Ovarian stimulation and borderline ovarian tumors: a case-control study

Risk of borderline ovarian tumors after fertility treatment - Results from a Danish cohort of infertile women

OBJECTIVE

Results from previous studies examining the association between fertility treatment and borderline ovarian tumors are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between fertility treatment and borderline ovarian tumors in a cohort of infertile women.

METHODS

This cohort study was based on the Danish Infertility Cohort and included all infertile women aged 20-45 years living in Denmark between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2017 (n = 146,891). Information on use of fertility drugs, borderline ovarian tumors and cancer diagnoses, covariates, emigration, and vital status was obtained by linkage to national registers. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with adjustment for potential confounders for overall borderline ovarian tumors and for serous- and mucinous borderline ovarian tumors separately.

RESULTS

During a median 11.3 years of follow-up, 144 women developed a borderline ovarian tumor. No marked associations between ever use of clomiphene citrate, gonadotropins, gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor modulators, human chorionic gonadotropin or progesterone and borderline ovarian tumors were observed, neither overall nor for serous and mucinous borderline ovarian tumors analysed separately. Further, no clear associations with borderline ovarian tumors were found according to cumulative dose, time since first use or parity status for any fertility drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

No marked associations between use of fertility drugs and borderline ovarian tumors were observed. However, the cohort's relatively young age at end of follow-up emphasizes the importance of extending the follow-up period for women who have used fertility drugs.

Fertility drugs and cancer: a guideline

Methodological limitations in studying the association between the use of fertility drugs and cancer include the inherent increased risk of cancer in women who never conceive, the increased risk of cancer because of factors (endometriosis and unopposed estrogen) associated with infertility, the low incidence of most of these cancers, and that the diagnosis of cancer is typically several years after fertility drug use. On the basis of available data, there does not appear to be an association between fertility drugs and breast, colon, or cervical cancer. There is no conclusive evidence that fertility drugs increase the risk of uterine cancer, although women with infertility are at higher risk of uterine cancer. There are insufficient data to comment on the risk of melanoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma associated with fertility drug use. Women should be informed that there may be an increased risk of invasive and borderline ovarian cancers and thyroid cancer associated with fertility treatment. It is difficult to determine whether this risk is related to underlying endometriosis, female infertility, or nulliparity.

Does controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in women with a history of borderline tumor influence recurrence rate?

PURPOSE

To determine the recurrence rate in the women with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation after a history of borderline ovarian tumors (BOT).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 275 patients with BOT undergoing surgery for fertility preservation in our hospital between 2001 and 2017. Cases were divided into an assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment group (n = 15) and a non-ART treatment group (n = 260). We compared the recurrence rate, survival rate and pregnancy outcomes between these two groups.

RESULTS

The ART group had a higher recurrence rate (33.33% vs. 10.80%, P = 0.023). Survival analysis indicated that the recurrence time in patients undergoing ART was significantly shorter (P = 0.026). A low pregnancy rate before diagnosis, and high intraoperative blood loss, were associated with postoperative ART treatment (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that ART treatment and bilateral lesions both significantly increased the risk of recurrence (P < 0.05). The pathological type of recurrent tumors was often the same as the initial tumor.

CONCLUSION

The postoperative use of ART in patients with BOT significantly increased the recurrence rate, but does not significantly affect the overall survival rate of patients. Therefore, ART in such patients should be individualized, and close follow-up is necessary after ART.

Effects of Infertility Drug Exposure on the Risk of Borderline Ovarian Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Whether infertility drug exposure increases the risk of borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) remains controversial. The present study was conducted with a comprehensive search for studies published from January 1990 to December 2021 in the online databases Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE. We considered the first diagnosis of a BOT as the primary outcome. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of BOTs in patients who were treated with infertility drugs. Ten studies, a total of 2,779,511 women, qualified for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The pooled OR of 1.56 (95% CI: 1.09-2.22) revealed a significant positive association between infertility drugs and an increased risk for BOTs, but for specific drugs, only CC plus Gn had statistical significance. No publication bias was detected using the Egger and Begg tests (p > 0.05). A significant difference in BOT incidence was observed among infertile women and nulliparous women who were treated with or without infertility drugs. In conclusion, the use of infertility drugs may increase the risk of BOTs, but a dose-dependent relationship was not observed between the number of assisted reproduction technology cycles and the risk of BOTs, and infertile women who successfully became pregnant might have a reduced risk. Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022330775.

Ovulation induction drug and ovarian cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the association between ovulation induction drugs and ovarian cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Women without ovarian cancer who ever or never underwent ovarian induction.

INTERVENTION(S)

An extensive electronic search of the following databases was performed: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and CNKI, from inception until January 2022. A total of 34 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) and random-effects model were used to estimate the pooled effects. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. Funnel plots and Egger tests were used to assess publication bias.

MAIN OUTCOMES

New diagnosed borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) and invasive ovarian cancer (IOC) between ovulation induction (OI) group and control (CT) group considering fertility outcome, OI cycles and specific OI drugs.

RESULTS

Primarily, there was no significant difference in the incidence of IOC and BOT between the OI and CT groups. Secondly, OI treatment did not increase the risk of IOC and BOT in the multiparous women, nor did it increase the risk of IOC in the nulliparous women. However, the risk of BOT appeared to be higher in nulliparous women treated with OI treatment. Thirdly, among women exposed to OI, the risk of IOC and BOT was higher in nulliparous women than in multiparous women. Fourthly, the risk of IOC did not increase with increasing OI cycles. Lastly, exposure to specific OI drugs also did not contribute to the risk of IOC and BOT.

CONCLUSION

Overall, OI treatment did not increase the risk of IOC and BOT in most women, regardless of OI drug type and OI cycle. However, nulliparous women treated with OI showed a higher risk of ovarian cancer, necessitating their rigorous monitoring and ongoing follow-up.

