Fertility considerations prior to conservative management of gynecologic cancers

Fertility preservation in patients with gynaecologic malignancy: Response to ovarian stimulation and long-term outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To the best of our knowledge, the available evidence on the effect and efficacy of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in this group of patients remains poorly reported. Concerns related to the impact of stimulation to cancer progression and recurrence, as well as the risk of disease dissemination during egg collection, might explain the aforementioned trend.

METHODS

Overall, our FP Service received 192 gynaecological referrals, between 2005 and 2021, regarding gynaecologic conditions mainly cancer related. A total of 68 (35.4%) patients underwent COS. These patients were diagnosed with the following gynaecologic pathologies: 33 cases (48,5%) of cervical cancer were noted (stage 1b1-2b), 25 ovarian pathology (36.7%), 9 cases (13.2%) of endometrial cancer, and a single case of vaginal cancer (1.5%).

RESULTS

The mean age of patients attending the fertility preservation service was 31.5 (std 5.8). The patients presenting to their initial appointment with a mean BMI 24.5 (IQR 6.9) and a median AFC of 12 (IQR 13). The mean duration of COS was 11 days (IQR 3), and the median dose of gonadotrophins was calculated at 300 IU (IQR 75 IU). In 95.4% of the cases, GnRH agonist was used as a trigger for final maturation. The median number of follicles measuring more than 14 mm at the time of trigger was 11 (IQR 8), whereas the median number of oocytes collected was 11 (IQR 9). The complication rate was reported at less than 2%. So far, one in four women of this FP group (17/68, 25% of the overall group) returned to our service to claim their cryopreserved eggs/embryos and successful livebirths were reported in 58.8% of this sample (10/17 cases). The mean time to return to use their oocytes/embryos was 36 months (min value 16 months - max value 85 months). There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients who received FP vs those who did not (hazard ratio of mortality was estimated at 0.91 (p-value 0.88)).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, ovarian stimulation for patients presenting with gynaecologic malignancy is a safe and efficient method of fertility preservation. Undoubtedly, the sample size is limited, however our results are reassuring and highlight the efficacy of COS for the purpose of FP based on data coming from the largest Assisted Conception Unit of the South-East of the UK.

Current limits of conservative treatment in ovarian cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Fertility-sparing surgery in ovarian cancer is an increasing need in gynecology-oncology clinical practice because of the frequent childbearing delay in developed countries. As the evidence in literature is based on observational studies, this review focuses on summarizing the most recent and relevant evidence for the conservative management of young patients with ovarian cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Staging surgery is mandatory in epithelial ovarian tumors. In sex cord-stromal tumors, fertility-sparing surgery is only recommended in FIGO stage IA. Due to its good prognosis, conservative treatment is possible in some cases of advanced disease of germ cell tumors and borderline tumors. Cystectomy is a reasonable option in serous borderline tumors but is not recommended in other tumor subtypes. Successful conception rates after fertility-sparing surgery ranges from 30 to 60%.

SUMMARY

Fertility-sparing surgery is a well tolerated option in young women with early-stage ovarian cancer with acceptable reproductive outcomes.

Assessing gaps in motherhood after cancer: development and psychometric testing of the Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale

OBJECTIVE

With a growing population of young cancer survivors, there is an increasing need to address the gaps in evidence regarding cancer survivors' obstetric outcomes, fertility care access, and experiences. As part of a large research program, this study engaged survivors and experts in co-developing and testing the validity, reliability, acceptability, and feasibility of a scale to assess survivor-reported barriers to motherhood after cancer.

METHODS

Scale items were developed based on literature and expert review of 226 reproductive health items, and six experience and focus groups with 26 survivors of breast and gynecological cancers. We then invited 128 survivors to complete the scale twice, 48 hours apart, and assessed the scale's psychometric properties using exploratory factor analyses including reliability, known-group validity, and convergent validity.

RESULTS

Item development identified three primary themes: multifaceted barriers for cancer survivors; challenging decisions about whether and how to pursue motherhood; and a timely need for evidence about obstetric outcomes. Retained items were developed into a 24-item prototype scale with four subscales. Prototype testing showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.71) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.70). Known-group validity was supported; the scale discriminated between groups by age (x=70.0 for patients ≥35 years old vs 54.5 for patients <35 years old, p=0.02) and years since diagnosis (x=71.5 for ≥6 years vs 54.3 for<6 years, p=0.01). The financial subscale was correlated with the Economic StraiN and Resilience in Cancer measure of financial toxicity (ρ=0.39, p<0.001). The scale was acceptable and feasibly delivered online. The final 22-item scale is organized in four subscales: personal, medical, relational, and financial barriers to motherhood.

CONCLUSION

The Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale demonstrated validity, reliability, and was acceptable and feasible when delivered online. Implementing the scale can gather the data needed to inform shared decision making and to address disparities in fertility care for survivors.

Fertility-Sparing Approaches in Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia and Endometrial Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the fourth most common cancer in women in developed countries. Although it is usually diagnosed in postmenopausal women, its incidence has increased in young women, as well in recent decades, with an estimated rate of 4% in those under 40 years of age. Factors involved in this increase, particularly in resource-rich countries, include delayed childbearing and the rise in obesity. The new molecular classification of EC should help to personalize treatment, through appropriate candidate selection. With the currently available evidence, the use of oral progestin either alone or in combination with other drugs such as metformin, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and hysteroscopic resection, seems to be feasible and safe in women with early-stage EC limited to the endometrium. However, there is a lack of high-quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of conservative management in EC. Randomized clinical trials in younger women and obese patients are currently underway.

Fertility-Sparing Treatment for Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia and Endometrial Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review Protocol

INTRODUCTION

Endometrial cancer is the fifth most common cancer in women and atypical endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous lesion. Obesity is an important risk factor for endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma and endometrial hyperplasia. Progesterone is recommended as first-line treatment in endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia in women who wish to preserve fertility, but optimal treatment schedules have not been defined. Metformin or bariatric surgery may also be useful in these women. The effectiveness and safety of fertility-preserving treatments being used for women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia and stage IA grade 1 endometrial cancer is unclear. Therefore, the systematic review aims to determine this point.

METHODS

We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trial registers, conference proceedings, abstracts, cooperative trial groups and reference lists. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare fertility-preserving therapy including orally administered progesterone versus a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (IUS), metformin, other pharmacological interventions or bariatric surgery, and any of these interventions with womb-removing surgery. Quasi-randomised trials, non-randomised trials and cohort studies will be included. Two review authors will independently assess study eligibility and risk of bias and extract data. The primary outcomes are complete pathologic response and live birth rate. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, progression-free survival, pregnancy rate, need for hysterectomy, adverse events, psychological symptoms and quality of life.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

This review aims to clarify the effectiveness and risks of fertility-preserving treatments, including complete pathologic response rate, live birth rates, need for surgical treatment, adverse events, psychological symptoms and quality of life. The broad scope of the review includes the use of progesterone, metformin to reverse insulin resistance, and bariatric surgery or operative hysteroscopy.

RESULTS

The results may help to determine the optimal fertility-sparing treatment in endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Prospero 2019 number CRD42019145991.