Long-term cancer risks in women after treatment with IVF: do we have any answers yet?

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.

Live birth is not the only relevant outcome in research assessing assisted reproductive technology

In assisted reproductive technology (ART) research, live birth has been generally accepted as an important outcome, if not the most important one. However, it has been reported inconsistently in the literature and solely focusing on live birth can lead to misinterpretation of research findings. In this review, we provide an overview on the definitions of live birth, including various denominators and numerators use. We present a series of real clinical examples in ART research to demonstrate the impact of variations in live birth on research findings and the importance of other outcomes, including multiple pregnancy, pregnancy loss, time to pregnancy leading to live birth, other short and long term maternal and offspring health outcomes and cost effectiveness measures. We suggest that outcome choices in ART research should be tailored for the research questions. A holistic outcome assessment beyond live birth would provide a full picture to address research questions in ART in terms of effectiveness and safety, and thus facilitate evidence-based decision making.

First line fertility treatment strategies regarding IUI and IVF require clinical evidence

The advent of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has contributed to a significant growth in the delivery of assisted conception technique, such that IVF/ICSI procedures are now recommended over other interventions. Even the UK National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines controversially recommends against intrauterine insemination (IUI) procedures in favour of IVF. We reflect on some of the clinical, economic, financial and ethical realities that have been used to selectively promote IVF over IUI, which is less intrusive and more patient friendly, obviates the need for embryo storage and has a global application. The evidence strongly favours IUI over IVF in selected couples and national funding strategies should include IUI treatment options. IUI, practised optimally as a first line treatment in up to six cycles, would also ease the pressures on public funds to allow the provision of up to three IVF cycles for couple who need it. Fertility clinics should also strive towards ISO15189 accreditation standards for basic semen diagnosis for male infertility used to triage ICSI treatment, to reduce the over-diagnosis of severe male factor infertility. Importantly, there is a need to develop global guidelines on inclusion policies for IVF/ICSI procedures. These suggestions are an ethically sound basis for constructing the provision of publicly funded fertility treatments.