Fertility treatment and cancers-the eternal conundrum: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

Does fertility treatment (FT) significantly increase the incidence of breast, ovarian, endometrial or cervical cancer?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Overall, FT does not significantly increase the incidence of breast, ovarian or endometrial cancer and may even reduce the incidence of cervical cancer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Infertility affects more than 14% of couples. Infertility and nulliparity are established risk factors for endometrial, ovarian and breast cancer, yet the association with FT is more contentious.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A literature search was carried out using Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline and Google Scholar up to December 2019. Peer-reviewed studies stating cancer incidence (breast, ovarian, endometrial or cervical) in FT and no-FT groups were identified. Out of 128 studies identified, 29 retrospective studies fulfilled the criteria and were included (n = 21 070 337).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

In the final meta-analysis, 29 studies were included: breast (n = 19), ovarian (n = 19), endometrial (n = 15) and cervical (n = 13), 17 studies involved multiple cancer types and so were included in each individual cancer meta-analysis. Primary outcome of interest was cancer incidence (breast, ovarian, endometrial and cervical) in FT and no-FT groups. Secondary outcome was cancer incidence according to specific fertility drug exposure. Odds ratio (OR) and random effects model were used to demonstrate treatment effect and calculate pooled treatment effect, respectively. A meta-regression and eight sub-group analyses were performed to assess the impact of the following variables, maternal age, infertility, study size, outliers and specific FT sub-types, on cancer incidence.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Cervical cancer incidence was significantly lower in the FT group compared with the no-FT group: OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.46-0.99). The incidences of breast (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.73-1.01) and endometrial (OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.92-1.79) cancers were not found to be significantly different between the FT and no-FT groups. Whilst overall ovarian cancer incidence was not significantly different between the FT and no-FT groups (OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.98-1.46), separate analysis of borderline ovarian tumours (BOT) revealed a significant association (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.27-2.25). In further sub-group analyses, ovarian cancer incidence was shown to be significantly higher in the IVF (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.03-1.69) and clomiphene citrate (CC) treatment group (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.10-1.77), respectively when compared with the no-FT group. Conversely, the incidences of breast (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61-0.92) and cervical cancer (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.89) were significantly lower in the IVF treatment sub-group compared to the no-FT group.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The large, varied dataset spanning a wide study period introduced significant clinical heterogeneity. Thus, results have to be interpreted with an element of caution. Exclusion of non-English citations, unpublished work and abstracts, in order to ensure data accuracy and reliability was maintained, may have introduced a degree of selection bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The results for breast, ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancer are reassuring, in line with previously published meta-analyses for individual cancers but the association between IVF and CC treatment and an increase in ovarian cancer incidence requires additional work to understand the potential mechanism driving this association. In particular, focusing on (i) discriminating specific treatments effects from an inherent risk of malignancy; (ii) differential risk profiles among specific patient sub-groups (refractory treatment and obesity); and (iii) understanding the impact of FT outcomes on cancer incidence.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study did not receive any funding. The authors have no financial, personal, intellectual and professional conflicts of interest to declare.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019153404.

A Potential Pathogenic Link Between Cancer of Female Reproductive System and Infertile Women Treated With Assisted Reproduction Techniques

Prevention and treatment of infertility remains a priority for developed countries where a large proportion of women undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF) after ovarian stimulation. Latest data suggest that, in the USA alone, almost eight million women of fertile age will have sought medical advice for fertility problems by 2025. However, over the last years, attention has been increasingly focused, and questions have risen, on the long-term health effects in women who underwent assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). Since the emergence of ART, reports highlight a possible connection of ovarian stimulation and several types of gynaecological cancer, including ovarian, endometrial and cervical types, but due to limited scientific evidence, such a speculation is still under investigation. The objective of this review is to summarize the latest data of ovarian hyperstimulation and IVF, associated with the risk of gynecological tract cancer development.

The significance of ovarian fibrosis

Ovarian aging is associated with significant changes in the structural organization of collagen, resulting in ovarian fibrosis. In many other tissues, fibrosis increases risks associated with tumorigenesis and metastasis. Thus, it is possible that ovarian fibrosis increases the risk of ovarian cancer by creating a microenvironment more permissive to tumor growth. In this research perspective, we review the impact of female reproduction on the development of ovarian fibrosis and the contributions of genetic and hormonal disruptions such as BRCA mutation, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and infertility to structural changes in the ovary and their relative risk of ovarian cancer. We also explore new fundamental questions in the field of ovarian fibrosis and possible prevention strategies such as metformin.

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.

Do the Fertility Drugs Increase the Risk of Cancer? A Review Study

Aim: All over the world, many couples cannot conceive a child and have problems with pregnancy. Ovulation-inducing drugs are among the most important drugs used for the treatment of infertility. In recent years, there have been many debates about the relationship between fertility medication and cancer. Due to the lack of comprehensive study of this matter, and as understanding the relationship between the use of fertility drugs and cancer is of importance, the present study was conducted to investigate the relationship between infertility drugs and cancer in women. Materials and Methods: To determine the relationship between infertility treatment and cancer, a comprehensive search was carried out in databases such as; Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus using keywords words; "infertility," "ovulation induction," "cancer," "infertility treatment," "ART," "tumor," "controlled ovarian stimulation," "fertility agents," and "neoplasms." Full-text, English language, and original articles were included in this study. Results: In total, 81 articles were entered into the study. The relationship between fertility medications and breast, ovary, endometrial, uterus, colon, thyroid, skin, cervical, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cancers were studied. Although the relationship between fertility medications and cancer is theoretically justifiable, most studies have shown that risk of cancer will not increase after fertility treatment. Conclusion: The results of this study did not show that fertility medications increase the risk of cancer among users. In summary, the relationship between infertility treatment and cancer incidence remains an open question.

