Is letrozole needed for controlled ovarian stimulation in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer?

Fertility preservation in patients undergoing gonadotoxic treatments: a Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society clinical practice guideline

The management of young patients with cancer presents several unique challenges. In general, these patients are ill prepared for the diagnosis and the impact on their fertility. With the improved survival for all tumour types and stages, the need for adequate fertility counselling and a multidisciplinary approach in the reproductive care of these patients is paramount. Recent advances in cryopreservation techniques allow for the banking of spermatozoa, oocytes, embryos and ovarian tissue without compromising survival. This Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (CFAS) guideline outlines the current understanding of social and medical issues associated with oncofertility, and the medical and surgical technologies available to optimize future fertility.

Is controlled ovarian stimulation safe in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

INTRODUCTION

Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation is the method of choice for fertility preservation (FP) in young patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (eBC). Nevertheless, some challenges still question its role, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting, where concerns arise about potential delay in the onset of anticancer treatment, and in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) disease, as cancer cells may proliferate under the estrogenic peak associated with stimulation. Therefore, this review aims to examine the available evidence on the safety of COS in eBC patients eligible for neoadjuvant treatment (NAT), particularly in HR+ disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies evaluating the feasibility and safety of COS in eBC and including patients referred to NAT and/or with HR+ disease. Time to NAT and survival outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the three matched cohort studies assessing the impact of COS on time to start NAT, only one reported a significant small delay in the cohort undergoing COS compared with the control group, whereas the other studies found no difference. Regarding survival outcomes, overall, no increased risk of recurrence or death was found, either in patients undergoing COS in the neoadjuvant setting regardless of HR expression or in HR+ disease regardless of the timing of COS relative to surgery. However, there are no data on the safety of COS in the specific combined scenario of HR+ disease undergoing NAT.

CONCLUSION

Neither the indication to NAT nor the HR positivity constitutes per se an a priori contraindication to COS. Shared decision making between clinicians and patients is essential to carefully weigh the risks and benefits in each individual case. Prospective studies designed to specifically investigate this issue are warranted.

Breast Cancer and Fertility Preservation in Young Female Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer affects almost 1.5 million women worldwide below the age of 45 years each year. Many of these women will be advised to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy to minimize the risk of death or recurrence of the tumor. For these patients, chemotherapy is a known cause of infertility, as it can damage primordial follicles, which can lead to early menopause or premature ovarian insufficiency. This systematic review aims to synthesize the current evidence of the most suitable treatments for fertility preservation.

METHODOLOGY

This review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. The authors conducted an extensive search from the last 15 years. Relevant studies were pursued in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up until 31 July 2023. A total of seven eligible studies were identified.

RESULTS

From the reviewed literature, ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists showed promising results in preserving fertility for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Additionally, oocyte and embryo cryopreservation demonstrated successful outcomes, with embryo cryopreservation being the most effective option. Notably, the slow-freezing and vitrification methods were both effective in preserving embryos, with vitrification showing superior results in clinical-assisted reproductive technologies. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation emerged as a viable option for prepubertal girls and those unable to undergo conventional ovarian stimulation. The potential of in vitro maturation (IVM) as an alternative method presents a promising avenue for future fertility preservation research.

DISCUSSION

The most suitable treatments for fertility preservation in young patients is the temporary suppression with luteinizing hormone-releasing analogs, while the patient undergoes chemotherapy and cryopreservation. For cryopreservation, the physicians might deem it necessary to either cryopreserve ovarian tissue taken from the patient before any treatment or cryopreserve embryos/oocytes. Cryopreservation of oocytes and/or embryos is the most effective solution for fertility preservation in women of reproductive age, who have a sufficient ovarian reserve and are diagnosed with breast cancer, regardless of the histological type of the tumor. Because approximately 50% of young breast cancer patients are interested in becoming pregnant right after completion of therapy, the evolution and development of fertility preservation techniques promise to be very exciting.

The effect of aromatase inhibitor on controlled ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation in adolescent and young cancer patients

AIM

To determine the impact of aromatase inhibitor (AI) use in oocyte cryopreservation among Japanese adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients for fertility preservation, we evaluated the oocyte cryopreservation outcomes following AI therapy in combination with the follicular phase start (FPS) and random start (RS) protocols.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 81 cycles of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) among 73 AYA patients with cancer who underwent oocyte cryopreservation to maintain fertility. The outcome measures were the total number of matured oocytes that were retrieved and cryopreserved, as well as their maturation rates. The AI (+) and AI (-) groups were compared using the RS and FPS protocols.

RESULTS

Our results showed that the combined use of AI and COS decreases serum E2 levels and maintains the number of retrieved and cryopreserved mature oocytes. We also confirmed the efficacy of the RS protocol, which was found to have comparable outcomes to that of the FPS protocol in both AI (+) and AI (-) groups.

CONCLUSION

The combined use of AI and COS is beneficial for oocyte cryopreservation in patients with estrogen-sensitive cancer, regardless of the menstrual cycle phase of COS initiation.

Breast cancer treatment and ovarian function

The aim of this study was to provide an update on ovarian function and the mechanisms of gonadal damage after exposure to chemotherapy in breast cancer survivors. The alkylating agents are toxic to both primordial and growing follicles. However, anti-metabolite drugs are more likely to destroy preantral and antral follicles. Younger patients are more likely to have a higher ovarian reserve, and therefore, more likely to retain some residual ovarian function after exposure to gonadotoxic regimens. However, there can be significant variability in ovarian reserve among patients of the same age. Furthermore, patients with critically diminished ovarian reserve may continue to menstruate regularly. Therefore age and menstrual status are not reliable indicators of good ovarian reserve and might give a false sense of security and result in an adverse outcome if the patient is consulted without considering more reliable quantitative markers of ovarian reserve (antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormone) and fertility preservation is not pursued. In contrast to well-documented ovarian toxicity of older chemotherapy regimens, data for newer taxane-containing protocols have only accumulated in the last decade and data are still very limited regarding the impact of targeted therapies on ovarian function.

Letrozole increases preantral follicle growth and decreases estradiol production without impairing follicle survival

BACKGROUND

Letrozole has been reported to be effective in treating anovulation, preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and retrieving oocytes in breast cancer patients. However, the role and mechanism of letrozole in follicular development remain unclear.

