Association between fertility drugs and gynecologic cancers, breast cancer, and childhood cancers

Disparities in Female Pediatric, Adolescent and Young Adult Oncofertility: A Needs Assessment

Advancements in cancer screening and implementation of targeted treatments have significantly improved survival rates to 85% for pediatric and AYA survivors. Greater than 75% of survivors will live to experience the long-term adverse outcomes of cancer therapies, termed late effects (LE), that disrupt quality of life (QoL). Infertility and poor reproductive outcomes are significant disruptors of QoL in survivorship, affecting 12-88% of survivors who receive at-risk therapies. To mitigate risk, fertility preservation (FP) counseling is recommended as standard of care prior to gonadotoxic therapy. However, disparities in FP counseling, implementation of FP interventions, and screening for gynecologic late effects in survivorship persist. Barriers to care include a lack of provider and patient knowledge of the safety and breadth of current FP options, misconceptions about the duration of time required to implement FP therapies, cost, and health care team bias. Developing strategies to address barriers and implement established guidelines are necessary to ensure equity and improve quality of care across populations.

In-Vitro Fertilization Impact on the Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review Article

Background

Due to the increasing prevalence of infertility, the number of referrals to infertility treatment centers has also increased. Nowadays, assisted reproductive technology (ART), including in vitro fertilization (IVF), is a treatment for infertility or genetic problems. Considering the possible consequences of this method among women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and kids conceived by IVF, extensive research has been conducted in this regard.

Methods

Overall, 100 articles were entered into the study, and relevant articles were searched and extracted from PubMed, Springer, and Google Scholar databases. In IVF procedure, medications such as Clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins are used to stimulate and mature follicles and thus increase ovulation.

Results

There are conflicting opinions on this issue. Some findings report a slight increase in cancer risk for hormone-sensitive cancers including breast cancer. The long-term use of IVF medications can increase estrogen hormones and cause excessive expression of genes, resulting in an increased risk of breast cancer, which is one of the most frequent cancers among women.

Conclusion

There are some risks to be aware of, which followed the hypothesis that long IVF treatment process may lead to breast cancer among IVF candidates. Furthermore, the risk of breast cancer may be increased in those women with a positive family history and related inherited genes. Therefore, women candidates for IVF should be informed of the probable implications of the reproductive therapy techniques.

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.

Young Women with Breast Cancer: Fertility Preservation Options and Management of Pregnancy-Associated Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy diagnosed in women of childbearing age. A breast cancer diagnosis in this young patient population can be uniquely complex to navigate when considering the potential impact of fertility loss associated with specific gonadotoxic therapies. Another unique challenge for young breast cancer patients is pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC), which occurs in approximately 1 of every 3000 pregnancies. Pregnancy adds a layer of complexity to breast cancer treatment planning as many therapies can affect the developing fetus. These two clinical challenges require nuanced multidisciplinary approaches to facilitate optimal treatment outcomes. We sought to review and summarize the management strategy options for both fertility preservation and PABC.

METHODS

A guideline and literature review was performed for fertility preservation, young patients with breast cancer, and pregnancy-associated breast cancer.

RESULTS

Fertility preservation options, both established and experimental, are detailed. Suggested clinical practice guidelines for PABC are also presented, which delineate breast cancer treatment recommendations based on pregnancy trimester.

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary approach to patient care, including oncologists and early referral to reproductive specialists, can provide young breast cancer patients with options for fertility preservation. Under the guidance of a multidisciplinary treatment team, PABC can also be diagnosed and treated to permit the best possible outcomes for the mother and the developing fetus.

Literature review on cancer risk in children born after fertility treatment suggests increased risk of haematological cancers

Medically assisted fertility treatment, including assisted reproductive technology (ART), is increasingly being used and the subsequent child health outcomes are of interest. Some studies have suggested an elevated risk of somatic morbidity, while others have reported an elevated cancer risk. This review summarises the literature on fertility treatments and childhood cancer, based on 23 cohort and case-control studies.