Use of fertility medications and cancer risk: a review and update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is increasing use of fertility medications for ovulation induction and ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization in the treatment of female infertility. In this review, recent literature regarding the association between fertility medication and cancer risk is reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several important publications have recently addressed the relationship between use of fertility medications and cancer risk. There are methodological limitations to many of these studies, including unique challenges in studying rare cancers that often develop several years after the time of fertility medication exposure. Although infertility per se is a risk factor for some female cancers, including breast, endometrial and ovarian cancer, most studies do not show a significant risk of these cancers with the use of fertility medications. Some studies, however, have shown a possible increased relative risk of borderline ovarian cancer, although the increased absolute risk is small without a clear causal relationship.

SUMMARY

The collective data regarding the risk of developing cancer from use of fertility medications are reassuring, although several methodological issues in these studies limit definitive conclusions.

Cancer Risk in Women Treated with Fertility Drugs According to Parity Status-A Registry-based Cohort Study

Background: Long-term safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) is of interest as their use is increasing. Cancer risk is known to be affected by parity. This study examined the risk of cancer after fertility treatment, stratified by women's parity.Methods: Data were obtained from all women (n = 1,353,724) born in Norway between 1960 and 1996. Drug exposure data (2004-2014) were obtained from the Norwegian Prescription Database (drugs used in ART and clomiphene citrate). The Medical Birth Registry of Norway provided parity status. HRs were calculated for all site cancer, breast, cervical, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, central nervous system, thyroid cancer, and malignant melanoma.Results: In 12,354,392 person-years of follow-up, 20,128 women were diagnosed with cancer. All-site cancer risk was 1.14 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.03-1.26] and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.98-1.23) after clomiphene citrate and ART exposure, respectively. For ovarian cancer, a stronger association was observed for both exposures in nulliparous (HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.30-4.78; and HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.78-3.35) versus parous women (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.64-2.96; and HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.33-2.27). Elevated risk of endometrial cancers was observed for clomiphene citrate exposure in nulliparous women (HR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.66-7.60 vs. HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.67-3.42). Risk was elevated for breast cancer in parous women exposed to clomiphene citrate (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54) for thyroid cancer and among nulliparous women after ART treatment (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.08-4.44).Conclusions: Clomiphene citrate appears associated with increased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. Elevations in risks of breast and thyroid cancer were less consistent across type of drug exposure and parity.Impact: Continued monitoring of fertility treatments is warranted. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(6); 953-62. ©2017 AACR.

Fertility drugs and cancer: a guideline

Methodological limitations in studying the association between the use of fertility drugs and cancer include the inherent increased risk of cancer in women who never conceive, the low incidence of most of these cancers, and that the age of diagnosis of cancer typically is many years after fertility drug use. Based on available data, there does not appear to be a meaningful increased risk of invasive ovarian cancer, breast cancer, or endometrial cancer following the use of fertility drugs. Several studies have shown a small increased risk of borderline ovarian tumors; however, there is insufficient consistent evidence that a particular fertility drug increases the risk of borderline ovarian tumors, and any absolute risk is small. Given the available literature, patients should be counseled that infertile women may be at an increased risk of invasive ovarian, endometrial, and breast cancer; however, use of fertility drugs does not appear to increase this risk.

Assisted reproductive techniques after fertility-sparing treatments in gynaecological cancers

BACKGROUND

The trend toward late childbearing has made fertility preservation a major issue for women who face gynecological cancer. New techniques in assisted reproductive medicine enable conception after primary treatment of these cancers. Here, we aimed to review the efficacy and safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) after fertility-preserving treatment of gynaecological cancers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of both prospective and retrospective studies in the PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and SciSearch databases. In the retrieved studies, we evaluated live births, clinical pregnancies, overall survival and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

We identified many prospective and retrospective studies on this topic, but no relevant randomized clinical trials. Fertility-sparing treatments with safe oncological outcomes are feasible in endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer cases. After cancer treatment, ART seem safe and show variable obstetrical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

After fertility-preserving treatment for gynaecological cancers, ART can enable pregnancy to be achieved with apparent oncological safety. The success of such procedures should directly impact clinical practice and management of those patients who require fertility-sparing treatment.

Use of fertility drugs and risk of ovarian cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to highlight recent research and insights into the relationship between fertility drug use and ovarian cancer risk.

RECENT FINDINGS

Results from two large case-control studies provided further evidence that fertility drug use does not significantly contribute to risk of ovarian cancer among the majority of women when adjusting for known confounding factors. However, questions regarding the effect on certain subgroups, including long-term fertility drug users, women who remain nulligravid after fertility treatment, women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and borderline ovarian tumours, still remain. In addition, it may currently just be too early to determine whether there is an association between fertility drug use and ovarian cancer risk given that many of the exposed women are only now beginning to reach the ovarian cancer age range.

SUMMARY

Whether use of fertility drugs increases the risk of ovarian cancer is an important question that requires further investigation, in particular given the large number of women utilizing fertility treatments. Fortunately, results from recent studies have been mainly reassuring. Large well designed studies with sufficient follow-up time are needed to further evaluate the effects of fertility treatments within subgroups defined by patient and tumour characteristics.

Ovulation-inducing drugs and ovarian cancer risk: results from an extended follow-up of a large United States infertility cohort

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship of ovulation-inducing drugs and ovarian cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study, with additional follow-up since initial report.

SETTING

Five large reproductive endocrinology practices.

PATIENT(S)

In a retrospective cohort of 9,825 women evaluated for infertility at five clinical sites in the United States between 1965 and 1988 with follow-up through 2010, we examined the relationship of ovulation-inducing drugs and ovarian cancer (n = 85).