RESULTS

We treated mouse preantral follicles with various treatments; we found no significant difference in follicle survival rates in the letrozole (LET) group compared with the control group, but the average diameter of follicles in the LET group tended to be larger (CTRL vs. LET 30, p = 0.064; CTRL vs. LET 100, p = 0.025). The estradiol concentrations in culture media of the LET group were significantly lower than those observed in the control group (CTRL vs. LET 30, p = 0.038; CTRL vs. LET 100, p = 0.025). We further found a marked increase in follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) gene expression in response to letrozole treatment (CTRL vs. LET 30, p = 0.075; CTRL vs. LET 100, p = 0.034). This result suggested that increased FSHR expression promotes follicle development. Letrozole inhibited aromatase activity, but the effect was limited. Letrozole did not significantly reduce vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene expression.

CONCLUSIONS

Letrozole may promote follicle development by increasing the expression of FSHR. Letrozole may be useful for fertility preservation of patients with estrogen-dependent cancers such as breast cancer and various other cancers. Whether letrozole has a direct effect in reducing OHSS requires further investigation.

What should be done in terms of fertility preservation for patients with cancer? The French 2021 guidelines

AIM

To provide practice guidelines about fertility preservation (FP) in oncology.

METHODS

We selected 400 articles after a PubMed review of the literature (1987-2019).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Any child, adolescent and adult of reproductive age should be informed about the risk of treatment gonadotoxicity. In women, systematically proposed FP counselling between 15 and 38 years of age in case of treatment including bifunctional alkylating agents, above 6 g/m2 cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED), and for radiation doses on the ovaries ≥3 Gy. For postmenarchal patients, oocyte cryopreservation after ovarian stimulation is the first-line FP technique. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be discussed as a first-line approach in case of treatment with a high gonadotoxic risk, when chemotherapy has already started and in urgent cases. Ovarian transposition is to be discussed prior to pelvic radiotherapy involving a high risk of premature ovarian failure. For prepubertal girls, ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be proposed in the case of treatment with a high gonadotoxic risk. In pubertal males, sperm cryopreservation must be systematically offered to any male who is to undergo cancer treatment, regardless of toxicity. Testicular tissue cryopreservation must be proposed in males unable to cryopreserve sperm who are to undergo a treatment with intermediate or severe risk of gonadotoxicity. In prepubertal boys, testicular tissue preservation is: - recommended for chemotherapy with a CED ≥7500 mg/m2 or radiotherapy ≥3 Gy on both testicles. - proposed for chemotherapy with a CED ≥5.000 mg/m2 or radiotherapy ≥2 Gy. If several possible strategies, the ultimate choice is made by the patient.

Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with or without letrozole for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Fertility preservation (FP) is recommended in young breast cancer (BC) patients before (neo)adjuvant treatment. Letrozole-associated controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (LetCOH) is used worldwide to collect mature oocytes for FP, but its efficacy and safety compared to conventional protocols (cCOH) are still debated.

AIMS

To compare efficacy and safety of FP procedure using LetCOH or cCOH in BC patients in terms of oocyte maturation rate and disease-free survival rates after at least two years of follow-up.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study compared outcomes of 107 cycles in 97 non-metastatic BC patients aged ≤40 years who underwent cCOH (n = 56) or LetCOH (n = 41) for FP in CHU-Lille and Erasme Hospital, respectively, between December 2012 and January 2017.

RESULTS

Patients and oncological characteristics were similar except for tumor size and HER2 status which were less favorable in the LetCOH group. Patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy in 96.4% and 48.8% of the cases in cCOH and LetCOH groups, respectively. Hence, 51.2% of LetCOH patients underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.001). Estradiol peak at ovulation trigger was lower in LetCOH compared to cCOH group while oocyte maturation rates were significantly higher (p < 0.001), without impacting the final number of mature oocytes collected. Seven and four patients relapsed in LetCOH and cCOH groups, respectively, and one patient died in each group after a median follow-up of four years.

CONCLUSION

LetCOH is as effective as cCOH for FP. At this time point, there were no safety concerns regarding cCOH in the adjuvant setting but a longer follow-up is warranted.

Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial on various ovarian stimulation protocols

STUDY QUESTION

Does ovarian stimulation with the addition of tamoxifen or letrozole affect the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) retrieved compared to standard ovarian stimulation in women with breast cancer who undergo fertility preservation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols with tamoxifen or letrozole did not affect the number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration in women with breast cancer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced for women with breast cancer who opt for fertility preservation by means of banking of oocytes or embryos. How these ovarian stimulation protocols compare to standard ovarian stimulation in terms of COC yield is unknown.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This multicentre, open-label randomized controlled superiority trial was carried out in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands and 1 hospital in Belgium between January 2014 and December 2018. We randomly assigned women with breast cancer, aged 18–43 years, who opted for banking of oocytes or embryos to one of three study arms; ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, ovarian stimulation plus letrozole or standard ovarian stimulation. Standard ovarian stimulation included GnRH antagonist, recombinant FSH and GnRH agonist trigger. Randomization was performed with a web-based system in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified for oral contraception usage at start of ovarian stimulation, positive estrogen receptor (ER) status and positive lymph nodes. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to the assigned treatment. The primary outcome was number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

During the study period, 162 women were randomly assigned to one of three interventions. Fifty-four underwent ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 53 ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 55 standard ovarian stimulation. Analysis was according to intention-to-treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

