Advances in Fertility Preservation for Young Women With Cancer

Fertility in young-onset colorectal patients with cancer: a review

Although the overall incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer have declined, diagnosed cases of young-onset colorectal cancer have increased significantly. Concerns about future fertility are second only to concerns about survival and may significantly affect the quality of life of young cancer survivors. Fertility preservation is an important issue in young-onset colorectal patients with cancer undergoing oncotherapy. Here, we discussed the effects of different treatments on fertility, common options for fertility preservation, factors affecting fertility preservation and improvement measures, and the relationship between fertility and pregnancy outcomes in young-onset colorectal patients with cancer.

Psychosocial experiences regarding potential fertility loss and pregnancy failure after treatment in cancer survivors of reproductive age to identify psychosocial care needs: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The challenges of fertility loss owing to cancer treatment persist long after treatment. However, psychosocial care for fertility among cancer survivors who have completed cancer treatment is insufficient. This systematic review examined psychosocial experiences related to the potential loss of fertility and unsuccessful pregnancy after treatment in cancer survivors of reproductive age to identify psychosocial care needs.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using the online databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Ichushi-Web between August and December 2022 to identify studies that addressed psychosocial experiences after fertility loss or failure to conceive among young cancer survivors. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included, revealing psychosocial experiences across five categories: subjective fear of (potential) fertility loss, impact on romantic relationships, alternative methods for family building, reliance on social support, and specialized care. Only one study addressed the psychosocial aspects after complete loss of fertility in young cancer survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility and uncertainty of fertility loss led to stress and depression, loss of identity, decreased opportunities to meet a new partner, and damaged relationships established before diagnosis. The needs encompass fertility preservation, sexuality, approaches to building a family, partner communication, and other diverse needs.

The use of fertility treatments among reproductive-aged women after cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether female cancer survivors are more likely to pursue care for infertility after cancer than women without cancer.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study involving detailed interviews regarding reproductive history.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENTS

Female cancer survivors aged 22-45 years, who were at least 2 years after a cancer diagnosis between the ages of 20 and 35 years (n = 1,036), and age-matched comparison women with no cancer history (n = 1,026).

EXPOSURE

History of cancer vs. no history of cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Each cancer survivor was randomly matched to a comparison woman, who was assigned an artificial age at cancer diagnosis equal to that of her match. Matching was repeated 1,000 times. Outcomes of visiting a doctor for help becoming pregnant or undergoing fertility treatment were modeled using Cox proportional hazards regression, comparing survivors after a cancer diagnosis to age-matched comparison women, adjusted for race, income, residence, education, and parity.

RESULTS

Only 25.5% of cancer survivors reported meeting their desired family size before a cancer diagnosis. The median time from diagnosis to interview among survivors was 7 (interquartile range 5-11) years. Cancer survivors were more likely to report having no children (32.6%) at the interview compared with women with no cancer history (19.5%). Survivors were not more likely to visit a doctor for help becoming pregnant compared with women without a cancer history, matched on birth year and followed by the age at which cancer survivors received their diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% simulation interval [SI] 0.78-1.74). Compared with cancer-free women, cancer survivors had similar probabilities of pursuing any treatment (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.88, 95% SI 0.46-1.56), using hormones or medications (aHR 0.86, 95% SI 0.46-1.63), or undergoing intrauterine insemination (aHR 1.26, 95% SI 0.40-5.88) to conceive. Cancer survivors were slightly more likely to pursue surgical interventions to become pregnant (HR 1.55, 95% SI 0.67-3.71). Of those who visited a doctor but declined to pursue fertility treatment, one-quarter of women reported declining treatment due to cost.

CONCLUSION

Cancer survivors did not use fertility treatments at higher rates than the general population. Further counseling and education surrounding fertility options are recommended for young adult female cancer patients after treatment is completed.

Disparities in fertility preservation use among adolescent and young adult women with cancer

PURPOSE

Women face multiple barriers to fertility preservation after cancer diagnosis, but few studies have examined disparities in use of these services.