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Hazard rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for ovarian cancer.

RESULT(S)

Among women evaluated for infertility, there was no association of ovarian cancer risk with ever use of clomiphene citrate (CC) (adjusted RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.86-2.07) or gonadotropins (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.48-2.08) and no evidence that any of several more detailed subgroups of usage were related to an increased risk with one exception: women who used CC and remained nulligravid did demonstrate much higher risks than those who successfully conceived compared with nonusers (respectively, RR 3.63, 95% CI 1.36-9.72 vs. RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.47-1.63).

CONCLUSION(S)

Our overall results were reassuring and consistent with other studies. A reason for an association between CC use and ovarian cancer among persistently nulligravid women remains to be determined. Given the large and increasing number of women treated with ovulation-inducing drugs, the increased risk of ovarian cancer among the subset of women who remained nulligravid should be further monitored.

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.

Fertility drug use and the risk of ovarian tumors in infertile women: a case-control study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the influence of infertility and fertility drugs on risk of ovarian tumors.

DESIGN

Case-control study (Mayo Clinic Ovarian Cancer Study).

SETTING

Ongoing academic study of ovarian cancer.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 1,900 women (1,028 with ovarian tumors and 872 controls, frequency matched on age and region of residence) who had provided complete information in a self-report questionnaire about history of infertility and fertility drug use.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Effect of infertility history, use of fertility drugs and oral contraception, and gravidity on the risk of ovarian tumor development, after controlling for potential confounders.

RESULT(S)

Among women who had a history of infertility, use of fertility drugs was reported by 44 (24%) of 182 controls and 38 (17%) of 226 cases. Infertile women who used fertility drugs were not at increased risk of developing ovarian tumors compared with infertile women who did not use fertility drugs; the adjusted odds ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.37, 1.11). The findings were similar when stratified by gravidity and when analyzed separately for borderline versus invasive tumors.

CONCLUSION(S)

We found no statistically significant association between fertility drug use and risk of ovarian tumors. Further larger, prospective studies are needed to confirm this observation.

Ovarian epithelial tumors and reproductive factors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the current knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis of borderline tumors ovarian cancer with special emphasis on the role of endocrine treatments and reproductive factors to establish a foundation for future studies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review on the relation between ovarian epithelial tumors (OET) and reproductive factors using the keywords: ovarian cancer, ovarian tumor, ovarian borderline tumor, age at menarche, age at menopause, parity, infertility, PCO syndrome, oral contraception, menopausal hormone therapy, fertility treatment. Totally, 3,290 abstracts were scanned for their relevance in this publication and 127 were finally included.

RESULTS

The incidence of ovarian epithelial cancer and ovarian borderline tumors is influenced by certain reproductive factors. The strongest protective effects are conferred by parity and use of oral contraceptive pills. Recent molecular biologic and histopathologic studies prove that OET represent a diverse group of tumors, each histologic type with a different genetic background. This is at least partly reflected in epidemiologic and clinical studies showing different risk modulating effects of reproductive factors and endocrine therapies on OET.

CONCLUSIONS

The etiology and pathogenesis of ovarian cancer are still not fully understood. None of the so far proposed hypothesis on the development of OET can fully account for the epidemiologic and clinical findings in the context of reproductive factors and OET development. Further research approaches are warranted and need to put more weight on the clinical and genetical diversity of OET to yield a more detailed insight into their pathogenesis.

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.

Infertility treatment and the risk of cancer

BACKGROUND

A possible correlation between hormonal stimulation during treatment of infertility and the risk of cancer of the breast, the ovaries, the cervix or the uterus has been investigated in a number of epidemiological studies. The purpose of this article is to review the relevant literature and summarise the findings. KNOWLEDGE BASE: This review article is based on literature searches in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE.

RESULTS

No studies showed a specific general correlation between hormonal ovulatory stimulation used as pre-treatment to assisted fertilisation and an increased risk of cancer of the breast, the ovaries, the cervix or the uterus. Most studies detected no increased risk. Some studies, however, showed an increased risk of cancer among certain sub-groups, such as women who have received repeated treatment with clomiphene citrate.

INTERPRETATION

On the basis of the studies reviewed, the conclusions are ambiguous. It is therefore necessary to monitor the long-term effects of infertility treatment on women's health. Further good-quality large-scale population studies are necessary, with longer follow-up periods and better adjustment for confounding factors.

Use of fertility drugs and risk of ovarian cancer: results from a U.S.-based case-control study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies examining associations between use of fertility drugs and ovarian cancer risk have provided conflicting results. We used data from a large case-control study to determine whether fertility drug use significantly impacts ovarian cancer risk when taking into account parity, gravidity, and cause of infertility.

METHODS

Data from the Hormones and Ovarian Cancer Prediction (HOPE) study were used (902 cases, 1,802 controls). Medical and reproductive histories were collected via in-person interviews. Logistic regression was used to calculate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Models were adjusted for age, race, education, age at menarche, parity, oral contraceptive use, breastfeeding, talc use, tubal ligation, and family history of breast/ovarian cancer.

RESULTS

Ever use of fertility drugs was not significantly associated with ovarian cancer within the total HOPE population (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.35) or among women who reported seeking medical attention for infertility (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.54-1.40). We did observe a statistically significant increased risk of ovarian cancer for ever use of fertility drugs among women who, despite seeking medical attention for problems getting pregnant, remained nulligravid (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.01-9.67).

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide further evidence that fertility drug use does not significantly contribute to ovarian cancer risk among the majority of women; however, women who despite infertility evaluation and fertility drug use remain nulligravid, may have an elevated risk for ovarian cancer.

IMPACT

Our results suggest that fertility drug use does not significantly contribute to overall risk of ovarian cancer when adjusting for known confounding factors.