CONCLUSION

The findings varied, but reassuring results on overall childhood cancer and fertility treatment were observed. However, some studies suggested an elevated risk of haematological cancers. More large population-based studies are needed, and the growing population of ART children should be monitored.

Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a review

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the seventh most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the world and the tenth most common in China. Epithelial OC is the most predominant pathologic subtype, with five major histotypes that differ in origination, pathogenesis, molecular alterations, risk factors, and prognosis. Genetic susceptibility is manifested by rare inherited mutations with high to moderate penetrance. Genome-wide association studies have additionally identified 29 common susceptibility alleles for OC, including 14 subtype-specific alleles. Several reproductive and hormonal factors may lower risk, including parity, oral contraceptive use, and lactation, while others such as older age at menopause and hormone replacement therapy confer increased risks. These associations differ by histotype, especially for mucinous OC, likely reflecting differences in etiology. Endometrioid and clear cell OC share a similar, unique pattern of associations with increased risks among women with endometriosis and decreased risks associated with tubal ligation. OC risks associated with other gynecological conditions and procedures, such as hysterectomy, pelvic inflammatory disease, and polycystic ovarian syndrome, are less clear. Other possible risk factors include environmental and lifestyle factors such as asbestos and talc powder exposures, and cigarette smoking. The epidemiology provides clues on etiology, primary prevention, early detection, and possibly even therapeutic strategies.

Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a review

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the seventh most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the world and the tenth most common in China. Epithelial OC is the most predominant pathologic subtype, with five major histotypes that differ in origination, pathogenesis, molecular alterations, risk factors, and prognosis. Genetic susceptibility is manifested by rare inherited mutations with high to moderate penetrance. Genome-wide association studies have additionally identified 29 common susceptibility alleles for OC, including 14 subtype-specific alleles. Several reproductive and hormonal factors may lower risk, including parity, oral contraceptive use, and lactation, while others such as older age at menopause and hormone replacement therapy confer increased risks. These associations differ by histotype, especially for mucinous OC, likely reflecting differences in etiology. Endometrioid and clear cell OC share a similar, unique pattern of associations with increased risks among women with endometriosis and decreased risks associated with tubal ligation. OC risks associated with other gynecological conditions and procedures, such as hysterectomy, pelvic inflammatory disease, and polycystic ovarian syndrome, are less clear. Other possible risk factors include environmental and lifestyle factors such as asbestos and talc powder exposures, and cigarette smoking. The epidemiology provides clues on etiology, primary prevention, early detection, and possibly even therapeutic strategies.

Risk of endometrial cancer in women treated with ovary-stimulating drugs for subfertility

BACKGROUND

Medical treatment for subfertility principally involves the use of ovary-stimulating agents, including selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), such as clomiphene citrate, gonadotropins, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists, as well as human chorionic gonadotropin. Ovary-stimulating drugs may act directly or indirectly upon the endometrium (lining of the womb). Nulliparity and some causes of subfertility are recognized as risk factors for endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the association between the use of ovary-stimulating drugs for the treatment of subfertility and the risk of endometrial cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