No differences among groups were observed in the mean (±SD) number of COCs retrieved: 12.5 (10.4) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 14.2 (9.4) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 13.6 (11.6) after standard ovarian stimulation (mean difference −1.13, 95% CI −5.70 to 3.43 for tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.58, 95% CI −4.03 to 5.20 for letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation). After adjusting for oral contraception usage at the start of ovarian stimulation, positive ER status and positive lymph nodes, the mean difference was −1.11 (95% CI −5.58 to 3.35) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.30 (95% CI −4.19 to 4.78) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation. There were also no differences in the number of oocytes or embryos banked. There was one serious adverse event after standard ovarian stimulation: one woman was admitted to the hospital because of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The available literature on which we based our hypothesis, power analysis and sample size calculation was scarce and studies were of low quality. Our study did not have sufficient power to perform subgroup analysis on follicular, luteal or random start of ovarian stimulation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our study showed that adding tamoxifen or letrozole to a standard ovarian stimulation protocol in women with breast cancer does not impact the effectiveness of fertility preservation and paves the way for high-quality long-term follow-up on breast cancer treatment outcomes and women’s future pregnancy outcomes. Our study also highlights the need for high-quality studies for all women opting for fertility preservation, as alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced to clinical practice without proper evidence.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was supported by a grant (2011.WO23.C129) of ‘Stichting Pink Ribbon’, a breast cancer fundraising charity organization in the Netherlands. M.G., C.B.L. and R.S. declared that the Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (location VUMC) has received unconditional research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. C.B.L. declared a speakers fee for Inmed and Yingming. S.C.L. reports grants and non-financial support from Agendia, grants, non-financial support and other from AstraZeneca, grants from Eurocept-pharmaceuticals, grants and non-financial support from Genentech/Roche and Novartis, grants from Pfizer, grants and non-financial support from Tesaro and Immunomedics, other from Cergentis, IBM, Bayer, and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work; In addition, S.C.L. has a patent UN23A01/P-EP pending that is unrelated to the present work. J.M.J.S. reported payments and travel grants from Merck and Ferring. C.C.M.B. reports her role as unpaid president of the National guideline committee on Fertility Preservation in women with cancer. K.F. received unrestricted grants from Merck Serono, Good Life and Ferring not related to present work. K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. declared former employment from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD). K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. reports grants from MSD, Gedeon Richter and Ferring paid to his institution; consulting fee payments from MSD and Merck Serono paid to his institution; speaker honoraria from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono paid to his institution. D.S. has also received travel and meeting support from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono. No payments are related to present work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4108.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

6 August 2013.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

30 January 2014.

Successful Pregnancies, Births, and Child Development Following Oocyte Cryostorage in Female Cancer Patients During 25 Years of Fertility Preservation

Simple Summary

The study goal is to demonstrate that oocyte cryopreservation is a feasible and efficient option for fertility preservation in cancer patients through the comparison of in vitro fertilization treatments in nononcological patients.

Abstract

The preservation of fertility in cancer patients is a crucial aspect of modern reproductive medicine. Amenorrhea and infertility often occur after cancer therapy, worsening the quality of life. Cryopreservation of oocytes in young cancer patients is a therapeutic option for preserving fertility. A prospective study was conducted on 508 cancer patients who underwent oocyte cryopreservation to preserve fertility between 1996 and 2021 including the COVID-19 pandemic period. Patients underwent ovarian stimulation, followed by egg retrieval, and oocytes were cryopreserved by slow freezing or vitrification. Sixty-four thawing/warming cycles were performed. Survival, fertilization, pregnancy, and birth rate over the thawing/warming cycles were obtained. The data were compared with those from a group of 1042 nononcological patients who cryopreserved supernumerary oocytes. An average of 8.8 ± 6.9 oocytes were retrieved per cycle, and 6.1 ± 4.2 oocytes were cryopreserved. With their own stored oocytes, 44 patients returned to attempt pregnancy. From a total of 194 thawed/warmed oocytes, 157 survived (80%). In total, 100 embryos were transferred in 57 transfer/cycles, and 18 pregnancies were achieved. The pregnancy rate per transfer and pregnancy rate per patient were 31% and 41%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between oncological patients and nononcological patients. A total of 15 babies were born from oncological patients. Children born showed normal growth and development. One minor malformation was detected.

Clinical efficacy of dual trigger with human chorionic gonadotropin and a gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonist for women undergoing fertility preservation

Purpose

To determine the optimal maturation method to increase the yield of mature oocytes, especially for cancer patients with fewer chances of fertility preservation (FP) before gonadotoxic therapy.

Methods

A total of 373 cycles in 293 patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for FP using a gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol were enrolled. The control group (n = 225) received 250 µg of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin (rhCG) while the study group (n = 148) received 250 µg of rhCG and 0.2 mg of triptorelin for triggering. Subgroup analyses were performed for stimulation cycles with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR; anti‐Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels <1.1 ng/ml, n = 86), with endometrioma (n = 104), or with breast cancer and endometrial cancer using 5 mg of letrozole during the COS cycles (n = 84).

Results

There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics or the number of total and mature oocytes between the two groups. Subgroup analyses for women with endometrioma or DOR showed similar results. However, the dual trigger group had a significantly higher number of mature oocytes than the rhCG trigger group in breast and endometrial cancer patients using letrozole during the COS cycles (6.9 ± 6.0 vs. 4.6 ± 3.6, p = 0.034). The maturation rate was higher in the dual trigger group, although the difference was not statistically significant (59.3 ± 26.7 vs. 50.0 ± 28.0, p = 0.124).

Conclusions

Dual triggering can be an efficient maturation method to maximize the yield of mature oocytes in breast or endometrial cancer patients using letrozole‐combined GnRH antagonist protocol for FP.

Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer before chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The preservation of fertility in women of childbearing age with breast cancer is challenging since the time for ovarian stimulation is restricted and only a limited amount of oocytes can be retrieved before gonadotoxic therapies. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the fertility preservation outcomes after ovarian stimulation with various protocols in women with breast cancer. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Studies comparing the outcomes of women with breast cancer receiving random-start ovarian stimulation or conventional protocol; single or double ovarian stimulation cycles; and coadministration of aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen were included. Twenty-two studies were included. Random-start ovarian stimulation resulted in a comparable number of retrieved oocytes to the conventional protocol. Two ovarian stimulation cycles had significantly higher numbers of total retrieved oocytes than one cycle (mean difference: 7.91, 95% CI: 3.42-12.4). Coadministration of letrozole and tamoxifen showed similar results of retrieved oocytes to those without. A significantly lower peak serum estradiol level was observed in letrozole-based groups than in letrozole-free groups. In conclusion, our study indicated that implementing random-start protocols to shorten the duration of waiting for ovarian stimulation, applying two ovarian stimulation cycles, and coadministering letrozole can lead to more desirable outcomes.