Dying to give birth: the Pakistan Liaison Committee's strategies to improve maternal health in Pakistan

Pakistan has one of the worst maternal mortality ratios worldwide: 260-490 women die for every 100,000 live births in Pakistan. The Pakistan Liaison Group (PLG) was formed to work with and through the international office of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). It works with the RCOG representative committee in Pakistan to improve the health of women. It aims to contribute to improving maternal morbidity and mortality through strategies directed at improving the education and training of health professionals. In addition, the PLG aims to promote changes in the legislature to allow for the notification of maternal deaths so that accurate figures can be obtained, and so that health parameters can be accurately assessed and, in the long term, a confidential enquiry into maternal deaths can be initiated.

Fertility preservation for cancer patients: a review

Infertility can arise as a consequence of treatment of oncological conditions. The parallel and continued improvement in both the management of oncology and fertility cases in recent times has brought to the fore-front the potential for fertility preservation in patients being treated for cancer. Oncologists must be aware of situations where their treatment will affect fertility in patients who are being treated for cancer and they must also be aware of the pathways available for procedures such as cryopreservation of gametes and/or embryos. Improved cancer care associated with increased cure rates and long term survival, coupled with advances in fertility treatment means that it is now imperative that fertility preservation is considered as part of the care offered to these patients. This can only be approached within a multidisciplinary setting. There are obvious challenges that still remain to be resolved, especially in the area of fertility preservation in prepubertal patients. These include ethical issues, such as valid consent and research in the area of tissue retrieval, cryopreservation, and transplantation.

[Ovarian low malignant potential tumor: how to preserve fertility?]

Ovarian low malignant potential tumor account for 10 to 20 percent of ovarian epithelial tumors. They differ from typical ovarian cancers in that they do not grow into the ovarian stroma. Likewise, if they spread outside the ovary, for example, into the abdominal cavity, they do not usually grow into the lining of the abdomen. These cancers tend to affect women at a younger age than the typical ovarian cancers and are less life-threatening than most ovarian cancers. Guidelines for surgical treatment of borderline ovarian tumors are similar to those for ovarian cancer and include hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. However, patients with borderline ovarian tumors tend to be younger than women with invasive ovarian cancer. For many of these patients, fertility is an important issue. Previous studies have suggested the safety of conservative surgery with unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or cystectomy for patients with stage I borderline ovarian tumors. Despite infrequent data, this observation has been expanded to include women with advanced-stage disease. Recurrence is noted more often after this type of treatment, but does not seem to have a negative effect on survival. Management of conservative treatment (complete staging, cystectomy or oophorectomy, oophorectomy or adnexectomy) are still under debate since none avoids the malignant transformation risk. Thus, close follow-up is mandatory and the optimal moment for final oophorectomy remains unclear. When ovarian preservation is impossible, oocyte/ovarian cryopreservation or emergency ovarian induction before the surgical procedure to obtain embryos are promising but still under evaluated options.

Fertility drugs and risk of ovarian cancer: dispelling the myth

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Worldwide 50-80 million people suffer from infertility. Assisted reproductive technology has provided a way of overcoming infertility and childlessness. The current article will focus on data linking infertility and its treatment to ovarian cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Ovarian cancer risks associated with fertility drug treatment are encouraging, but not decisive. In view of the limited ability to evaluate drug effects on borderline tumors, given their rare occurrence, studies involving patient reports of prior drug exposures have noted an elevated risk of borderline tumors associated with fertility drugs. Nevertheless, the risk of invasive ovarian cancer appears to be restricted to those women who remain childless despite the infertility treatment.

SUMMARY

As long as doubt persists, it might be advisable to reflect on a few clinical recommendations: identify high-risk infertile patients for ovarian cancer, investigate preexisting cancer before fertility treatment, inform patients regarding potential risks, obtain an informed consent, avoid exposure to long periods of ovulation induction cycles that are given before patients are referred for in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer for women at greater risk and monitor women who have been treated with these drugs, especially those who failed to conceive, regularly and thoroughly.

Risk factors for ovarian cancer: an overview with emphasis on hormonal factors

Ovarian cancer is the fifth most frequently occurring cancer among women and leading cause of gynecological cancer deaths in North America. Although the etiology of ovarian cancer is not clear, certain factors are implicated in the etiology of this disease, such as ovulation, gonadotropic and steroid hormones, germ cell depletion, oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, growth factors, cytokines, and environmental agents. Family history of breast or ovarian cancer is a prominent risk factor for ovarian cancer, with 5-10% of ovarian cancers due to heritable risk. Reproductive factors such as age at menopause and infertility contribute to greater risk of ovarian cancer, whereas pregnancy, tubal ligation, and hysterectomy reduce risk. Oral contraceptive (OC) use has clearly been shown to be protective against ovarian cancer. In contrast, large epidemiologic studies found hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to be a greater risk factor for ovarian cancer. The marked influence of hormones and reproductive factors on ovarian cancer suggests that endocrine disrupters may impact risk; however, there is a notable lack of research in this area. Lifestyle factors such as cigarette smoking, obesity, and diet may affect ovarian cancer risk. Exposure to certain environmental agents such as talc, pesticides, and herbicides may increase risk of ovarian cancer; however, these studies are limited. Further research is needed to strengthen the database of information from which an assessment of environmental and toxicological risk factors for ovarian cancer can be made.

Ovulation induction treatment and risk of borderline ovarian tumors

AIM

Research has suggested an association between the use of ovulation induction drugs and the risk of ovarian cancer. It has also been proposed that there may be pre-cancerous alterations in the ovary which themselves are the cause of infertility. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between the use of ovulation induction drugs and the appearance of borderline ovarian tumors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a case-control study in which the study group comprised 42 women with a borderline ovarian tumor and the control group comprised 257 women with benign ovarian pathology.