A search was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases up to July 2016, using a predefined search algorithm. A search in OpenGrey, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov, ZETOC and reports of major conferences was also performed. We did not impose language and publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cohort and case-control studies reporting on the association between endometrial cancer and exposure to ovary-stimulating drugs for subfertility in adult women were deemed eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study characteristics and findings were extracted by review authors independently working in pairs. Inconsistency between studies was quantified by estimating I2. Random-effects (RE) models were used to calculate pooled effect estimates. Separate analyses were performed, comparing treated subfertile women versus general population and/or unexposed subfertile women, to address the superimposition of subfertility as an independent risk factor for endometrial cancer.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion (1,937,880 participants). Overall, the quality of evidence was very low, due to serious risk of bias and indirectness (non-randomised studies (NRS), which was reflected on the GRADE assessment.Six eligible studies, including subfertile women, without a general population control group, found that exposure to any ovary-stimulating drug was not associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37; 156,774 participants; very low quality evidence). Fifteen eligible studies, using a general population as the control group, found an increased risk after exposure to any ovary-stimulating drug (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.61; 1,762,829 participants; very low quality evidence).Five eligible studies, confined to subfertile women (92,849 participants), reported on exposure to clomiphene citrate; the pooled studies indicated a positive association ( RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.71; 88,618 participants; very low quality evidence), although only at high dosage (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.68; two studies; 12,073 participants) and at a high number of cycles (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.47; three studies; 13,757 participants). Four studies found an increased risk of endometrial cancer in subfertile women who required clomiphene citrate compared to a general population control group (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.48; four studies, 19,614 participants; very low quality evidence). These data do not tell us whether the association is due to the underlying conditions requiring clomiphene or the treatment itself.Using unexposed subfertile women as controls, exposure to gonadotropins was associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.34; four studies; 17,769 participants; very low quality evidence). The respective analysis of two studies (1595 participants) versus the general population found no difference in risk (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.79 to 5.64: very low quality evidence).Exposure to a combination of clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins, compared to unexposed subfertile women, produced no difference in risk of endometrial cancer (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.44; two studies; 6345 participants; very low quality evidence). However, when compared to the general population, an increased risk was found , suggesting that the key factor might be subfertility, rather than treatment (RR 2.99, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.86; three studies; 7789 participants; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The synthesis of the currently available evidence does not allow us to draw robust conclusions, due to the very low quality of evidence. It seems that exposure to clomiphene citrate as an ovary-stimulating drug in subfertile women is associated with increased risk of endometrial cancer, especially at doses greater than 2000 mg and high (more than 7) number of cycles. This may largely be due to underlying risk factors in women who need treatment with clomiphene citrate, such as polycystic ovary syndrome, rather than exposure to the drug itself. The evidence regarding exposure to gonadotropins was inconclusive.

Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a review

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the seventh most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the world and the tenth most common in China. Epithelial OC is the most predominant pathologic subtype, with five major histotypes that differ in origination, pathogenesis, molecular alterations, risk factors, and prognosis. Genetic susceptibility is manifested by rare inherited mutations with high to moderate penetrance. Genome-wide association studies have additionally identified 29 common susceptibility alleles for OC, including 14 subtype-specific alleles. Several reproductive and hormonal factors may lower risk, including parity, oral contraceptive use, and lactation, while others such as older age at menopause and hormone replacement therapy confer increased risks. These associations differ by histotype, especially for mucinous OC, likely reflecting differences in etiology. Endometrioid and clear cell OC share a similar, unique pattern of associations with increased risks among women with endometriosis and decreased risks associated with tubal ligation. OC risks associated with other gynecological conditions and procedures, such as hysterectomy, pelvic inflammatory disease, and polycystic ovarian syndrome, are less clear. Other possible risk factors include environmental and lifestyle factors such as asbestos and talc powder exposures, and cigarette smoking. The epidemiology provides clues on etiology, primary prevention, early detection, and possibly even therapeutic strategies.

Reversal of tubo-ovarian atypical epithelial patterns after cessation of ovarian stimulation by letrozole