Concomitant tamoxifen or letrozole for optimal oocyte yield during fertility preservation for breast cancer: the TAmoxifen or Letrozole in Estrogen Sensitive tumors (TALES) randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether concomitant tamoxifen 20 mg with gonadotropins (tamoxifen-gonadotropin) versus letrozole 5 mg with gonadotropins (letrozole-gonadotropin) affects mature oocyte yield.

METHODS

Open-label, single-institution, randomized trial. Inclusion criteria included the following: females, ages 18-44 years old, with new diagnosis of non-metastatic breast cancer, who were undergoing fertility preservation with either oocyte or embryo cryopreservation. Those with estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer were randomized to tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin. Another group with estrogen-receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer was recruited, as a prospectively collected comparison arm who took neither letrozole nor tamoxifen (gonadotropin only). The primary outcome was the number of mature oocytes obtained from the cycle. The randomized groups were powered to detect a difference of three or more mature oocytes.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were randomized to tamoxifen-gonadotropin and fifty-one to letrozole-gonadotropin. Thirty-eight patients completed gonadotropin only. Age, antral follicle count, and body mass index were similar between the randomized groups. Our primary outcome of mature oocyte yield was similar between the tamoxifen-gonadotropin and letrozole-gonadotropin groups (12±8.6 vs. 11.6±7.5, p=0.81, 95%CI of difference =-2.9 to 3.7). In a pre-specified secondary comparison, mature oocyte yield was also similar with tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin versus gonadotropin only (12±8.6 vs. 11.6±7.5 vs. 12.4±7.2). There were no serious adverse events in any of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamoxifen-gonadotropin and letrozole-gonadotropin produced a similar number of mature oocytes. Women who received either tamoxifen-gonadotropin or letrozole-gonadotropin had a similar number of oocytes to the gonadotropin-only group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03011684 (retrospectively registered 1/5/2017, after 9% enrolled).

Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian stimulation using GnRH antagonist protocols for emergency fertility preservation in young women with breast cancer-a prospective nationwide Swedish multicenter study

STUDY QUESTION

How efficacious and safe are the current approaches to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) aimed at fertility preservation (FP) in women with breast cancer (BC)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In women with BC undergoing COS aiming at egg/embryo cryopreservation, letrozole-based protocols and those randomly started were equally effective compared with conventional COS, and the overall survival was similar between the women that proceeded to FP and those who did not.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is an established method for FP in women with BC. Recent improvements to COS protocols include concomitant use of letrozole, random-cycle start day of stimulation and the use of GnRHa for the egg maturation trigger. To date, limited sample size of the available studies has not allowed investigation of differences in the efficacy of the different approaches to COS for FP in this patient population.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A prospective multicenter study with national coverage including 610 women with BC counseled between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 2017 at six Swedish FP regional programs.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

After counseling, 401 women elected to undergo COS. Treatments differed in the use or not of concomitant letrozole, a conventional or random-cycle day COS initiation and the use of hCG versus GnRHa trigger for oocyte maturation. Numbers of cryopreserved oocytes and embryos were defined as primary outcome. Pregnancy attempts, reproductive outcomes and long-term survival, investigated by the linking of individuals of the cohort to the total population register of the Swedish Tax Agency (up to 25 November 2018), were evaluated.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Using letrozole or not resulted in similar numbers of oocytes and embryos cryopreserved (mean_oocytes = 9.7 versus 10 and mean_embryos 4.0 versus 5.3, respectively), similar to COS with random versus conventional start (mean_oocytes 9.0 versus 10.6 and mean_embryos 4.8 versus 4.8). In COS with letrozole, a GnRHa trigger was associated with a higher number of oocytes retrieved (P < 0.05) and embryos cryopreserved (P < 0.005), compared with conventional hCG trigger. Of 99 women who returned to fertility clinics after cancer treatment, 32 proceeded to thawing of oocytes or embryos and 10 of them had live births. The all-cause survival between the women that underwent COS and those who did not was similar and did not differ between the two groups.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Data on tumor characteristics and estrogen receptor (ER) status were not known for all women at the time of FP counseling and planning of COS, thus protocols with letrozole have been used for both estrogen-sensitive and non-estrogen-sensitive BC. For the same reason, subsequent adjustment for ERs in the BC or tumor characteristics as potential confounders were not performed as these parameters were not available and did not influence the provision of FP through COS.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The results of our study support the premise that recently introduced potential improvements to COS protocols for FP in women with BC are efficacious and safe.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was supported by research grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, the Stockholm County Council, the Percy Falk Stiftelsen, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder, The Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Karolinska Institutet to K.A.R.W. J.B. reports grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and Merck, outside the submitted work, and payment from UpToDate to Asklepios Medicine HB for a chapter on BC prediction and prognostication. All the other authors have no competing interests to report.

Ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in women with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing random and conventional starts

OBJECTIVE

In female cancer patients anticipating chemotherapy or radiation, oocyte retrieval for fertility should be performed as efficiently as possible to avoid postponing cancer treatments. Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes among female cancer patients who underwent a conventional early follicular phase-start ovarian stimulation cycle and those who underwent a random-start ovarian stimulation cycle.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Embase.com, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched to identify all original research published in English through July 2020 on the topic of female cancer patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with a random or conventional start. Studies lacking a comparison group or including women who had already undergone chemotherapy at the time of ovarian stimulation were excluded. The primary author assessed all identified article titles and abstracts, and two independent reviewers assessed full-text articles and extracted data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs) for outcomes of interest. The primary outcome was the number of mature (meiosis II) oocytes retrieved. Secondary outcomes included duration of stimulation, total dose of gonadotropins, total number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, and number of embryos or zygotes cryopreserved.

