Preserving fertility in young women undergoing chemotherapy for early breast cancer; the Maastricht experience

[Live birth rates after breast cancer among women who desired a child]

INTRODUCTION

In France, the breast cancer is the most common cancer among women under the age of 40. From 38 to 70% of women have not fulfilled their parental plans at the time of diagnosis. The gonadotoxicity of the treatments and the follicular physiological decline linked to age can become an obstacle to this project.

METHODS

Among the patients, 386 were treated for breast cancer at the Centre Georges-François-Leclerc in Dijon between January 2011 and December 2018 were identified. 192 patients aged under 39 met the inclusion criteria. We excluded metastatic cancers, cancer in situ and pregnant patients at diagnosis. A total of 124 patients agreed to participate in the study. The included patients filled out a self-questionnaire. Data were collected from the patient's electronic medical. The primary endpoint of this study was the live birth rate.

RESULT

Among women who desired a child after breast cancer, the overall rate of live births was 36.2 % (21/58). Most achieved pregnancies were spontaneous (90.5 %). No factor was significantly associated with the absence of obtaining birth. Fertility was preserved by oocyte cryopreservation in 13.8 % of patients (17/124). The median time to conception in patients who received chemotherapy was 8 months [1.0-60.0] vs 2 months [1.0-7.0] in women who did not receive chemotherapy.

DISCUSSION

The non-negligible proportion of live births following spontaneous pregnancy after breast cancer allows us to be reassuring for patients. However, the emergence of new chemotherapy protocols whose consequences on long-term gonadotoxicity are still not well known requires further studies and prompts the promotion of fertility preservation as a precautionary measure.

Characterizing attitudes related to future child-bearing in young women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

This study characterizes attitudes and decision-making around the desire for future children in young women newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and assesses how clinical factors and perceived risk may impact these attitudes.

METHODS

This is a prospective study in women < 45 years with newly diagnosed stage 1-3 breast cancer. Patients completed a REDCap survey on fertility and family-building in the setting of hypothetical risk scenarios. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were collected through surveys and medical record.

RESULTS

Of 140 study patients [median age = 41.4 (range 23-45)], 71 (50.7%) were interested in having children. Women interested in future childbearing were younger than those who were not interested (mean = 35.2 [SD = 5.2] vs 40.9 years [3.90], respectively, p < 0.001), and more likely to be childless (81% vs 31%, p < 0.001). 54 women (77.1% of patients interested in future children) underwent/planned to undergo oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before chemotherapy. Interest in future childbearing decreased with increasing hypothetical recurrence risk, however 17% of patients wanted to have children despite a 75-100% hypothetical recurrence risk. 24.3% of patients wanted to conceive < 2 years from diagnosis, and 35% of patients with hormone receptor positive tumors were not willing to complete 5 years of hormone therapy.

CONCLUSION

Many young women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer prioritize childbearing. Interest in having a biologic child was not associated with standard prognostic risk factors. Interest decreased with increasing hypothetical recurrence risk, though some patients remained committed to future childbearing despite near certain hypothetical risk. Individual risk assessment should be included in family-planning discussions throughout the continuum of care as it can influence decision-making.

Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: time to stop?

Fertility preservation is currently offered to young women with breast cancer to increase their chances of motherhood after a potentially gonadotoxic treatment. Ovarian stimulation with oocyte vitrification and cryopreservation of ovarian tissue remain the most commonly used methods of choice. Whichever method is preferred is very much dependent on the practice and experience of the clinics, although for breast cancer in particular one method might be superior to the other. Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is inevitably associated with the iatrogenic reduction of the ovarian reserve of a patient and should only be offered to women with a high risk of premature ovarian insufficiency following treatment. However, for younger breast cancer survivors, pregnancy and delivery rates are reassuringly high, even after chemotherapy. Despite its widespread use, few women come back to make use of their cryopreserved tissue. It is argued here that cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is not an appropriate option for breast cancer patients and discuss the reasons for this opinion.