Letrozole (LTZ), one of the ovulation induction medications, is increasingly prescribed in various gynaecological conditions. Previous studies have demonstrated its potential hazardous effect on the ovarian surface epithelium (OSE) as well as on tubal epithelial cells (TEC). However, it is not clear whether this effect could be reversed by LTZ cessation. Therefore, the objective of our study was to investigate the effect of stoppage of LTZ on these cells after 12 cycles of ovarian stimulation. A total of 54 Sprague Dawley rats were used in this study, divided equally into control, LTZ12 and CES12 groups (received saline, 12 cycles of LTZ and 12 cycles of cessation post-LTZ12 respectively). Samples from the ovaries as well as fallopian tubes (FTs) were studied histologically for the changes associated with LTZ12 and CES12 respectively. There was evident increase in the proliferative activity and Ki67 immunoexpression in the OSE of LTZ12. The OSE was hyperchromatic, and abnormally frequent deep invaginations, micropapillae and cortical cysts. Their TEC showed frequent multilayering, papillary projections and loss of cilia. Almost all these changes disappeared 12 cycles after LTZ cessation. While the tubal IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α and serum MCP-1 levels significantly increased in the LTZ12 group compared with the control group, their levels decreased in the CES12 group compared with those of the control. Therefore, the abnormal tubo-ovarian epithelial patterns may completely regress after cessation of LTZ stimulation for a reasonable duration. This is a potentially good omen and a positive indicator of the relatively safe use of LTZ after its intake has been stopped.

[Impact of gonadotropins in women suffering from cancer]

The role of gonadotropins in the genesis of malignant diseases, in particular gynecologic cancers, is still controversial. The production of ovarian steroids, as a consequence of FSH and LH actions, may constitute a bias to draw reliable conclusions. Over the past decades, the use of exogenous gonadotropins has markedly increased in cancer patients, candidates for fertility preservation, and in survivors facing infertility as a consequence of gonadotoxic treatments. In gynecologic cancers, high serum estradiol levels may be problematic and can therefore be overcome by specific protocols of ovarian stimulation. However, exogenous gonadotropin administration in cancer patients should systematically be included in a multidisciplinary approach. The present article discusses the possible role of gonadotropins as tumorigenic factors and the use of exogenous gonadotropins in females suffering from cancer.

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.

Fertility drugs, reproductive strategies and ovarian cancer risk

Several adverse effects have been related to infertility treatments, such as cancer development. In particular, the relationship between infertility, reproductive strategies, and risk of gynecological cancers has aroused much interest in recent years. The evaluation of cancer risk among women treated for infertility is very complex, mainly because of many factors that can contribute to occurrence of cancer in these patients (including parity status). This article addresses the possible association between the use of fertility treatments and the risk of ovarian cancer, through a scrupulous search of the literature published thus far in this field. Our principal objective was to give more conclusive answers on the question whether the use of fertility drug significantly increases ovarian cancer risk. Our analysis focused on the different types of drugs and different treatment schedules used. This study provides additional insights regarding the long-term relationships between fertility drugs and risk of ovarian cancer.

Assessment of cells in the ascitic fluid of women with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: the clinical implications for subsequent ovarian malignancy

BACKGROUND

Although some studies have reported a potential connection between ovulation induction therapy (OIT) and malignant ovarian diseases, the results have been inconclusive. In the present study, we sought to determine whether women undergoing OIT at our in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic, especially those with severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and suspicious cytologic findings, were at risk for developing malignant ovarian tumours after treatment.

METHODS

Patients who underwent OIT at our IVF clinic were enrolled in this study and assessed for any evidence of malignant ovarian tumours. Patients who developed severe OHSS as a result of OIT were treated with a culdocentesis. Cells from the ascitic fluid were cytologically scored for abnormality and malignancy. Peripheral blood samples were obtained from patients with severe OHSS to determine serum levels of the tumour markers (CA-125 and HE4) that were used to calculate the Risk for Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) index.

RESULTS

Follow-up data were available for 1,353 of the 1,587 patients (85%) who underwent OIT at our IVF clinic between January 2006 and December 2012. Twenty-three patients (1.4%) were hospitalized with OHSS. Culdocentesis was performed 16 times in nine patients with severe OHSS (age range, 23-34 years; mean, 27.1 years). Although cytological examination of the ascitic cells of these patients suggested malignant ovarian neoplasia, over the course of the observation period, the ovarian volume gradually decreased and became normal. Subsequent cytological and histological examinations failed to find evidence of any malignant tumours in these nine patients. None of the 1,353 participants who underwent OIT developed any malignant ovarian tumours during the study period. Moreover, none of the 462 patients who were in our ovarian tumour registry were also participants in the IVF program.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of atypical cells in the ascitic fluid of women with severe OHSS does not likely indicate malignancy; therefore, radical surgical intervention is not justified. The risk of malignancy is minimal shortly after OIT. At our centre, OIT has not been associated with any cases of ovarian tumour.

