Ovarian Function and Fertility Preservation in Breast Cancer: Should Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist be administered to All Premenopausal Patients Receiving Chemotherapy?

The future of fertility preservation for women treated with chemotherapy

Cytotoxic chemotherapies have been a mainstay of cancer treatment, but are associated with numerous systemic adverse effects, including impacts to fertility and endocrine health. Irreversible ovarian damage and follicle depletion are side-effects of chemotherapy that can lead to infertility and premature menopause, both being major concerns of young cancer patients. Notably, many women will proceed with fertility preservation, but unfortunately existing strategies don't entirely solve the problem. Most significantly, oocyte and embryo freezing do not prevent cancer treatment-induced ovarian damage from occurring, which may result in the impairment of long-term hormone production. Unfortunately, loss of endogenous endocrine function is not fully restored by hormone replacement therapy. Additionally, while GnRH agonists are standard care for patients receiving alkylating chemotherapy to lessen the risk of premature menopause, their efficacy is incomplete. The lack of more broadly effective options stems, in part, from our poor understanding of how different treatments damage the ovary. Here, we summarise the impacts of two commonly utilised chemotherapies - cyclophosphamide and cisplatin - on ovarian function and fertility, and discuss the mechanisms underpinning this damage. Additionally, we critically analyse current research avenues in the development of novel fertility preservation strategies, with a focus on fertoprotective agents.

Radiotherapy exposure directly damages the uterus and causes pregnancy loss

Female cancer survivors are significantly more likely to experience infertility than the general population. It is well established that chemotherapy and radiotherapy can damage the ovary and compromise fertility, yet the ability of cancer treatments to induce uterine damage, and the underlying mechanisms, have been understudied. Here, we show that in mice total-body γ-irradiation (TBI) induced extensive DNA damage and apoptosis in uterine cells. We then transferred healthy donor embryos into ovariectomized adolescent female mice that were previously exposed to TBI to study the impacts of radiotherapy on the uterus independent from effects to ovarian endocrine function. Following TBI, embryo attachment and implantation were unaffected, but fetal resorption was evident at midgestation in 100% of dams, suggesting failed placental development. Consistent with this hypothesis, TBI impaired the decidual response in mice and primary human endometrial stromal cells. TBI also caused uterine artery endothelial dysfunction, likely preventing adequate blood vessel remodeling in early pregnancy. Notably, when pro-apoptotic protein Puma-deficient (Puma-/-) mice were exposed to TBI, apoptosis within the uterus was prevented, and decidualization, vascular function, and pregnancy were restored, identifying PUMA-mediated apoptosis as a key mechanism. Collectively, these data show that TBI damages the uterus and compromises pregnancy success, suggesting that optimal fertility preservation during radiotherapy may require protection of both the ovaries and uterus. In this regard, inhibition of PUMA may represent a potential fertility preservation strategy.

Fertility Counseling in BRCA1/2-Mutated Women with Breast Cancer and Healthy Individuals

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide and the fifth leading cause of cancer death. In 2020, there were 2.3 million new cases, and 685,000 women died from it. Breast cancer among young women under 40 years of age accounts for 5% to 10% of all cases of this cancer. The greater availability of multi-gene sequence analysis by next-generation sequencing has improved diagnosis and, consequently, the possibility of using appropriate therapeutic approaches in BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers. Treatment of young breast cancer patients affects their reproductive potential by reducing ovarian reserve. It can lead to reversible or permanent premature menopause, decreased libido, and other symptoms of sex hormone deficiency. This requires that, in addition to oncological treatment, patients are offered genetic counseling, oncofertility, psychological assistance, and sexological counseling. Given the number of BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers among young breast cancer patients, but also thanks to growing public awareness, among their healthy family members planning offspring, the possibility of benefiting from preimplantation testing and performing cancer-risk-reduction procedures: RRM (risk-reducing mastectomy) and RRSO (risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy) significantly increase the chance of a genetically burdened person living a healthy life and giving birth to a child not burdened by the parent's germline mutation. The goal of this paper is to show methods and examples of fertility counselling for BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers, including both patients already affected by cancer and healthy individuals.