RESULTS

No differences were found between the borderline tumor and control groups (14.3% vs. 27.2%, respectively) in terms of infertility history. Nor were there any differences between the groups with respect to the type of drug used, whether clomiphene citrate (9.5% vs. 6.2%, respectively) or gonadotropins (7.1% vs. 10.1%, respectively). Analysis in terms of the number of cycles administered also failed to reveal any differences. The mean number of cycles with clomiphene citrate/gonadotropins was 2.50 +/- 1.00 and 3.00 +/- 2.64 in the borderline tumor group and 2.44 +/- 1.75 and 3.27 +/- 2.25 in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our series produced no evidence that ovulation induction treatment predisposes women to the development of borderline ovarian tumors.

Impact of infertility drugs after treatment of borderline ovarian tumors: results of a retrospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate safety and fertility outcome after the use of infertility drugs in patients who were treated conservatively for a borderline ovarian tumor (BOT).

DESIGN

A retrospective multicenter study.

SETTING

Centers participating in the French National Register on In Vitro Fertilization registry.

PATIENT(S)

Thirty patients who were treated for BOT who underwent ovarian induction (OI).

INTERVENTION(S)

Ovarian induction was performed in 25 patients for infertility after conservative surgery and before surgery for recurrent disease in 5 patients with a single ovary (emergency cases).

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S)

Fertility and recurrences rates.

RESULT(S)

The mean number of cycles of OI per patient was 2.6 (range, 1-10 cycles). The median follow-up time after treatment of the BOT was 93 months (range, 26-276 months). After a median follow-up time of 42 months after OI, 4 recurrences were observed (initial management was simple cystectomy in 3 of them). All recurrences were borderline tumors on a remaining ovary that had been treated by surgery alone. All patients are currently disease-free. Thirteen pregnancies were observed (10 pregnancies (40%) in the group of 25 patients who were treated for infertility).

CONCLUSION(S)

These results suggest that infertility drugs could be used safely in patients who experience infertility after conservative management of an early-stage BOT.

Impact of gonadotrophins and steroid hormones on tumour cells derived from borderline ovarian tumours

BACKGROUND

Conservative surgery is currently proposed for young patients with borderline ovarian tumours (BOT). For those experiencing infertility, the question of medically assisted procreation is raised. We have evaluated in vitro the proliferation of cultured BOT cells in response to FSH or estradiol (E(2)).

METHODS

Primary cell cultures were prepared from BOT. The presence of FSH and E(2) receptors was evaluated by immunochemistry. Cultures in vitro were stimulated with FSH (40 and 200 mUI/ml) or E(2) (300 and 2000 pg/ml) for 96 h and proliferation was evaluated with the WST-1 test.

RESULTS

Four primary cultures were obtained that expressed FSH and E(2) receptors to different extents. Growth was generally similar to controls when treated with either FSH or E(2) although 300 pg/ml E(2) caused a significant inhibitory effect on cell proliferation (P = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

No stimulatory effect of FSH or E(2) on cultured BOT cells was found, despite the presence of receptors. Although preliminary, these results suggest that gonadotrophins and E(2) could be used in patients experiencing infertility after conservative surgery.

Gonadotropins and ovarian carcinogenesis: a new era of basic research and its clinical implications

The possible relationship between gonadotropins and ovarian carcinoma development has received much attention, and in recent years, great progress has been made in basic and epidemiologic research about this issue. Gonadotropins sensitivity in the ovarian surface epithelium (OSE) and in a subset of ovarian carcinomas has been established in vivo and in vitro. Gonadotropins have been shown to induce various biologic actions in the OSE and ovarian carcinoma cells, such as changes in cell proliferation, apoptosis, cell adhesion, and chemosensitivity. These basic studies strongly suggest that gonadotropins are involved in the development and progression of ovarian carcinoma. In contrast, although earlier studies showed a significant risk of infertility therapy for ovarian carcinoma development, subsequent studies reported only slightly increased or no significant increased risk of gonadotropin stimulation and/or assisted reproductive technologies for ovarian carcinoma development. Therefore, the association between ovarian stimulation and ovarian carcinoma remains controversial. Nevertheless, since development of ovarian carcinoma in infertile women during infertility treatment is a serious concern for gynecologists, this review also covers important points for clinical practice, especially the issue of early detection of ovarian carcinoma.

Induction of ovulation and ovarian cancer: a critical review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To critically examine the possible association between ovulation-inducing drugs and ovarian cancer.

DESIGN

Medline literature review and cross-reference of published data.

RESULTS(S)

The studies that have adjusted for the effects of confounding factors such as duration of oral contraceptive use and number of pregnancies have noted an increased risk of ovarian cancer among infertile women who remain childless despite long periods of unprotected intercourse. Whether such women are at risk due to the primary basis for their infertility or factors such as ovulation-inducing drugs, has been the subject of several studies. Overall, the findings on ovarian cancer (especially invasive epithelial and non-epithelial) risk associated with fertility drug treatment are reassuring. However, a stronger association between fertility drug use and borderline tumors of the ovary has been observed.

CONCLUSION(S)

Despite the overall reassuring findings of the available studies, there is a need for well-designed clinical trials to understand the possible carcinogenic effects of the ovulation-inducing drugs.