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.

IVF and breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for IVF in terms of breast cancer risk remain controversial, despite the hormone-dependent nature of the latter.

METHODS

Eligible studies up to 15 February 2013 were identified and pooled effect estimates for relative risk (RR) were calculated separately for the investigations using the general population and those using infertile women, as a reference group. Fixed- or random-effects models were implemented and subgroup analyses were performed, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Eight cohort studies were synthesized, yielding a total cohort size of 1,554,332 women among whom 14,961 incident breast cancer cases occurred, encompassing 576 incident breast cancer cases among women exposed to IVF. No significant association between IVF and breast cancer was observed either in the group of studies treating the general population (RR = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.11) or infertile women (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.88-1.18), as a reference group. Of note were the marginal associations, protective for pregnant and/or parous women after IVF (pooled effect estimate = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73-1.01) and adverse for women <30 years at first IVF treatment (pooled effect estimate = 1.64, 95% CI: 0.96-2.80).

CONCLUSIONS

At present, COH for IVF does not seem to impart increased breast cancer risk. Longer follow-up periods, comparisons versus infertile women, subgroup analyses aiming to trace vulnerable subgroups, adjustment for various confounders and larger informative data sets are needed before conclusive statements for the safety of the procedure are reached.

Fertility preservation in breast cancer patients

Systemic therapies have been shown to effectively improve prognosis in patients with breast cancer. However, such therapies also become increasingly harmful as their duration increases, and they have adverse effects on fertility and ovarian function. Fertility preservation (FP) is important in young adult cancer survivors who may wish to have children. In Japan, some cancer societies recommend that the potentially serious effects of systemic therapy on ovarian function should be explained to women with cancer, and they should be encouraged to undergo FP prior to commencing treatment. Still, as there are no official guidelines, many oncologists lack the required knowledge and mind-set to advise young breast cancer patients on fertility issues. Counseling of patients and their families might improve their understanding about the influence of such treatment on fertility and ensure effective FP. There are several FP methods that can be selected before beginning treatment, and these methods have both advantages and disadvantages. Young adults with breast cancer who want to bear children in the future must be provided with FP counseling, in addition to advice about breast cancer treatment and prognosis.

Fertility medications and the risk of cancer

Cancer is among the leading causes of death, and malignant diseases of the female genital tract are among the most common sites. Reproductive factors that are also associated with infertility have been identified as risk factors. Hormones are thought to play a role in the induction and promotion of some type of cancers. Hormonal preparations affect the endocrine milieu and, by acting on the reproductive organs themselves, could even have a direct effect on carcinogenesis. Numerous case-control and cohort studies have tried to determine whether fertility medication use increases cancer risk. Overall, the current data is reassuring but most research groups drew conclusions based on a small number of cases and after a relatively short follow-up. Proper counseling prior to fertility medication use is important and further studies on even larger patient groups with more cancer cases are needed to support widespread use of fertility medications.

Fertility drug use and risk of ovarian tumors: a debated clinical challenge

Infertility itself increases the incidence of ovarian carcinoma, while the potential additional risk associated with the use of fertility drugs is still debated. In 1992, the cumulative analysis of 12 US case-control studies revealed that women who received ovulation-inducing drugs had approximately three-fold higher incidence of invasive ovarian carcinoma. Other investigations reported a lower increase of the risk of invasive carcinoma or borderline tumor of the ovary in women treated with these agents. Conversely, several other case-control or cohort studies failed to detect a significant correlation between fertility drug use and ovarian tumor risk in either parous or nulliparous women compared with untreated infertile women. Moreover neither the number of treatment cycles nor the type of drug used was associated with an increased risk in most studies. Incessant ovulation and excessive gonadotropin secretion have been long considered to play a major role in the development of ovarian carcinoma, and therefore fertility drugs, which raise the serum levels of gonadotropins and increase the chances of multiple ovulations, have been retained as a risk factor for this malignancy, However, the large majority of literature data as well as the new hypotheses on ovarian carcinogenesis appear to exclude a relevant impact of fertility drug use on the risk of ovarian tumors, and especially of high-grade invasive epithelial ovarian cancers.