Ovarian Function Suppression With Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists for the Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer in Premenopausal Women

Chemotherapy and endocrine therapies are mainstays of treatment for early and advanced hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. In premenopausal women with HR+ tumors, the benefits of adding ovarian function suppression (OFS) to endocrine therapy have been debated. Consequently, for many years, tamoxifen monotherapy has been the standard of care for endocrine treatment in the adjuvant setting. Recent studies have, however, provided new evidence that, in some premenopausal patients, OFS in combination with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors (AIs) can significantly increase survival versus tamoxifen alone. Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa), including goserelin, triptorelin, and leuprorelin, achieve OFS through sustained suppression of the release of follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone from the pituitary. In turn, this suppresses production and secretion of estradiol, an ovarian hormone that supports cancer cell growth, survival, and proliferation. In this review, we discuss the clinical evidence supporting the addition of LHRHa to adjuvant endocrine therapies, including tamoxifen and AIs, for premenopausal women with breast cancer. We also discuss the role of LHRHa use in combination with adjuvant chemotherapy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in young patients with breast cancer. Finally, we discuss important practical aspects of the use of LHRHa in breast cancer treatment, including side-effects, patient adherence to treatment, and the use of slow-release, long-acting drug formulations.

How to Protect Ovarian Function before and during Chemotherapy?

A significant number of women receive a cancer diagnosis before their age of natural menopause. Among these patients, the most frequent neoplasms are breast cancer, gynecological, and hematological malignancies. Premature ovarian insufficiency and infertility are among the most feared short- to long-term consequences of anticancer treatments in premenopausal patients. Both patient- and treatment-related characteristics are key factors in influencing the risk of gonadotoxicity with the use of chemotherapy. The cryopreservation of oocytes/embryos is a standard strategy for fertility preservations offered to young women interested in future family planning, but it does not allow gonadal function protection during chemotherapy. Ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) during chemotherapy is now recommended as an option to reduce the risk of gonadotoxicity in order to avoid the negative consequences of premature ovarian insufficiency in premenopausal women receiving cytotoxic therapy, including those not interested in fertility preservation. This review summarizes the risk of treatment-induced gonadotoxicity in premenopausal patients and the evidence available on the protective role of administering GnRHa during chemotherapy to preserve ovarian function.

Documentation of Oncofertility Communication in Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis

Background: Increasing numbers of adolescents and young adults with cancer (AYACs) are surviving long term, highlighting the importance of effective oncofertility communication. We undertook this study to understand documentation of fertility discussions with AYACs, what options are offered, and how this differs for AYACs on treatment compared with those post-treatment. Methods: We reviewed the documentation of fertility discussions with 122 AYACs treated between 2000 and 2020: 72 AYACs on treatment and 50 AYACs at least 3 years post-treatment ("late effects" cohort). Results: Diagnoses were split evenly between hematological and solid tumor diagnoses, and biological sex. Seventy-five percent of patients were diagnosed and treated by the AYAC team and 25% by the pediatric team. Median age at diagnosis was 19 years (range 4-24) for on-treatment patients and 16 years (range 3-25) for late effects patients. Fertility was discussed with 93% of on-treatment patients and 48% of late effects patients. Seventy-nine percent of on-treatment patients and 48% of late effects patients pursued a pre-treatment fertility preservation option. Post-treatment, 84% of late effects patients had a discussion and 57% pursued an option. Only four patients across both cohorts underwent oocyte or ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Those referred to specialist reproductive medicine clinics had more detailed documentation about fertility discussions. Nurse-led late effects clinics had a key role in facilitating post-treatment discussions. Conclusions: It is important to communicate oncofertility options to AYACs repeatedly throughout treatment. Referral to specialist oncofertility services and adequate information for both sexes is important pre-treatment, and can be facilitated post-treatment by a late effects service.

Protective effect of goserelin on ovarian reserve during (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy in young breast cancer patients: a prospective cohort study in China