Considerations of breast cancer survivors to return for embryo transfer after fertility preservation: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into the considerations of breast cancer survivors to return or not for embryo transfer after the use of fertility preservation.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. The interviews were planned until saturation of themes had been achieved. Content analysis was used to analyze the data. Sixteen out of 35 approached women took part in this study. Interviews were conducted with women who had oocytes or embryos cryopreserved prior to breast cancer treatment at the Maastricht University Medical Center between 2008 and 2016. All women who had cryopreservation more than two years ago were invited for the interviews. Women who had recurrence of disease were excluded. In the interviews we hypothesized the situation 'suppose the menses would have been recovered completely' for women who still had chemotherapy-induced menopause or used an GnRH (Gonadotropin-releasing hormone) analogue.

RESULTS

Most women had a strong intrinsic motivation to pursue natural conception over the use of earlier cryopreserved oocytes or embryos. Time pressure was the most mentioned consideration to use cryopreserved oocytes or embryos. The wish to use pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) in the presence of a germline BRCA1/2 mutation was another consideration to opt for embryo transfer. Furthermore, the physician's advice was an important motivation to choose for either natural conception or the use of cryopreserved oocytes or embryos.

CONCLUSION

Multiple considerations influence women's decision making on the mode of conception after breast cancer. Although it concerned a single-center study in a highly-selected population, insight into these considerations can help physicians to address these important topics in counseling these women.

Fertility preservation, its effectiveness and its impact on disease status in pre-menopausal women with breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Preservation of reproductive function is a key concern for many premenopausal women with breast cancer, given the known gonadotoxic effects of treatments. The present systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of fertility preservation strategies in pre-menopausal women with breast cancer.

METHODS

Primary research assessing fertility preservation strategies of any type was identified. Markers of preservation of fertility including return of menstrual function, clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates were selected as main outcome measures. An additional analysis of safety data was also performed.

RESULTS

Fertility preservation interventions were overall associated with higher fertility outcomes: with a pooled odds ratio 4.14 (95% CI 3.59-4.77) for any kind of fertility preservation intervention. This was seen both for return of menstruation and for clinical pregnancy rate, but not for live birth rates. Fertility preservation was associated with a reduced rate of disease recurrence (OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.49-0.81)), while there was no significant difference in disease free survival (OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.74-1.05)) or in overall survival (OR 0.9 (95% CI 0.74-1.10)) between the fertility preservation group and those who had not undergone fertility preservation.

CONCLUSION

Fertility preservation is both effective in preserving reproductive function, and safe with regard to disease recurrence, disease free survival and overall survival in premenopausal women with breast cancer.

Live birth rate after female fertility preservation for cancer or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the three main techniques; embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation

STUDY QUESTION

What are the chances of achieving a live birth after embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) in female cancer survivors?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The live birth rates (LBRs) following embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are 41% and 32%, respectively, while for IVF and spontaneous LBR after tissue cryopreservation and transplantation, these rates are 21% and 33%, respectively.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Currently, fertility preservation (FP) has become a major public health issue as diagnostic and therapeutic progress has made it possible to achieve an 80% survival rate in children, adolescents and young adults with cancer. In the latest ESHRE guidelines, only oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are considered as established options for FP. OTC is still considered to be an innovative method, while it is an acceptable FP technique in the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines. However, given the lack of studies on long-term outcomes after FP, it is still unclear which technique offers the best chance to achieve a live birth.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published controlled studies. Searches were conducted from January 2004 to May 2021 in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library using the following search terms: cancer, stem cell transplantation, FP, embryo cryopreservation, oocyte vitrification, OTC and reproductive outcome.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 126 full-text articles were preselected from 1436 references based on the title and abstract and assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The studies were selected, and their data were extracted by two independent reviewers according to the Cochrane methods. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with high heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Data from 34 studies were used for this meta-analysis. Regarding cryopreserved embryos, the LBR after IVF was 41% (95% CI: 34-48, I2: 0%, fixed effect). Concerning vitrified oocytes, the LBR was 32% (95% CI: 26-39, I2: 0%, fixed effect). Finally, the LBR after IVF and the spontaneous LBR after ovarian tissue transplantation were 21% (95% CI: 15-26, I2: 0%, fixed-effect) and 33% (95% CI: 25-42, I2: 46.1%, random-effect), respectively. For all outcomes, in the sensitivity analyses, the maximum variation in the estimated percentage was 1%.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The heterogeneity of the literature prevents us from comparing these three techniques. This meta-analysis provides limited data which may help clinicians when counselling patients.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study highlights the need for long-term follow-up registries to assess return rates, as well as spontaneous pregnancy rates and birth rates after FP.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from GEDEON RICHTER France. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021264042.