RESULTS

A total of 446 articles were screened, and 9 full-text articles (all retrospective cohort or prospective observational) were included for review. Additionally, pooled primary retrospective data from two institutions were included. In total, data from 10 studies including 1653 women were reviewed. Five studies reported the number of embryos cryopreserved, and four reported fertilization rates. Random-start cycles were slightly longer (WMD 0.57 days, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.0-1.14 days) and used more total gonadotropins (WMD 248.8 international units, 95 % CI 57.24-440.40) than conventional-start cycles. However, there were no differences in number of mature oocytes retrieved (WMD 0.41 oocytes, 95 % CI -0.84-1.66), number of total oocytes retrieved (WMD 0.90 oocytes, 95 % CI -0.21-2.02), fertilization rates (WMD -0.12, 95 % CI -1.22-0.98), or number of embryos cryopreserved (WMD 0.12 embryos, 95 %CI -0.98-1.22) between random-start and conventional-start cycles. All outcomes except for the parameter "total oocytes retrieved" yielded an I² of over 50 %, indicating substantial heterogeneity between studies.

CONCLUSION(S)

Although random-start cycles may entail a longer duration of stimulation and use more total gonadotropins than conventional-start cycles, the absolute differences are small and likely do not significantly affect treatment costs. The similar numbers of mature oocytes retrieved, fertilization rates, and number of embryos cryopreserved in the two start-types suggest that they do not differ in any clinically important ways. Given that random-start cycles can be initiated quickly, they may help facilitate fertility preservation for cancer patients.

Effects of letrozole or tamoxifen coadministered with a standard stimulation protocol on fertility preservation among breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of letrozole or tamoxifen coadministration on fertility preservation treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of 118 breast cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation treatment between 2008 and 2018. Patients who received letrozole (n = 36) or tamoxifen (n = 30) were compared to controls (n = 52) who underwent standard ovarian stimulation protocols. The primary outcome measures included the number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes (MII), fertilization, and top-quality embryo rates. The secondary outcome measures included duration of stimulation, gonadotropin dose and peak estradiol level.

RESULTS

The number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, fertilization rate, duration of stimulation, or gonadotropin dose were similar in the letrozole and tamoxifen groups, compared to controls. Top-quality embryo rate was lower in the tamoxifen group compared to controls (25% vs 39.4%, respectively, P = 0.034). The abnormal fertilization rate was higher in the letrozole group compared to controls (7.8% vs 3.60%, respectively, P = 0.015). A stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that letrozole and peak estradiol were significantly associated with abnormal fertilization (OR 11.94; 95% CI 2.35-60.4, P = 0.003 for letrozole and OR 1.075; 95% CI 1.024-1.12, P = 0.004 per 100 unit change in estradiol).

CONCLUSIONS

There may be a negative effect of letrozole or tamoxifen on fertilization and embryo quality, in fertility preservation cycles. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Predictors and outcomes in breast cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in reproductive age women, and treatment can affect fertility; however, there is often concern regarding the safety of increased estradiol (E₂) levels and potential delays in treatment with ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation (FP). The aim of this study was to compare recurrence and survival in breast cancer patients who pursued FP without concurrent letrozole to those who did not (non-FP).

METHODS

We reviewed charts of women with breast cancer who contacted the FP patient navigator (PN) at Northwestern University from 01/2005-01/2018. Oncology and fertility outcome data were collected. Data were analyzed by Chi-square test or regression, as appropriate. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to examine breast cancer recurrence and survival. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS IBM Statistics 26.0 for Windows.

RESULTS

332 patients were included, of which 157 (47.3%) underwent FP. Median days to treatment after consulting the PN was 35 in the FP group and 21 in non-FP (p < 0.05). Cancer recurrence was noted in 7 (4.7%) FP patients and 13 (7.9%) non-FP patients (NS), and mortality in 5 (3.2%) FP patients and 7 (4.2%) non-FP patients (NS). Within the FP group, no significant differences were found in recurrence or mortality based on ER status, age, BMI, peak E₂ level or total gonadotropin dose. Likelihood of pursuing FP was primarily a function of age and parity, and was not affected by breast cancer stage. To date, 21 have used cryopreserved specimens, and 13 (62%) had a live birth.

CONCLUSIONS

FP is safe and effective in breast cancer patients, regardless of receptor status; E₂ elevations and the 2-week delay in treatment start are unlikely to be clinically significant. These findings are unique in that our institution does not use concomitant letrozole during stimulation to minimize E₂ elevations in breast cancer patients.

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for fertility preservation in women with breast cancer: Practical issues

In Korean women, a westernized lifestyle is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Fertility preservation has become an increasingly important issue for women with breast cancer, in accordance with substantial improvements in survival rate after cancer treatment. The methods of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients have been modified to include aromatase inhibitors to reduce the potential harm associated with increased estradiol levels. Random-start COH and dual ovarian stimulation are feasible options to reduce the total duration of fertility preservation treatment and to efficiently collect oocytes or embryos. Using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist as a trigger may improve cycle outcomes in breast cancer patients undergoing COH for fertility preservation. In young breast cancer patients with BRCA mutations, especially BRCA1 mutations, the possibility of diminished ovarian reserve may be considered, although further studies are necessary. Herein, we review the current literature on the practical issues surrounding COH for fertility preservation in women with breast cancer.

Triple stimulation (TriStim) before bilateral oophorectomy in a young woman with ovarian cancer: a case report and review of the literature

Background

Double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) involves two rounds of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and oocyte retrieval in immediate succession. It represents a promising approach to increase oocyte yield for patients with diminished ovarian reserve or those with limited time before fertility-threatening oncologic treatment. We report the case of a 31-year-old woman with Stage IC endometrioid ovarian cancer who underwent a triple stimulation or "TriStim," completing three rounds of COS and oocyte retrieval within 42 days prior to bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

Case presentation

A 31 year old nulligravid woman presented for fertility preservation counseling following a bilateral ovarian cystectomy that revealed Stage IC endometroid adenocarcinoma arising within endometrioid borderline tumors. The patient was counseled for bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, lymph node dissection, and omentectomy followed by three cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel. Prior to this, all within six weeks, the patient underwent three rounds of controlled ovarian stimulation using an antagonist protocol and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger, resulting in vitrification of nine two-pronuclear zygotes (2PN), after which definitive surgery was performed.

Conclusions

Advantages of DuoStim procedures are increasingly recognized, especially for oncology patients with limited time before potentially sterilizing cancer treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a triple stimulation ("TriStim"). Our case highlights that triple stimulation is a viable option for patients needing urgent fertility preservation in order to maximize egg and embryo yield within a limited time period.