STUDY QUESTION

Does goserelin, a GnRH agonist, have a protective effect in young breast cancer patients in terms of ovarian reserve markers anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) during chemotherapy?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Compared with chemotherapy alone, concurrent goserelin is associated with a higher probability of ovarian reserve recovery at 1 year after chemotherapy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Previous studies on the administration of goserelin to protect ovarian function during chemotherapy have produced conflicting results because of the endpoint used, namely, chemotherapy-induced amenorrhoea. Reproductive medicine specialists consider AMH and AFC as the most sensitive ovarian reserve markers; however, they have never been used as biomarkers to assess the potential protective effects on ovarian reserve of goserelin during chemotherapy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a prospective cohort study in which patients were assigned to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy with goserelin (the goserelin group) or without goserelin (the control group) according to each patient's preference. Of 242 breast cancer patients enrolled between December 2015 and November 2019, 76 in control group and 73 in goserelin group were able to be assessed at 1 year after chemotherapy.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Premenopausal patients with a regular menstrual cycle and aged 18-45 years were eligible for enrolment if they were newly diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer for which treatment with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy was planned. Each patient in the goserelin group was given a subcutaneous dose of 3.6 mg at least 1 week before the first cycle of chemotherapy and then every 4 weeks for the duration of chemotherapy. Ovarian reserve markers and menstrual status were evaluated before and after chemotherapy in the two treatment groups. The primary endpoint was the AMH recovery rate, the secondary endpoints were the recovery rates of AFC, estradiol (E2), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and menstruation.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Among 149 patients (76 in the control group and 73 in the goserelin group) with complete data at 1 year after chemotherapy, the adjusted recovery rate of AMH was 46.5% and 21.8% in the goserelin group and control group, respectively (odds ratio: 3.08; P = 0.002). The trends in AFC and FSH recovery rates were consistent with that in AMH recovery rate. Notably, AMH levels remained low in 41.3% of patients whose menstrual activity had resumed.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Randomisation was not performed because of ethical considerations, so selection bias was inevitable, although propensity score weighting was done. The study was also underpowered because 21.5% (52/242) of enrolled patients received GnRH agonist-containing endocrine therapy and could not be analysed at 1 and 2 years after chemotherapy.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our results indicate that co-administration of goserelin with chemotherapy provides obvious ovarian reserve protection in these young breast cancer patients. We expect that these results will be applicable in clinical practice for young breast cancer patients.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China No. 2016YFC0901302, by the Research and Development Fund of Peking University People's Hospital No. RD2014-13, RDY2017-19 and by AstraZeneca. The authors have no disclosures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02430103.

Fertility preservation in endocrine responsive breast cancer: data and prejudices

Even if current guidelines suggest an early referral of young breast cancer (BC) patients to fertility preservation counselling, physicians still lack knowledge about the different available strategies. Hormonal stimulation to harvest mature oocytes is considered unsafe by many oncologists and experts in reproductive medicine, particularly in the setting of oestrogen receptor-positive BC. The aim of this mini-review is to provide an overview on the available data about this topic in order to clarify potential misunderstandings and to highlight the new trends in the oncofertility field with their pros and limitations.

Gender-specific aspects related to type of fertility preservation strategies and access to fertility care

Survivorship is an area of paramount importance to be addressed as early as possible after cancer diagnosis by all health care providers. On this regard, cancer care in young patients often poses several age-related considerations among which fertility and pregnancy-related issues have a crucial role. According to the available guidelines on the topic, all patients with cancer diagnosed during their reproductive years should be provided a proper oncofertility counselling before starting anticancer treatments. This is an important step in order to inform patients about the potential treatment-induced gonadotoxicity and the available strategies for fertility preservation so that they can be referred as early as possible to fertility specialists if potentially interested in these options.In this manuscript, we aim to provide an up to date overview on the available efficacy and safety data with the main strategies for fertility preservation in male and female cancer patients in order to help optimising the oncofertility counselling performed by healthcare providers involved in cancer care and dealing with young patients. In male patients with cancer, sperm cryopreservation is the standard technique for fertility preservation. Oocyte/embryo cryopreservation, ovarian tissue cryopreservation and temporary ovarian suppression with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy are the main options in female patients with cancer.A multidisciplinary management building a strong network between fertility and oncology/haematology units is crucial to properly address fertility care in all young patients with cancer, at both diagnosis and during oncologic follow-up. Discussing fertility and pregnancy-related issues with young patients with cancer has to be considered mandatory nowadays keeping in mind that returning to a normal life (including the possibility to have a family and to live with as few side effects as possible) should be considered an important ambition in cancer care in the 21st century .

Burning Questions in the Oncofertility Counseling of Young Breast Cancer Patients

The improved prognosis of breast cancer patients makes survivorship issues an area of crucial importance. In this regard, an increased attention is needed toward the development of potential anticancer treatment-related long-term side-effects, including gonadal failure and infertility in young women. Therefore, fertility preservation and family planning are crucial issues to be addressed in all young women of reproductive age with newly diagnosed cancer. Despite a growing availability of data on the efficacy and safety of fertility preservation options and the fact that conceiving after prior history of breast cancer has become more accepted over time, there are still several gray zones in this field so that many physicians remain uncomfortable to deal with these topics. The purpose of this review is to answer some of the most controversial questions frequently asked by patients during their oncofertility counseling, in order to provide a detailed and up-to-date overview on the evidence available in this field to physicians involved in the care of young women with breast cancer.