Disease-free survival does not differ according to fertility preservation technique for young women with breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To study whether fertility preservation strategies using ovarian stimulation or without using it impact long-term disease-free survival of patients with breast cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective bicentric cohort study.

SETTING

Two university hospitals.

PATIENT(S)

In this study, 740 women with breast cancer, aged 18-43 years, who received primary fertility preservation between 2013 and 2019 after a diagnosis of localized breast cancer were included.

INTERVENTION(S)

Overall, 328 patients underwent at least 1 ovarian stimulation cycle (STIM group) and 412 had a technique without hormonal administration (no STIM group).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Disease-free survival and overall survival up to May 2021 were compared between the 2 groups by log-rank test. Cox proportional-hazard regression model was used for multivariable analyses.

RESULT(S)

Out of the 740 women who underwent fertility preservation, follow-up data were available for 269 women in the STIM group (82%) and 330 (80%) in the no STIM group. Kaplan-Meier estimates of disease-free survival at 4 years were 87.9% (82.8%-92.2%) and 83.1% (78.4%-87.3%) in the STIM and no STIM groups, respectively. After adjustment on prognostic parameters, no significant difference in breast cancer recurrence rate was observed between the STIM and no STIM groups (hazard ratios, 0.83 [0.64-1.08]). Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival at 4 years was 97.6% (95.3%-99.2%) and 93.6% (90.9%-95.9%) in the STIM and no STIM groups, respectively. Overall survival was higher in the STIM group than no STIM group (log-rank test). After adjustment on prognostic parameters, the risk of death remained significantly lower in the STIM group (Hazard Ratio, 0.55 [0.35-0.85]).

CONCLUSION(S)

In our cohort, STIM for fertility preservation in breast cancer did not significantly impact disease-free survival but was associated with higher overall survival. The disease-free survival and overall survival of young patients with breast cancer were not impacted by fertility preservation techniques irrespective of the timing of chemotherapy (neoadjuvant or adjuvant) and the use of ovarian stimulation. Nevertheless, because death and recurrence were rare events, these results should be taken with caution.

Safety of fertility preservation techniques before and after anticancer treatments in young women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

Is it safe to perform controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation before starting anticancer therapies or ART after treatments in young breast cancer patients?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Performing COS before, or ART following anticancer treatment in young women with breast cancer does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in terms of breast cancer recurrence, mortality or event-free survival (EFS).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

COS for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before starting chemotherapy is standard of care for young women with breast cancer wishing to preserve fertility. However, some oncologists remain concerned on the safety of COS, particularly in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors, even when associated with aromatase inhibitors. Moreover, limited evidence exists on the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors for achieving pregnancy after the completion of anticancer treatments.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The present systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by three blinded investigators using the keywords 'breast cancer' and 'fertility preservation'; keywords were combined with Boolean operators. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 30 June 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