Motherhood after breast cancer: searching for la dolce vita

Advances in the field of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer have led to significant improvements in breast cancer survival. This has resulted in a progressive decline in breast cancer-related mortality, such that in 2010 there were estimated to be 400,000 breast cancer survivors under the age of 40 in the USA. Hence, enquiry into the feasibility of fertility preservation, subsequent pregnancy and breastfeeding is increasingly encountered. Fertility counseling remains suboptimal in breast cancer clinics, and there is a wide perception that pregnancy could worsen the prognosis of young breast cancer survivors, despite the lack of evidence supporting this notion. In addition, fertility preservation by means of embryo or oocyte cryopreservation requires ovarian stimulation, which is associated with a significant rise in estradiol levels and might delay initiation of therapy. All these factors, and others, have influenced the quality of fertility counseling offered to young breast cancer patients. In this article, we will critically analyze the available clinical and biological evidence on the safety and feasibility of pregnancy and breastfeeding following breast cancer. In addition, we will discuss the different fertility-preservation techniques available for these patients.

Epidemiology of ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer represents the sixth most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the world, and causes more deaths per year than any other cancer of the female reproductive system. Despite the high incidence and mortality rates, the etiology of this disease is poorly understood. Established risk factors for ovarian cancer include age and having a family history of the disease, while protective factors include increasing parity, oral contraceptive use, and oophorectomy. Lactation, incomplete pregnancies, and surgeries such as hysterectomy and tubal ligation may confer a weak protective effect against ovarian cancer. Infertility may contribute to ovarian cancer risk among nulliparous women. Other possible risk factors for ovarian cancer include postmenopausal hormone-replacement therapy and lifestyle factors such as cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption. Many of the causes of ovarian cancer are yet to be identified. Additional research is needed to better understand the etiology of this deadly disease.

Risk of breast cancer and gynecologic cancers in a large population of nearly 50,000 infertile Danish women

Infertility is considered to influence the risk of breast cancer and gynecologic cancers. To assess this association, the authors used data from a large cohort of 54,362 women with a diagnosis of infertility who were referred to Danish fertility clinics between 1963 and 1998. Through 2003, 1,975 cancers were identified by linkage to the Danish Cancer Registry. Cancer risk was assessed through standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals, using general and parity-specific cancer incidence rates in the general population of Denmark as a reference. After adjustment for parity status, significantly increased SIRs were observed for breast (SIR = 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.01, 1.16) and ovarian (SIR = 1.46, 95% confidence interval: 1.24, 1.71) cancer. The risk of breast cancer increased with follow-up time. Similar risk patterns were observed for the different histologic types of breast cancer and all nonmucinous types of ovarian cancer, whereas the risk of mucinous ovarian cancers seemed not to be increased. These data thus suggest higher risks of breast and ovarian cancer among infertile women. However, since these results could not distinguish the effects of underlying infertility from the effects of fertility treatment, additional studies are needed to disentangle the effects of these two factors.

Safety of fertility preservation by ovarian stimulation with letrozole and gonadotropins in patients with breast cancer: a prospective controlled study

PURPOSE

Because of the accompanying increase in estrogen levels, safety of performing in vitro fertilization (IVF) in women with breast cancer is unknown. Our goal was to determine the effect of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) using a combination of letrozole with standard fertility medications on disease-free survival in women undergoing embryo or oocyte cryopreservation before adjuvant chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 215 women with breast cancer were prospectively evaluated for fertility preservation before adjuvant chemotherapy. Of those, 79 elected to undergo COS with letrozole and gonadotropins for embryo or oocyte cryopreservation. The remaining 136 patients underwent no fertility-preserving procedure and served as controls.