METHODS

Women aged 15-39 years diagnosed with cancer during 2004-2015 were identified from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and linked to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Women who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos for fertility preservation (n = 96) were compared to women who received gonadotoxic treatment but did not use fertility preservation (n = 7964). Conditional logistic and log-binomial regression were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) or prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Few adolescent and young adult women with cancer in our study (1.2%) used fertility preservation. In multivariable regression, women less likely to use fertility preservation were older at diagnosis (ages 25-29 vs. 35-39: OR = 6.27, 95% CI: 3.35, 11.73); non-Hispanic Black (vs. non-Hispanic White: PR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.79); and parous at diagnosis (vs. nulliparous: PR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.45); or lived in census tracts that were non-urban (vs. urban: PR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.37) or of lower socioeconomic status (quintiles 1-3 vs. quintiles 4 and 5: PR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with cancer who were older, non-Hispanic Black, parous, or living in areas that were non-urban or of lower socioeconomic position were less likely to use fertility preservation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Clinical and policy interventions are needed to ensure equitable access to fertility services among women facing cancer treatment-related infertility.

Time to cancer treatment and reproductive outcomes after fertility preservation among adolescent and young adult women with cancer

BACKGROUND

Fertility preservation (FP) may be underused after cancer diagnosis because of uncertainty around delays to cancer treatment and subsequent reproductive success.

METHODS

Women aged 15 to 39 years diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2015 were identified from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) after cancer diagnosis between 2004 and 2018 (including FP) was assessed through linkage to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Linear regression was used to examine time to cancer treatment among women who did (n = 95) or did not (n = 469) use FP. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for pregnancy and birth based on timing of ART initiation relative to cancer treatment (n = 18 initiated before treatment for FP vs n = 26 initiated after treatment without FP).

RESULTS

The median time to cancer treatment was 9 to 33 days longer among women who used FP compared with women who did not, matched on clinical factors. Women who initiated ART before cancer treatment may be more likely to have a live birth given pregnancy compared with women who initiated ART after cancer treatment (age-adjusted RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.98-2.23), though this may be affected by the more frequent use of gestational carriers in the former group (47% vs 20% of transfer cycles, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

FP delayed gonadotoxic cancer treatment by up to 4.5 weeks, a delay that would not be expected to alter prognosis for many women. Further study of the use of gestational carriers in cancer populations is warranted to better understand its effect on reproductive outcomes.

Oncofertility and Reproductive Counseling in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Introduction. Improving the prognosis of breast cancer patients is of utmost importance in terms of increasing survival rates. Modern medicine has therefore prioritized better quality of life for patients, even after the disease, through a better management of the potential long-term side effects induced by anticancer treatments. Fertility preservation and family planning are therefore crucial issues to be addressed in all cancer patients of reproductive age. Along those lines, a new branch of medicine with distinct multidisciplinary characteristics has developed over the years: oncofertility. Although both national and international guidelines value reproductive counseling as an essential aspect of the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway, part and parcel of the informed consent process, it is not included within the protocols adopted by the operating units for the care and management of neoplastic diseases. Objective. This study aimed to evaluate the activity of the Breast Unit of the Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy, and the degree of compliance with guidelines. By knowing the strengths and weaknesses of such approaches, the standards of care offered to breast cancer patients can be improved. Materials and methods. A retrospective study based on a review of medical records was conducted between 2014 and 2021. Patients under 40 years of age diagnosed with non-metastatic malignancies were included who received chemotherapy treatment, namely neoadjuvant, adjuvant or adjuvant hormone therapy. Results. The data were extracted from the medical records of 51 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 41% of whom received reproductive counseling, and of these, 43% decided to undertake a path of fertility preservation. Factors such as the absence of children and young age reportedly favored both the interest in counseling proposals by the medical staff and the decision to undertake a path of fertility preservation. Conclusions. The study shows that there has been growing interest in the topic of oncofertility, especially in light of law 219/2017. Therefore, since 2018, multiple proposals for reproductive counseling have been set forth, but there was not an equally growing demand for fertility preservation practices, which can be explained by the invasive nature of such practices, the patients’ concern about their own state of health, and poor or inadequate information. Such impediments highlight the importance of standardized counseling and the need for a multidisciplinary medical team to support the patient in the decision-making process. The study also revealed a drop in the number of patients receiving counseling due to the COVID-19 pandemic, contrary to the positive trend that was recorded prior to the pandemic.

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.

