Fertility drugs and risk of ovarian cancer: dispelling the myth

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The original review included published and unpublished observational studies from 1990 to February 2013.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

Does ovarian stimulation for IVF increase gynaecological cancer risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether ovarian stimulation for IVF increases the risk of gynaecological cancer, including ovarian, endometrial, cervical and breast cancers, as an independent risk factor. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Clinical trials that examined the association between ovarian stimulation for IVF and gynaecologic cancers were included. The outcomes of interest were incidence rate of gynaecologic cancers. Twelve cohort studies with 178,396 women exposed to IVF were included; 10 studies were used to analyse ovarian (167,640 women) and breast (151,702 women) cancers, and six studies were identified in the analysis of endometrial (116,672 women) and cervical cancer (114,799 women). Among these studies, 175 ovarian, 48 endometrial, 502 cervical and 866 cases of breast cancer were reported. The meta-analysis found no significant association between ovarian stimulation for IVF and increased ovarian, endometrial, cervical and breast cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85 to 1.32; OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.63; OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.76, respectively). Ovarian stimulation for IVF, therefore, does not increase the gynaecologic cancer risk, whether hormone-dependent endometrial and breast cancer or non-hormone-dependent ovarian and cervical cancer.

Clinical epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer in the UK

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the fifth commonest cancer among women and the leading cause of gynecological cancer death in the UK. Most women present with advanced disease, mainly because the nonspecific nature of the symptoms lead to diagnostic delays. Recent data have shown a fall in ovarian cancer mortality rates in the UK, but rates are still higher when compared to other European countries or the USA. In addition, surgeons in the UK achieve on average lower optimal surgical cytoreduction rates in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Despite a wealth of information on epidemiological risk factors, the pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer remains largely unknown. This review presents the most recent data on incidence, mortality, and survival for epithelial ovarian cancer in the UK. Time trends, trends by age, international comparisons, and regional variation in incidence, survival, and mortality are presented within the context of a major reorganization of cancer services that took place in the UK over 10 years ago. Centralization of cancer services has meant that women with ovarian cancer receive treatment in specialist Cancer Centers.

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.

Evaluation and treatment of anovulatory and unexplained infertility

Anovulatory disorders are a primary cause of female infertility. Polycystic ovarian syndrome is the major cause of anovulation and is generally associated with obesity. Lifestyle changes to encourage weight loss are the initial therapy for overweight and obese patients, followed by clomiphene citrate for ovulation induction. For those patients who fail to ovulate on clomiphene citrate, alternatives, such as letrozole; gonadotropins; and complimentary agents to enhance clomiphene citrate, such as metformin and glucocorticoids, are reviewed. Women with unexplained infertility (no identifiable cause of infertility on a routine evaluation) may benefit from ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate, letrozole, or gonadotropins.

Ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an update

Infertility is frequently caused by anovulation. The affected women present with irregular menstrual cycles and the most common diagnosis is polycystic ovary syndrome. Ovulation induction is commonly used to treat these women. Clomiphene citrate (a selective estrogen receptor modulator or SERM) remains the most used medication for treating this condition. Alternatives that have been used include other SERMs such as tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, insulin sensitizing agents, and ovarian drilling. Evidence for and against the effectiveness of these agents has fluctuated over the last decade. Controversies surrounding the use of ovulation induction such as development of functional cysts, high-order multiple births, and development of ovarian cancer have been further studied and some controversies have almost been laid to rest in the last decade.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for a treatable disorder: Gaucher disease type 1 as a model

BACKGROUND

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a technique that enables identification of unaffected embryos prior to in vitro fertilization (IVF) transfer in couples at risk for a Mendelian disorder. Most cases involve severe genetic diseases with neurological features and/or major malformations. We present two couples in which PGD was performed for prevention of type 1 Gaucher disease, a non-neuronopathic, non-lethal disorder.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a multiplex fluorescent PCR protocol, simultaneously amplifying the familial mutations and eight closely spaced, highly polymorphic informative microsatellite markers surrounding the gene, to be used for PGD analysis.

RESULTS

Couple #1 mother was homozygous for the N370S mutation and the father carried the 84GG mutation; their first daughter receives specific Gaucher therapy. One PGD cycle resulted in seven embryos of which four had the paternal wild type allele; two were transferred resulting in a healthy baby boy born at term. Couple #2, each a carrier (N370S and R359Q), whose first-born child had died (age 5years) of Gaucher disease, underwent 7 PGD cycles. Only one cycle resulted in a clinical pregnancy but a miscarriage was followed at 10weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

PGD is an effective and accurate method for preventing Gaucher disease type I in carrier couples. Since this disease is treatable, special ethical considerations and careful selection of couples should be performed.