RESULTS

Study and control groups were similar at enrollment except for a trend for higher estrogen-receptor positivity in the COS group (P = .08). Time between surgery and chemotherapy was longer for IVF patients (45.08 v 33.46 days; P < .01). Peak estradiol levels ranged from 58.4 to 1,166 pg/mL (mean, 405.94 +/- 256.64 pg/mL or 1,486.76 +/- 942.13 pmol/L) in COS patients. The median follow-up after chemotherapy was 23.4 months (range, 7.5 to 63.6 months) in the COS group and 33.05 months (range, 4.5 to 63.6) in the control group. The hazard ratio for recurrence after IVF was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.17 to 1.9), and the survival was not compromised compared with controls (P = .36).

CONCLUSION

Ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins and letrozole for the purpose of fertility preservation is unlikely to cause substantially increased recurrence risk. Further research, including longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm these findings.

Infertility, treatment of infertility, and the risk of breast cancer among women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Women with a breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1) or breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 (BRCA2) mutation are at increased risk for developing breast and ovarian cancer. Various reproductive and hormonal factors have been shown to modify the risk of breast cancer. These studies suggest that estrogen exposure and deprivation are important in the etiology of hereditary cancer. Many patients are interested in the possibility of an adverse effect of fertility treatment on breast cancer risk. It is important to evaluate whether or not infertility per se or exposure to fertility medications increase the risk of breast cancer in genetically predisposed women.

METHODS

We conducted a matched case-control study of 1,380 pairs of women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation to determine if a history of infertility, the use of fertility medications, or undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) were associated with and increased the risk of breast cancer.

RESULTS

Sixteen percent of the study subjects reported having experienced a fertility problem and 4% had used a fertility medication. Women who had used a fertility medication were not at significantly increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81-1.82) compared to non-users. Furthermore, there was no risk associated with a history of use of a fertility medication when the subjects were stratified by parity: (OR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.83-2.01 for nulliparous women and OR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.30-2.22 for parous women).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that the use of fertility medications does not adversely affect the risk of breast cancer among BRCA mutation carriers. Given the small sizes of the exposed subgroups, these findings should be interpreted with caution and confirmatory studies are required.

The interface between assisted reproductive technologies and genetics: technical, social, ethical and legal issues

The interface between assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and genetics comprises several sensitive and important issues that affect infertile couples, families with severe genetic diseases, potential children, professionals in ART and genetics, health care, researchers and the society in general. Genetic causes have a considerable involvement in infertility. Genetic conditions may also be transmitted to the offspring and hence create transgenerational infertility or other serious health problems. Several studies also suggest a slightly elevated risk of birth defects in children born following ART. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has become widely practiced throughout the world for various medical indications, but its limits are being debated. The attitudes towards ART and PGD vary substantially within Europe. The purpose of the present paper was to outline a framework for development of guidelines to be issued jointly by European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology for the interface between genetics and ART. Technical, social, ethical and legal issues of ART and genetics will be reviewed.

Meta-analysis of cancer incidence in children born after assisted reproductive technologies

A meta-analysis was performed on 11 cohort studies of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) and subsequent childhood cancer, published up to February 2005, which reported comparable, nonoverlapping data, and then restricted to eight studies which presented a similar research design. The overall Standardised Incidence Ratio was 1.33 (95% CI 0.62-2.85), and 0.77 (95% CI 0.41-1.42) when the analysis was restricted to eight studies. No evidence of publication bias was observed for the overall analysis. The data are consistent with a lack of increase in risk of childhood cancer, though the amount of data on ART and cancer is still limited; larger multicentric studies as well as a pooled analysis on the available data are warranted.