Recurrent implantation failure in assisted reproduction: how to counsel and manage. A. General considerations and treatment options that may benefit the couple

Recurrent implantation failure is a distressing phenomenon, both for the infertile couple and for the physician responsible for their treatment. Aetiology is often not clear and treatment options are vague. Particularly when transferred embryos are of good quality, recurrent implantation failure may be attributed to less than optimal embryo transfer technique, pathological lesions of the uterine cavity, the presence of hydrosalpinges, fibroids and endometriosis. Poor embryo quality, especially when repetitive, is a major impediment to successful implantation and cannot be corrected at the present time. Molecular abnormalities at the endometrial level and abnormal embryo-endometrium dialogue may be responsible for some cases of recurrent implantation failure. Furthermore, there may be over- or under-expressed genes that may be related to successful implantation. At the present time, the physician confronted with a couple presenting with recurrent implantation failure should discuss openly the potential causes of this phenomenon, with special emphasis on correctable causes, and offer remedies that are evidence based.

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

Ovulation-inducing drugs have been widely used for various types of infertility since the beginning of 1960s and their use increases day by day parallel to the success achieved in fertility treatment. However, the researches performed in the last two decades have begun to discuss about the safety of these drugs and the risks associated with their use. Especially, the potential neoplastic effects of these drugs are increasingly questioned. The studies have discussed whether there is an association between the exposure to ovulation-inducing drugs and the incidence of various cancers. Moreover, several studies have been performed to reveal whether there is an increased risk of childhood cancers in children conceived after fertility treatment. The point we reached through the available data is that the risk of breast, uterine and invasive ovarian cancers is not increased, but the risk of borderline ovarian tumors might increase after such a therapy. The risk of cancer has been found similar for children conceived after fertility treatment and those conceived naturally. It should also be kept in mind that cancers are overdiagnosed in infertile women population because of the close medical surveillance, which may also contribute to the early detection of cancers. Although it is still early to state the last words on this topic, the possible association should be addressed when obtaining an informed consent before starting treatment.

Safety and efficacy of infertility treatment after conservative management of borderline ovarian tumors: A preliminary report

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of infertility treatment in a group of patients after conservative management of borderline ovarian tumors.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

University IVF unit.

PATIENT(S)

Five patients with previous conservative treatment of borderline ovarian tumor.

INTERVENTION(S)

Seventeen IVF cycles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Recurrence, IVF outcome.

RESULT(S)

At the time of diagnosis, the mean age of the patients was 32.2 +/- 6.9 years. The mean time elapsed between the initial diagnosis of a borderline tumor and the performance of IVF was 42.2 months. After IVF, the mean number of oocytes retrieved was 7.9 +/- 4.0 with a mean fertilization rate of 57.1% and a mean number of 3.1 +/- 1.4 day 3 embryos transferred. Six pregnancies were achieved in three of the five patients with a pregnancy rate per retrieval of 37.5% and per transfer of 42.9%. The mean follow-up time that elapsed since the first IVF cycle was 39.2 months (range 9-78 months). One patient had three recurrences 13, 27, and 43 months after her first IVF cycle, all of which remained histologically serous borderline tumor. All patients were without evidence of disease at the time of last follow-up.

CONCLUSION(S)

At a mean follow-up time of 39.2 months, our results suggest that IVF may be considered for patients with conservatively treated borderline tumors. Furthermore, overall IVF success rates were very satisfactory, suggesting no perceptible negative impact of prior borderline ovarian neoplasia on pregnancy rates after IVF.

Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Incidence of Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the available literature regarding the relationship between assisted reproductive technology and ovarian cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Computerized search of 6 databases from 1966 (or closest) to present: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cancerlit, CINHAL, Current Contents, PubMed in process (formerly called PreMEDLINE), and MEDLINE. We collected references from the bibliographies of reviews, original research articles, content experts, and conference proceedings to find published and unpublished literature.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Case-control and cohort studies are included. The population of interest is treated infertile women, the control population is untreated infertile women, and the intervention or exposure of interest includes the following fertility medications: clomiphene citrate, gonadotropins, human chorionic gonadotropin, and gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists. The primary outcome is incident, primary ovarian cancer. Three cohort and 7 case-control studies were included in the quantitative analyses.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scales were used. Two investigators independently extracted study methods, sources of bias, and outcomes. The following information was recorded: publication information, subject characteristics, intervention information and outcomes. Studies combined were sufficiently homogeneous for quantitative summary. Case-control and cohort data showed a significantly elevated risk for exposure of infertility medications and ovarian cancer in subjects who underwent assisted reproductive technology compared with general population controls (1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18 to 1.97). When cases of ovarian cancer were compared with infertile controls for exposure to infertility medications, the odds ratio (0.99; 95% CI 0.67, 1.45) was not elevated. However, cohort data comparing outcome in treated infertile patients with untreated infertile patients suggests that treated patients may tend to a lower incidence of ovarian cancer-odds ratio = 0.67 (95% CI 0.32, 1.41).

CONCLUSION

Ovarian cancer does not appear to be increased in treated infertile patients versus untreated infertile patients. Treated infertile patients may have a lower incidence of ovarian cancer than untreated infertile patients.

Cancer risks associated with the diagnosis of infertility

The effects of infertility and its treatment on cancer risk are of concern to many infertile couples. Infertile women appear to be at no higher risk for breast cancer although they may be more at risk for cancers of the uterus, particularly if they have ovulation disorders. Most studies show no increase in the risk of invasive ovarian cancer in infertile women, but ovarian tumours of borderline malignancy are more common. There seems to be no overall increase in cancer risk associated with fertility drug treatment, but questions remain about risk in subgroups of infertile women. Male infertility has been associated with an increased risk of testis cancer. Cancer incidence in children born after fertility treatment appears to be similar to that in the general population. Discussion of cancer risks in the context of other reproductive and community risks can be helpful to patients.