Does type of cancer affect ovarian response in oncofertility patients?

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the influence of type of cancer and cancer itself on the ovarian response during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation (FP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study performed at a single academic tertiary-care infertility center. Women diagnosed with cancer who underwent COS with GnRH antagonist protocol between January 2009 and December 2018 were included in this study. Patients were categorized into three groups; breast/gynecologic, hematologic, and other cancers. We secondarily compared the COS parameters and ovarian reserve markers in oncofertility cases against non-cancer patients who pursued FP for deferred reproduction. The primary outcome was number of mature oocytes. Secondary outcomes included oocyte yield (number of retrieved oocytes/number of follicles aspirated at time of retrieval) and oocyte-maturity index, defined as number of mature oocytes/total oocytes retrieved.

RESULTS

A total of 96 cancer patients were referred for FP counseling before starting their anti-cancer therapy. Clinical characteristics and ovarian response parameters were comparable between the three groups. Type of cancer was not a predictor for number of mature oocytes (p = 0.329), oocyte-maturity index (p = 0.815), or oocyte yield, (p = 0.161) after adjustment to cycle covariates. Moreover, cancer did not have impact on the number of mature oocytes (p = 0.699), oocyte-maturity index (p = 0.251) and oocyte yield (p = 0.094).

DISCUSSION

There is no difference observed in outcomes of ovarian stimulation based on primary cancer diagnosis in oncofertility patients undergoing FP. Interestingly, no significant impact for cancer itself was observed on ovarian reserve or response to gonadotrophins stimulation.

Efficacy and Safety of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation With or Without Letrozole Co-administration for Fertility Preservation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The co-administration of letrozole during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with gonadotropins is used to limit the potentially harmful effects of a supra-physiological rise in estrogen levels on hormone-sensitive cancers. However, the efficacy and safety of adding letrozole to COS remain debated.

Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that compared the efficacy and safety of COS with co-administration of letrozole vs. COS without letrozole in all patient populations. A secondary analysis was done including only the studies in breast cancer patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of retrieved mature Metaphase II (MII) oocytes. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were total number of oocytes, maturation rate, fertilization rate, number of cryopreserved embryos, peak estradiol levels, progesterone levels, and total gonadotropin dose. Data for each endpoint were reported and analyzed thorough mean ratio (MR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: A total of 11 records were selected including 2,121 patients (990 patients underwent COS with letrozole and 1,131 COS without letrozole). The addition of letrozole to COS did not have any negative effect on the number of mature oocytes collected (MR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.87–1.16; P = 0.967) and the other efficacy endpoints. COS with letrozole was associated with significantly decreased peak estradiol levels (MR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.24–0.32; P < 0.001). Similar results were observed in the secondary analysis including only breast cancer patients.

Conclusions: These findings are reassuring on the efficacy and safety of COS with gonadotropins and letrozole and are particularly important for fertility preservation in women with hormone-sensitive cancers.

Human recombinant FSH induces chemoresistance in human breast cancer cells via HIF-1α activation†

Breast cancer patients under 40 years of age who are candidate to chemotherapy with alkylating drugs may undergo controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (rhFSH) in order to get fertility preservation by mature oocyte cryostorage. The direct effect(s) of exogenous rhFSH on the chemosensitivity of breast cancer is currently unknown. To clarify this issue, we incubated four different breast cancer cell lines with rhFSH (10 IU/L, 24 h) and then we exposed them to doxorubicin (DOX) or cyclophosphamide (CPA). The effect(s) of rhFSH on human breast cancer cells treated with DOX or CPA was measured in terms of (1) cell viability, (2) cytotoxicity, (3) multidrug resistance (MDR) genes and proteins expression and activities, and (4) hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF-1α) activation. Pretreatment with rhFSH significantly increased the viability of breast cancer cells after treatment with DOX or CPA, and reduced the lactate dehydrogenase leakage and reactive oxygen species production. Moreover, after preincubation with rhFSH, the MDR proteins (Pgp, MPR1, and BCRP) expression and activity resulted upregulated and the HIF-1α pathway activated. In addition, the use of a widely used HIF-1α inhibitor, the 3-(5'-hydroxymethyl-2'-furyl)-1-benzylindazole (YC-1), prevented the rhFSH effect on the onset of MDR. Taken together, these observations suggest that a short exposure to rhFSH induces chemoresistance to DOX and CPA in human breast cancer cells via HIF-1α activation.

Oncofertility Treatment Among Breast Cancer Women: A Paradigm Shift of Practice After a Decade of Service

Purpose: Our center is known as a pioneer center initiating oncofertility service since 2010 in Japan. We demonstrate our transition of this service in regional university hospitals ingenuously. Methods: We compared two phases of service: initial phase (2011 and 2012) and current phase (2019). The comparison included the number of women attending the oncofertility unit, diversity of breast cancer cases, the acceptability of preservation service, and the type of fertility preservation (FP) option offered in between these phases. Results: A total of 58 women were seen during the initial phase as compared with 41 women in the later phase. The mean age at diagnosis was not significantly different between the two periods. The majority of them were married and diagnosed with stage II luminar type. The current phase had a tendency to have a higher anti-Müllerian hormone level although not reaching significance. At least 50% of them declined FP and 84.5% never received ovarian control stimulation in the initial phase. Otherwise, 61% used aromatase inhibitor in the current phase. Only 15.5% in the initial phase received control ovarian stimulation whereas 63.4% in the current phase received it. The ovarian tissue cryopreservation was highly chosen during the initial phase (25.9%), whereas embryo cryopreservation (39%) was highly opted for during the current phase. All of our parameters are comparable between these two phases (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The significant changes of oncofertility practice were observed mainly due to the understanding of the oncofertility concept among reproductive physicians and the acceptance environment, including standard guidelines, supportive society, as well as advancements in cryobiology technique.

Impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on ovarian reserve and fertility preservation outcomes in young women with breast cancer

Purpose

To determine the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on ovarian reserve and fertility preservation outcome. The main purpose and research question of the study is to determine the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on ovarian reserve and fertility preservation outcomes.