Recent advances: fertility preservation and fertility restoration options for males and females

Fertility preservation is the process of saving gametes, embryos, gonadal tissues and/or gonadal cells for individuals who are at risk of infertility due to disease, medical treatments, age, genetics, or other circumstances. Adult patients have the options to preserve eggs, sperm, or embryos that can be used in the future to produce biologically related offspring with assisted reproductive technologies. These options are not available to all adults or to children who are not yet producing mature eggs or sperm. Gonadal cells/tissues have been frozen for several thousands of those patients worldwide with anticipation that new reproductive technologies will be available in the future. Therefore, the fertility preservation medical and research communities are obligated to responsibly develop next-generation reproductive technologies and translate them into clinical practice. We briefly describe standard options to preserve and restore fertility, but the emphasis of this review is on experimental options, including an assessment of readiness for translation to the human fertility clinic.

Anti-cancer therapy made easier: a 25-year update

In 1993, the Internal Medicine Journal published ‘Chemotherapy made easier’, outlining developments in supportive care of patients undergoing chemotherapy. This described the contemporary state of anti‐emetics, colony stimulating factors, cardiac toxicity, neurotoxicity, development of drug analogues and venous access devices. Twenty‐five years later, we update the measures that improve the tolerability of the plethora of new anti‐cancer therapies, which have extended well beyond traditional chemotherapy agents to include immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Optimisation of supportive care is paramount to allow safe delivery with the least possible impact on quality of life of these new treatments, many of which have resulted dramatically improved outcomes across multiple cancer types. This state of the art update summarises advances in supportive care therapies relating to improving the patient experience during and after anti‐cancer treatment, including new anti‐emetics, hair preservation techniques, bone marrow support and improved venous access devices; the ongoing challenge of neurotoxicity; and the advent of multidisciplinary sub‐specialised fields such as cardio‐oncology and oncofertility. Supportive care medications for immuno‐oncology therapies is a new section; these highly effective (although not universally so) agents were a mere illusion in 1993.

Breast cancer survivorship care beyond local and systemic therapy

Despite persistent inequities in access to care and treatments, advances in combined modality care have led to a steady improvement in outcomes for breast cancer patients across the globe. When estimating the magnitude of clinical benefit of therapies, providers and patients must contend with a multitude of factors that impact treatment decisions and can have long-term effects on quality of life and survival. These include commonly described early toxicities, like aromatase inhibitor-associated musculoskeletal syndrome and neuropathy. But longer-term comorbidities often observed among cancer survivors including weight gain, obesity, infertility, psychological distress, sexual dysfunction, second cancers, bone loss, and body image issues can have lasting effects on quality of life. Equally important, system-level factors such as access to care and resource allocation can have a systemic impact on survival and on the quality of survivorship. Financial toxicity including underemployment can have a lasting impact on patients and caregivers. The resulting disparities in access to treatment can help explain much of the observed variability in outcomes, even within high-income countries like the US. This article revisits some of secondary effects from therapies discussed in a prior 2015 review article, along with other impediments to the optimal delivery of breast cancer care that can affect patients anywhere.

Rare case of remission of a patient with small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcaemic type (SCCOHT) stage IV: Case report

INTRODUCTION

Small cell carcinoma of the ovary (SCC) is a very rare (less than 1 % of ovarien neoplasia), highly undifferentiated, aggressive malignancy affecting young women and linked to a poor prognosis. Overall survive rate is very low (about 16 %). SCCOHT has recently been shown to be associated with SMARCA4 gene mutations and shows some genetic similarities to malignant rhabdoid tumors (MRT).

PRESENTATION OF CASE

After a reminder of the clinical, histological description of the SCCOHT and concensus about the medical management, we describe the rare case of a 22 years old patient with complete remission after diagnosis of un undifferentiated SCCOHT stage IV treated by conservative surgery and high-doses chemotherapy, 30 months after diagnosis.

DISCUSSION

Thus far, no standard therapy exists for SCCOHT. Treatment modalities are surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant after high-dose chemotherapy. Research for new treatments includes target therapy.

CONCLUSION

Autologous stem cell transplant after high-dose adjuvant chemotherapy seems to lead to the best survival rates. Invasiveness of the treatment depends on the stage of the disease, age of the patient and her fertility-sparing desire. An international collaboration will be needed to standardise practices due of the small number of patients.