logistic regression model was used to explore the relationship between tumor size and the probability of receiving adjuvant radiation.

RESULTS

A total of 11,946 patients met the inclusion criteria of whom 904 (7.6%) underwent fertility-sparing surgery. After propensity-score matching, 897 patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery were matched 1:1 with those who underwent standard surgery. Although the 5-year life expectancy was similar among patients who had fertility sparing surgery and those who had standard surgery regardless of tumor sizes, the estimates of life-expectancy differences associated with fertility-sparing surgery were more precise among patients with smaller tumors (1-cm tumor: restricted mean survival time difference, -0.10 months; 95% confidence interval, -0.67 to 0.47) than among those with larger tumors (4-cm tumor: restricted mean survival time difference, -0.11 months; 95% confidence interval, -3.79 to 3.57). The probability of receiving adjuvant radiation increased with tumor size, ranging from 5.6% (95% confidence interval, 3.9-7.9) for a 1-cm tumor to 37% (95% confidence interval, 24.3-51.8) for a 4-cm tumor.

CONCLUSION

Within 5 years of diagnosis, young patients with stage I cancers measuring ≤4 cm had similar survival outcomes after either fertility-sparing surgery or standard surgery. However, because few patients with tumors >2 cm underwent fertility-sparing surgery, a clinically important survival difference could not be excluded in this population.

Reproductive Outcomes in Young Women with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Greater than 2 cm Undergoing Fertility-Sparing Treatment: A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: Despite advancements in detection and treatment, cervical cancer remains a significant health concern, particularly among young women of reproductive age. Limited data exists in the literature regarding fertility-sparing treatment (FST) of cervical cancers with tumor sizes greater than 2 cm. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the reproductive outcomes of women diagnosed with cervical cancer greater than 2 cm who underwent FST. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register), the Health Technology Assessment Database, and Web of Science. Only original studies (retrospective or prospective) that reported reproductive outcomes of patients with cervical cancer >2 cm were considered eligible for inclusion in this systematic review (CRD42024521964). Studies describing only the oncologic outcomes, involving FST for cervical cancers less than 2 cm in size, and case reports were excluded. Results: Seventeen papers that met the abovementioned inclusion criteria were included in the present systematic review. In total, 443 patients with a cervical cancer larger than 2 cm were included in this systematic review. Eighty pregnancies occurred, with 24 miscarriages and 54 live births. Conclusions: FST appears to be a viable option for women of childbearing age diagnosed with cervical cancer larger than 2 cm. However, careful consideration is advised in interpreting these encouraging results, as they are subject to limitations, such as variability in study designs and potential biases. In addition, reproductive outcomes should be further cross-referenced with oncologic outcomes to clarify the potential risk-benefit ratio. It is critical to conduct further research using standardized approaches and larger participant groups to strengthen the validity of the conclusions drawn.

Pre-treatment fertility preservation and post-treatment reproduction in long-term survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer

PURPOSE

To describe recall of fertility-related consultations and cryopreservation and to examine reproductive goals and reproduction post-treatment in long-term survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) (age, 18-39 years) cancer.

METHODS

This study included n = 1457 male and n = 2112 female long-term survivors (Mage = 43-45 years; 5-22 years from diagnosis) who provided self-report. Clinical data were supplied by the Netherlands Cancer Registry.

RESULTS

Most male survivors (72.7%) recalled fertility-related consultations and 22.6% completed sperm cryopreservation. Younger age (OR = 2.8; 95%CI [2.2-3.6]), not having children (OR = 5.0; 95%CI [3.2-7.7]), testicular cancer or lymphoma/leukemia (OR = 2.8/2.5 relative to "others"), and more intense treatments (OR = 1.5; 95%CI [1.1-2.0]) were associated with higher cryopreservation rates. Time since diagnosis had no effect. Of men who cryopreserved, 12.1% utilized assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Most men (88.5%) felt their diagnosis did not affect their reproductive goals, but 7.6% wanted no (additional) children due to cancer. Half of female survivors (55.4%; n = 1171) recalled fertility-related consultations. Rates of cryopreservation were very low (3.6%), but increased after 2013 when oocyte cryopreservation became non-experimental. Of women who cryopreserved, 13.2% successfully utilized ART. Most women (74.8%) experienced no effects of cancer on reproductive goals, but 17.8% wanted no (additional) children due to cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Cryopreservation in men varied by patient/clinical factors and was very low in women, but data of more recently treated females are needed. Utilizing cryopreserved material through ART was rare, which questions its cost-effectiveness, but it may enhance survivors' well-being.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The extent to which cryopreservation positively affects survivors' well-being remains to be tested. Moreover, effects of cancer on reproductive goals require further attention, especially in women who refrain from having children due to cancer.

All-cause and cancer-specific mortality after fertility-sparing surgery for stage IA and IC epithelial ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare all-cause and cancer-specific mortality between women who underwent fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) versus standard surgery for stage IA and IC epithelial ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Reproductive aged patients (18-45) with stage IA or IC epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. FSS was defined as retention of the contralateral ovary and the uterus, and standard surgery included at least removal of both ovaries and the uterus. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the secondary outcome was cancer-specific mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to create two groups balanced on covariates of interest. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to model survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1119 women who met inclusion criteria, 390 (34.9%) underwent FSS. IPTW yielded a balanced cohort of 394 women who underwent FSS and 723 women who underwent standard surgery. Among patients who underwent FSS, there were 45 deaths corresponding to an 85.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.92) 10-year all-cause survival probability, compared to 81 deaths and 86.4% 10-year all-cause survival probability (95% CI 0.83-0.90) among patients who underwent standard surgery. FSS was not associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.72-1.49) or cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.50, 95%CI 0.97-2.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Among reproductive-aged patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer fertility-sparing surgery was not associated with an increased risk of death compared to standard surgery.

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 Cryopreservation for Medical and Planned Indications: A Practical Guide and Overview

Oocyte cryopreservation (OC) is the process in which ovarian follicles are stimulated, the follicular fluid is retrieved, and mature oocytes are isolated and vitrified. Since the first successful pregnancy utilizing previously cryopreserved oocytes in 1986, OC has become increasingly utilized as an option for future biologic children in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies, such as for the treatment of cancer. Planned OC, also termed elective OC, is growing in popularity as a means to circumvent age-related fertility decline. In this narrative review, we describe both medically indicated and planned OC, focusing on the physiology of ovarian follicular loss, OC technique and risks, timing of when OC should be performed, associated financial considerations, and outcomes.