Methods

Prospective study: 67 breast cancer patients between 18 and 40 years old, undergoing a fertility preservation by means of oocyte storage were considered. Inclusions criteria for the study were age between 18 and 40 years old, BMI between 18 and 28, breast cancer neoplasm stage I and II according to American Joint Committee on Cancer classification (2017) and no metastasis. Exclusion criteria: age over 40 years old, BMI < 18 and > 28, breast cancer neoplasm stage III and IV and do not performed the BRCA test. A total of 21 patients had not performed the test and were excluded. Patients were divided into four groups: Group A was composed by 11 breast cancer patients with BRCA 1 mutations, Group B was composed by 11 breast cancer patients with BRCA 2 mutations, Group C was composed by 24 women with breast cancer without BRCA mutations, and Group D (control) was composed by 181 normal women.

Results

Group A showed significant lower AMH levels compared to Group C and D (1.2 ± 1.1 vs 4.5 ± 4.1 p < 0.05 and 1.2 ± 1.1 vs 3.8 ± 2.5 p < 0.05). BRCA1 mutated patients showed a significant lower rate of mature oocytes (MII) compared to Group C (3.1 ± 2.3 vs 7.2 ± 4.4 p < 0,05) and Group D (3.1 ± 2.3 vs 7.3 ± 3.4; p < 0,05). Breast cancer patients needed a higher dose of gonadotropins compared to controls (Group A 2206 ± 1392 Group B2047.5 ± 829.9 Group C 2106 ± 1336 Group D 1597 ± 709 p < 0,05). No significant differences were found among the groups considering basal FSH levels, duration of stimulation, number of developed follicles, and number of total retrieved oocytes. Regarding BRCA2 mutation, no effect on fertility was shown in this study.

Conclusions

The study showed that BRCA1 patients had a higher risk of premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) confirmed by a diminished ovarian reserve and a lower number of mature oocytes suitable for cryopreservation.

Counseling young women with early breast cancer on fertility preservation

PURPOSE

Women with early-stage breast cancer may still have a future child wish, while chemotherapy may impair fertility. To pursue on fertility preservation shortly after breast cancer diagnosis is complex. This review holds a critical reflection on all topics that need to be counseled to give them the opportunity to make a well-informed decision before starting any oncological treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed on papers published in English language on breast cancer in young women, risk of chemotherapy-induced infertility, fertility preservation techniques, impact of possible mutation carriership, and future pregnancy outcome.

RESULTS

Below 40 years of age, the risk of permanent chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure is approximately 20%, where taxanes do not significantly add to this risk. Overall, 23% of reported women who performed fertility preservation by cryopreserving oocytes or embryos returned for embryo transfer. Of these, 40% gave live birth. Both fertility preservation in women diagnosed with breast cancer and pregnancy after treatment seem safe with respect to breast cancer survival. Women who have a genetic predisposition for breast cancer like BRCA gene mutation should also be informed about the possibility of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with an early stage of breast cancer and a possible future child wish should be referred to an expertise center in breast cancer, fertility preservation, and genetics in this complex decision-making process, shortly after diagnosis.

Preserving fertility in female patients with hematological malignancies: a multidisciplinary oncofertility approach

Oncofertility is a new interdisciplinary field at the intersection of oncology and reproductive medicine that expands fertility options for young cancer patients. The most common forms of hematological malignancies that occur in girls and young women and therefore necessitate oncofertility care are acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Aggressive gonadotoxic anticancer regimens including alkylating chemotherapy and total body irradiation are used often in treating girls and young women with hematological malignancies. The risks of gonadotoxicity and subsequent iatrogenic premature ovarian insufficiency and fertility loss depend mainly on the type and stage of the disease, dose of anticancer therapy as well as the age of the patient at the beginning of treatment. To avoid or at least mitigate the devastating complications of anticancer therapy-induced gonadotoxicity, effective and comprehensive strategies that integrate different options for preserving and restoring fertility ranging from established to experimental strategies should be offered before, during, and after chemotherapy or radiotherapy. A multidisciplinary approach that involves strong coordination and collaboration between hemato-oncologists, gynecologists, reproductive biologists, research scientists, and patient navigators is essential to guarantee high standard of care.

Fertility preservation in breast cancer patients

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women. As long-term survival rates have improved, there has been a concurrent increase in quality of life considerations, of which fertility preservation is of utmost importance. A number of fertility preservation options are available to women diagnosed with breast cancer, including administration of a GnRH agonist during chemotherapy in an attempt to minimize ovarian damage, oocyte or embryo cryopreservation prior to the administration of chemotherapy, in vitro maturation of oocytes or ovarian tissue cryopreservation. The safety of pregnancy after a diagnosis of breast cancer has been confirmed in numerous studies.

Impact of letrozole supplementation during ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients

Objectives

Oocyte and/or embryo vitrification after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) represents the most established method of fertility preservation (FP) before cancer treatment. However, traditional COS regimens are associated with supraphysiologic serum estradiol and are therefore not recommended in estrogen-sensitive diseases such as breast cancer (BC). To protect the patients from the potential deleterious effects of elevated estrogen levels during COS for FP, protocols using aromatase inhibitors (letrozole) were developed. The present study aims at investigating whether COS with letrozole supplementation (COSTLES) modifies ovarian response in BC patients.

Study design

One hundred and seventy-seven BC patients candidates for FP using oocyte and/or embryo vitrification following COS referred to our center between July 2013 and December 2016 were included in this retrospective case-control study. 94 patients underwent COSTLES while 83 had standard GnRH antagonist protocol. The number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte maturation rates, number of oocytes vitrified and follicle responsiveness to FSH assessed by the Follicular Output Rate (FORT) were assessed.

Results

Women in both groups were comparable in terms of age and ovarian reserve tests leading to a similar number of oocyte recovered (13.1 ± 10.0 vs. 12.2 ± 8.0 oocytes, respectively, NS). However, oocyte maturation rates were significantly lower in COSTLES compared to standard protocol (64.9 ± 22.8 vs. 77.4 ± 19.3%, p < 0.001). As a result, the number of mature oocyte vitrified was lower in COSTLES group (7.8 ± 5.3 vs. 10.3 ± 8.5 oocytes, p < 0.001 respectively)

Conclusion

Despite similar response to exogenous FSH, BC patients having undergone COSTLES show reduced oocyte maturation rates in comparison with those having received standard stimulation regimen.