[Prognosis and fertility after conservative treatment for ovarian tumors of limited malignity: review of 68 cases]

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the rate of recurrence and the reproductive outcome after surgical conservative treatment of low malignant ovarian tumors (LMOT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty-eight patients with 50 Stage I LMOT and 18 LMOT with peritoneal implants treated conservatively at institut Gustave-Roussy, between January 1969 and December 2000. Fifty-nine patients had an unilateral adnexectomy (associated twelve times with a contralateral cystectomy), Seven had a bilateral cystectomy and two an unilateral cystectomy. Five patients received adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 71.5 months, 16 patients recurred and one had evolutive peritoneal disease. The histologic pattern of ovarian recurrences was always of borderline type. The histologic patterns of peritoneal recurrence was similar to those initially diagnosed except in one case. Peritoneal implants, exophytic tumor and serous type tumor were significatively associated with a higher 5-year recurrence rate. Recurrence was more frequent after cystectomy than unilateral adnexectomy (p = 0.13). None of patients treated conservatively recurred under the form of ovarian carcinoma. None patient died of tumor. Nineteen patients experienced 26 pregnancies: 24 were spontaneous in a median delay of 19 months. Seven infertile patients underwent ovarian stimulation. None recurred after infertility treatments. The 2-year and 5-year cumulative pregnancy rate were respectively 41.9% and 59.8%. Four patients experienced a pregnancy after a conservative treatment of their recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Despite a high recurrence rate, especially in stage II and III serous LMOT, conservative treatment of LMOT does not affect survival and should be considered in young patients. Such treatment is not advised in case of invasive peritoneal implants. Spontaneous pregnancy rate is good but the frequent infertility associated with these tumors can afterwards require ovarian stimulation. Limited number of stimulation cycles is acceptable in such patients.

Ovulation induction

In the woman with anovulation and polycystic ovarian syndrome, there are many options for ovulation induction. Treatment should be individualized, but clomiphene citrate is an excellent first-line agent. In the woman resistant to clomiphene citrate, combination therapy often results in pregnancy. Some women with PCOS only respond to gonadotropin therapy. These women are at a higher risk for multiple pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In the woman with anovulation and hypothalamic amenorrhea, the options for ovulation induction are limited. The luteal phase must be supported. The hypothalamus is unable to support the corpus luteum or early pregnancy.

Ovarian hyperstimulation and oophorectomy following accidental daily clomiphene citrate use over three consecutive months

We describe the longest-known continuous use of clomiphene citrate ever reported in a human. As a result of a pharmacy error, a woman took 50 mg/day clomiphene citrate for three months. The prolonged use of this medication resulted in ovarian hyperstimulation and unilateral oophorectomy for torsion.

Ovarian serous borderline tumors: a critical review of the literature with emphasis on prognostic indicators

BACKGROUND

The behavior of ovarian serous borderline tumors (SBTs) and significance of various prognostic factors are unclear and difficult to evaluate because of inconsistencies and confusion in the literature. Recent studies have suggested that the morphological features of the primary tumor (presence or absence of micropapillary features) and the peritoneal "implants" (presence or absence of invasive features) can reliably subclassify SBTs into benign and malignant types. The aim of the current review was to test two hypotheses. First, that the alleged malignant behavior of SBTs is poorly documented, and second, that the morphological features of the primary ovarian tumors and the associated peritoneal implants are sufficient to separate SBTs into benign and malignant types, thereby obviating the need for the category.

METHODS

245 studies reporting approximately 18,000 patients with borderline ovarian tumors were reviewed. After excluding series that lacked clinical follow-up or were not analyzable for other reasons, there remained 97 reports that included 4,129 patients. In addition to recurrences and survival, we evaluated the type of peritoneal implants, microinvasion, lymph node involvement, late recurrences, and progression to carcinoma, as these features have served as the underpinning of the concept of "borderline malignancy" or "low malignant potential."

RESULTS

Among 4,129 patients with SBTs reviewed, the recurrence rate after a mean follow-up of 6.7 years was 0.27% per year for stage I tumors, the disease-free survival was 98.2%, and the overall disease-specific survival rate was 99.5%. For patients with advanced-stage tumors, the recurrence rate was 2.4% per year. However, the majority (69%) of reported recurrences were not pathologically documented, and only 26 cases (8.4% of all recurrences) were documented to have recurred from an adequately sampled ovarian tumor. The most reliable prognostic indicator for advanced stage tumors was the type of peritoneal implant. After 7.4 years of follow-up, the survival of patients with noninvasive peritoneal inplants was 95.3%, as compared with 66% for invasive implants (P < .0001). Microinvasion in the primary ovarian tumor was associated with a 100% survival rate at 6.7 years, and lymph node involvement was associated with a 98% survival rate at 6.5 years. The few reported cases of stage IV disease, progression to invasive carcinoma, and very late (>20 years) recurrences were poorly documented. The survival for all stages among approximately 373 patients in 6 prospective randomized trials followed for a mean of 6.7 years was 100%.

CONCLUSION

Surgical pathological stage and subclassification of extraovarian disease into invasive and noninvasive implants are the most important prognostic indicators for SBTs. Survival for stage I tumors is virtually 100%. Survival for advanced stage tumors with noninvasive implants is 95.3%, whereas survival for tumors with invasive implants is 66%. Invasive implants behave as carcinomas and are most likely metastatic. The precise nature of so-called noninvasive implants is not clear, but they behave in a benign fashion. The presence of a micropapillary architecture in the primary ovarian tumor is a strong predictor of invasive implants. These data support the recommendation that ovarian tumors with a micropapillary architecture be designated "micropapillary serous carcinomas," and those lacking these features, "atypical proliferative serous tumors."

Reproductive technologies and risk of ovarian cancer

Use of artificial technologies is increasing within the United States. Unfortunately, data describing the possible effects of 'superovulation' and potential risk of subsequent ovarian carcinoma are not well defined. This discussion focuses on current data regarding the potential for increased risk for ovarian carcinoma in patients who have undergone infertility evaluation and subsequent treatments.