To be included in this meta-analysis, eligible studies had to be case-control or cohort studies comparing survival outcomes of women who underwent COS or ART before or after breast cancer treatments compared to breast cancer patients not exposed to these strategies. Survival outcomes of interest were cancer recurrence rate, relapse rate, overall survival and number of deaths. Adjusted relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI were extracted. When the number of events for each group were available but the above measures were not reported, HRs were estimated using the Watkins and Bennett method. We excluded case reports or case series with <10 patients and studies without a control group of breast cancer patients who did not pursue COS or ART. Quality of data and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 1835 records were retrieved. After excluding ineligible publications, 15 studies were finally included in the present meta-analysis (n = 4643). Among them, 11 reported the outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent COS for fertility preservation before starting chemotherapy, and 4 the safety of ART following anticancer treatment completion. Compared to women who did not receive fertility preservation at diagnosis (n = 2386), those who underwent COS (n = 1594) had reduced risk of recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73) and mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76). No detrimental effect of COS on EFS was observed (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.06). A similar trend of better outcomes in terms of EFS was observed in women with hormone-receptor-positive disease who underwent COS (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20-0.65). A reduced risk of recurrence was also observed in patients undergoing COS before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.80). Compared to women not exposed to ART following completion of anticancer treatments (n = 540), those exposed to ART (n = 123) showed a tendency for better outcomes in terms of recurrence ratio (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70) and EFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17-1.11).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This meta-analysis is based on abstracted data and most of the studies included are retrospective cohort studies. Not all studies had matching criteria between the study population and the controls, and these criteria often differed between the studies. Moreover, rate of recurrence is reported as a punctual event and it is not possible to establish when recurrences occurred and whether follow-up, which was shorter than 5 years in some of the included studies, is adequate to capture late recurrences.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our results demonstrate that performing COS at diagnosis or ART following treatment completion does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in young women with breast cancer, including among patients with hormone receptor-positive disease and those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Partially supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; grant number MFAG 2020 ID 24698) and the Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds 2017 (no grant number). M.L. acted as consultant for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Ipsen, Takeda, Libbs, Knight, Sandoz outside the submitted work. F.S. acted as consultant for Novartis, MSD, Sun Pharma, Philogen and Pierre Fabre and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. I.D. has acted as a consultant for Roche, has received research grants from Roche and Ferring, has received reagents for academic clinical trial from Roche diagnostics, speaker's fees from Novartis, and support for congresses from Theramex and Ferring outside the submitted work. L.D.M. reported honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis and had an advisory role for Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Unique challenges and outcomes of young women with breast cancers from a tertiary care cancer centre in India

BACKGROUND

Young (≤40 years) breast cancers (YBC) are uncommon, inadequately represented in trials and have unique concerns and merit studying.

METHODS

The YBC treated with a curative intent between 2015 and 2016 at our institute were analysed.

RESULTS

There were 1228 patients with a median age of 36 (12-40) years; 38 (3.1%) had Stage I, 455 (37.1%) - II, 692 (56.3%) -III, and remaining 43 (3.5%) Stage IV (oligo-metastatic) disease; 927 (75.5%) were node positive; 422 (34.4%) were Triple negatives (TNBC), 331 (27%) were HER-2 positive. There were 549 (48.2%) breast conservations and 591 (51.8%) mastectomies of which 62 (10.4%) underwent breast reconstruction. 1143 women received chemotherapy, 617 (53.9%) received as neoadjuvant and 142 (23.1%) had pathological complete response; 934 (81.9%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. At the median follow-up of 48 (0-131) months, 5-year overall and disease-free survival was 79.6% (76.8-82.5) and 59.1% (55.8-62.6). For stage I, II, III and IV, the 5-year overall-survival was 100%, 86.7% (82.8-90.6), 77.3% (73.4-81.2), 69.7% (52.5-86.9) and disease-free survival was 94% (85.9-100), 65.9% (60.3-71.5), 55% (50.5-59.5), and 29.6% (14-45.2) respectively. On multivariate analysis, TNBC and HER-2+ subgroups had poorer survival (p = 0.0035). 25 patients had BRCA mutations with a 5-year DFS of 65.1% (95% CI:43.6-86.6). Fertility preservation was administered in 104 (8.5%) patients; seven women conceived and 5 had live births. Significant postmenopausal symptoms were present in 153 (13%) patients.