Effect of Timing of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Administration for Ovarian Protection in Patients with Breast Cancer

Purpose

This study was performed to investigate the effect of the interval between the start of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) and the start of chemotherapy on ovarian protection in patients with breast cancer.

Methods

This was a prospective observational cohort study that included 136 patients with breast cancer below 40 years who received GnRHa during chemotherapy for fertility preservation. Plasma anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels were measured before chemotherapy (baseline) and after chemotherapy. Subjects were divided into 3 groups according to the interval between the start of GnRHa and the start of chemotherapy for analysis: 1–6 days, 7–13 days, and ≥ 14 days. The ratio of the post-chemotherapy AMH value to the baseline AMH (pcAMH) at each time point were compared among the 3 groups. Ranked analysis of covariance was used for statistical analysis, adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), and the existence of polycystic ovaries (PCOs). In addition, recovery of ovarian function (AMH ≥ 1 ng/mL) at 12 months was evaluated.

Results

The median age of the patients was 32 years. There was no difference in the baseline AMH levels among the 3 groups (mean ± standard error: 5.0 ± 0.4 ng/mL [1–6 days], 5.3 ± 0.7 ng/mL [7–13 days], and 8.1 ± 1.3 ng/mL [≥ 14 days]; p = 0.250). The pcAMH at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months were not significantly different among the 3 groups (p-values were 0.332, 0.732, 0.830, 0.148, and 0.393, respectively). In multivariate analysis, young age (p = 0.024), low BMI (p = 0.013), and the existence of PCO (p = 0.015) were predictors for AMH ≥ 1 ng/mL at 12 months.

Conclusion

There was no difference in the ovarian protective effect according to the difference in the timing of administration of GnRHa.

Which is the optimal timing for starting chemoprotection with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists after oocyte cryopreservation? Reflections on a critical case of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Aim of this report is to alert clinicians about the potential significant sequelae of administering depot gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) shortly after oocytes cryopreservation. In our case report, a 28-year-old nulligravid Caucasian woman diagnosed with breast cancer underwent controlled ovarian stimulation-oocyte cryopreservation before chemotherapy. The oocyte retrieval was performed without complications and the woman was discharged after five hours. Three days later, the patient self-injected depot-GnRHa as chemoprotective agent, as indicated by the oncologist. The next day, the patient referred to the emergency room and she was diagnosed with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and required inpatient care. As a consequence, the start of the chemotherapy was delayed by two weeks. In conclusion, chemoprotection with depot-GnRHa after oocyte/embryo cryopreservation is not exempt from risks. The timing for depot-GnRHa administration should be established by the agreement between oncologist and gynecologist in order to avoid the risk of OHSS.

Controversies Regarding Ovarian Suppression and Infertility in Early Stage Breast Cancer

A common side effect of chemotherapy in breast cancer is early menopause in premenopausal patients, which is mainly a result of an indirect form of ovarian ablation, and is associated with substantial impairment of quality of life. Suppressing the production of ovarian estrogen has been shown to reduce the recurrence of hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer in premenopausal women, but whether it has an added advantage over tamoxifen is being discussed. Types of permanent ablation of the ovarian function include surgical oophorectomy and radiation-induced ovarian failure. Both are associated with similar response rates in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Medical castration with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogs (LHRHa) has the benefit of being a reversible approach. Another advantage that premenopausal patients who wish to reduce the risk of developing premature ovarian insufficiency induced by chemotherapy may be offered LHRHa irrespective of whether they desire pregnancy and their age at diagnosis. This also helps reduce the risk of menopausal signs and symptoms as well as the loss of bone density in the long-term, which are primary concerns for women. This is of utmost importance to premenopausal women who do not want to conceive after treatment or are not candidates for fertility preservation strategies because of age. It should be emphasized that for women who are interested in fertility preservation, gamete cryopreservation remains the first option, and LHRHa is not an alternative. During chemotherapy, however, temporary ovarian suppression with LHRHa may be given to women who either have no access to a fertility clinic or who have declined chemotherapy or have contraindications.