CONCLUSION

More than half of the YBC in India were diagnosed at an advanced stage with aggressive features leading to suboptimal outcomes. Awareness via national registry and early diagnosis is highly warranted. Menopausal symptoms and fertility issues are prevalent and demand special focus.

Fertility and breast cancer: A literature review of counseling, preservation options and outcomes

Fertility preservation is an important issue in breast cancer patients undergoing oncological treatment. Fertility counseling is a crucial need given the physical and psychological stress experienced by patients. Cryopreservation of mature oocytes is currently the standard fertility-preserving procedure. Other options such as ovarian tissue preservation or gonadal protection during chemotherapy are still experimental, but have proven effectiveness. Prompt referral to a fertility unit is highly recommended in order to ensure quality of care. In this article, we focus on the different strategies to preserve fertility in breast cancer patients, assessing also the safety of pregnancy and breastfeeding after cancer. A systemic literature review was performed for research articles published in English in PubMed, or as abstracts from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meetings, using the search terms "breast cancer" and "fertility".

The risk of menopausal symptoms in premenopausal breast cancer patients and current pharmacological prevention strategies

Introduction: For young premenopausal breast cancer (BC) patients, adjuvant chemotherapy and other anti-cancer treatments can increase the risk of menopausal symptoms and may cause chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA), infertility and premature ovarian insufficiency (POI).Areas covered: In this report, menopausal symptoms related to anti-cancer treatment are described. Menstrual disturbances associated with the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy against human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in premenopausal women withBC are discussed. To prevent menopausal symptoms, CRA and POI, data on the efficacy of temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) during chemotherapy are highlighted. Pooled analyses have confirmed that concurrent administration of GnRHa during chemotherapy could significantly reduce the risk of developing chemotherapy-induced POI in premenopausal women with early-stageBC. In addition, reports have suggested that embryo/oocyte cryopreservation may increase the chance of pregnancy after the diagnosis ofBC, although such data remain limited.Expert opinion: Commonly experienced by pre-menopausal women withBC, anti-cancer treatment could cause severe menopausal symptoms. Temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy provided asafe and efficient strategy to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced POI in premenopausal patients with early-stageBC undergoing (neo)-adjuvant chemotherapy.

Hot Topics on Fertility Preservation for Women and Girls-Current Research, Knowledge Gaps, and Future Possibilities

Fertility preservation is a novel clinical discipline aiming to protect the fertility potential of young adults and children at risk of infertility. The field is evolving quickly, enriched by advances in assisted reproductive technologies and cryopreservation methods, in addition to surgical developments. The best-characterized target group for fertility preservation is the patient population diagnosed with cancer at a young age since the bulk of the data indicates that the gonadotoxicity inherent to most cancer treatments induces iatrogenic infertility. Since improvements in cancer therapy have resulted in increasing numbers of long-term survivors, survivorship issues and the negative impact of infertility on the quality of life have come to the front line. These facts are reflected in an increasing number of scientific publications referring to clinical medicine and research in the field of fertility preservation. Cryopreservation of gametes, embryos, and gonadal tissue has achieved quality standards for clinical use, with the retrieval of gonadal tissue for cryopreservation being currently the only method feasible in prepubertal children. Additionally, the indications for fertility preservation beyond cancer are also increasing since a number of benign diseases and chronic conditions either require gonadotoxic treatments or are associated with premature follicle depletion. There are many remaining challenges, and current research encompasses clinical health care and caring sciences, ethics, societal, epidemiological, experimental studies, etc.

Reproductive Outcomes After Breast Cancer in Women With vs Without Fertility Preservation

Question

What are the long-term reproductive outcomes after breast cancer in women with vs without a history of fertility preservation?

Findings

In this population-based nationwide cohort study of 425 Swedish women with breast cancer who underwent fertility preservation, fertility preservation at the time of breast cancer diagnosis was associated with a significantly higher rate of postdiagnosis live births and assisted reproduction treatments, without any negative association with all-cause survival following fertility preservation.

Meaning

The findings of this study may be relevant for reproductive counseling of women with breast cancer diagnosed at reproductive age.

Importance

The practice of fertility preservation (FP) in women with breast cancer (BC) is spreading, but long-term reproductive outcomes after FP are largely unknown.

Objective

To investigate the long-term reproductive outcomes in women who did or did not undergo FP at the time of BC diagnosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A Swedish nationwide cohort study was conducted to investigate the long-term reproductive outcomes of women with BC receiving FP at 1 of the regional FP programs from 1994 to 2017 (n = 425). Population comparators with BC but without history of FP (n = 850) were sampled from regional BC registers, matched on age, calendar period of diagnosis, and county. Data on live births, assisted reproductive technology (ART) use, and mortality were retrieved from population-based registers. Data analysis was performed from January to September 2020.

Exposures

History of having received FP compared with no history of FP (unexposed).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was hazard ratios (HRs) of live births and ART treatments following BC in women with vs without FP and the cumulative incidence of these events in the presence of the competing risk of death.

Results

Women who had undergone FP (n = 425) had lower parity (302 [71.1%] were nulliparous compared with 171 [20.1%] in the unexposed group), were younger (mean [SD] age, 32.1 [4.0] vs 33.3 [3.6] years), more often had estrogen receptor–positive tumors (289 [68.0%] vs 515 [60.6%]), and were more often scheduled for chemotherapy (399 [93.9%] vs 745 [87.7%]). Of 425 women exposed to FP, 97 (22.8%) had at least 1 post-BC live birth (mean follow-up, 4.6 years), compared with 74 of 850 women (8.7%) unexposed to FP (mean follow-up, 4.8 years). Overall, live birth rates after BC were significantly higher among women with FP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.3). The 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidence of post-BC live births was 19.4% and 40.7% among FP-exposed women vs 8.6% and 15.8% among comparators, respectively. Rates of ART use were also higher in the FP group (aHR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.2-10.7). The all-cause mortality rate was lower in women exposed to FP (aHR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7), with 5-year cumulative incidence of death of 5.3% (95% CI, 3.1%-9.0%) vs 11.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-14.1%) for women with vs without FP.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of Swedish women after a BC diagnosis, successful pregnancy after BC was possible both in women with and without FP at the time of diagnosis, but a significantly higher likelihood of post-BC live births and ART treatments was observed in women who underwent FP, without any negative association with all-cause survival. This information is valuable for health care clinicians responsible for oncologic treatment and reproductive counseling of women diagnosed with breast cancer at reproductive age.

Nationwide survey of Japanese breast oncology and reproductive endocrinology departments about the impact of breast cancer treatment on fertility

The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of breast cancer treatment on the reproductive potential. We conducted a nationwide survey of breast oncology and reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) departments using a questionnaire designed to assess the impact of breast cancer treatment on fertility. We received responses from 312 breast oncology departments (response rate, 31.9%) and 541 REI departments (response rate, 50.9%). The most common method of achieving pregnancy reported by breast oncology departments was natural insemination (69.6%), followed by assisted reproductive technology ( 15.6%) and intrauterine insemination (IUI; 14.8%). The most common method of achieving pregnancy reported by REI departments was conventional in vitro fertilization and/or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (51.0%), followed by natural insemination with or without ovulation induction (40.0%) and IUI (8.0%). The overall pregnancy rate for patients who underwent treatment for infertility at REI departments after breast cancer treatment was 39.0%. Vast patients who experienced breast cancer treatments conceived mainly by natural insemination based on the data from breast oncology departments. On the other hand, 61.0% of the patients who visited REI departments presumably due to infertility by natural insemination did not conceive even by infertility treatments with exclusive knowledge in REI departments.