Oocyte Cryopreservation in Oncological Patients: Eighteen Years Experience of a Tertiary Care Referral Center

Objective: The aim of the present study is to report our experience on elective women fertility preservation before cancer treatment. Study Design: This is a single-center retrospective observational study, including all patients who underwent elective fertility preservation before oncological treatment between January 2001 and March 2019 at our Institute. Results: Of a total of 568 women who received fertility counseling, 244 (42.9%) underwent 252 oocyte retrieval cycles after controlled ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation. The majority of patients were diagnosed with breast cancer (59.9%), followed by women affected by Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (27.4%). A minority comprised patients diagnosed with other malignancies that affected soft tissues (2.8%), ovary borderline type (2.4%), digestive system (1.6%), leukemia (1.6%), uterine cervix (1.2%). The remaining 3.1% were affected by other cancer types. The mean age of the cohort was 31.3 ± 6.4 years and the mean oocyte retrieval was 13.5± 8.4. Of 11 women who returned to attempt a pregnancy, three performed two thawed cycles. We obtained four pregnancies from 24 embryo transfers (Pregnancy Rate 36.4% for couple): two miscarriages and two live births. Overall, 95.7% of oocytes are still in storage. Conclusions: A close collaboration between Cancer and Fertility Center in a tertiary care hospital is essential to provide a good health service in oncological patients. Offering fertility preservation is no longer considered optional and must be included in every therapeutic program for women who receive an oncological diagnosis in their reproductive age. Oocyte cryopreservation appears to be a good opportunity for fertility preservation. Our results, although they are obtained in a small sample, are encouraging, even if only 4.5% of patients returned to use their gametes.

Specific protocols of controlled ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation in breast cancer patients

Background

Fertility preservation is an important concern in breast cancer patients. In the present investigation, we set out to create a specific protocol of controlled ovarian stimulation (cos) for oocyte cryopreservation in breast cancer patients.

Methods

From November 2014 to December 2016, 109 patients were studied. The patients were assigned to a specific random-start ovarian stimulation protocol for oocyte cryopreservation. The endpoints were the numbers of oocytes retrieved and of mature oocytes cryopreserved, the total number of days of ovarian stimulation, the total dose of gonadotropin administered, and the estradiol level on the day of the trigger.

Results

Mean age in this cohort was 31.27 ± 4.23 years. The average duration of cos was 10.0 ± 1.39 days. The mean number of oocytes collected was 11.62 ± 7.96 and the mean number of vitrified oocytes was 9.60 ± 6.87. The mean estradiol concentration on triggering day was 706.30 ± 450.48 pg/mL, and the mean dose of gonadotropins administered was 2610.00 ± 716.51 IU. When comparing outcomes by phase of the cycle in which cos was commenced, we observed no significant differences in the numbers of oocytes collected and vitrified, the length of ovarian stimulation, and the estradiol level on trigger day. The total dose of follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropin administered was statistically greater in the group starting cos in the luteal phase than in the group starting in the late follicular phase.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that using a specific protocol with random-start ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation in breast cancer patients is effective and could be offered to young women undergoing oncologic treatment.

Fertility preservation for patients with breast cancer: The Korean Society for Fertility Preservation clinical guidelines

With advances in the methods of cancer treatment used in modern medicine, the number of breast cancer survivors has been consistently rising. As the number of women who wish to become pregnant after being diagnosed with breast cancer increases, it is necessary to consider fertility preservation in these patients. However, medical doctors may be unaware of the importance of fertility preservation among cancer patients because most patients do not share their concerns about fertility with their doctors. Considering the time spent choosing and undergoing treatment, an early referral to a reproductive specialist is the best way to prevent a delay in cancer treatment. Since it is not easy to make decisions on matters related to cancer diagnosis and fertility, patients should be provided with enough time for decision-making, and to allow for this, an early referral will provide patients with sufficient time to choose an appropriate method of fertility preservation. The currently available options of fertility preservation for patients with breast cancer include cryopreservation of embryos, oocytes, and ovarian tissue and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment before and during chemotherapy. An appropriate method of fertility preservation must be selected through consultations between individual patients and health professionals and analyses of the pros and cons of different options.

Practical recommendations for fertility preservation in women by the FertiPROTEKT network. Part I: Indications for fertility preservation

Purpose

Most guidelines about fertility preservation are predominantly focused on scientific evidence, but are less practically orientated. Therefore, practically oriented recommendations are needed to support the clinician in daily practice.

Methods

A selective literature search was performed based on the clinical and scientific experience of the authors, focussing on the most relevant diseases and gynaecological cancers. This article (Part I) provides information on topics that are essential for the fertility preservation indication, such as disease prognosis, disease therapy and its associated risks to fertility, recommending disease-specific fertility preservation measures. Part II specifically focusses on fertility preservation techniques.

Results

In breast cancer patients, fertility preservation such as ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation is especially recommended in low-stage cancer and in women < 35 years of age. In Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the indication is mainly based on the chemotherapy regime as some therapies have very low, others very high gonadotoxicity. In borderline ovarian tumours, preservation of fertility usually is achieved through fertility sparing surgery, ovarian stimulation may also be considered. In cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, rheumatic diseases and other malignancies such as Ewing sarcoma, colorectal carcinoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukaemia etc., several other factors must be considered to enable an individual, stage-dependent decision.

Conclusion

The decision for or against fertility preservation depends on the prognosis, the risks to fertility and individual factors such as prospective family planning.

Advances in fertility preservation of female patients with hematological malignancies

INTRODUCTION

The most common forms of hematological malignancies that occur in female reproductive years are lymphoma and leukemia. Areas covered: Several aggressive gonadotoxic regimens such as alkylating chemotherapy and total body irradiation are used frequently in treatment of lymphoma and leukemia leading to subsequent iatrogenic premature ovarian failure and fertility loss. In such cases, female fertility preservation options should be offered in advance. Expert commentary: In order to preserve fertility of young women and girls with lymphoma and leukemia, several established, experimental, and debatable options can be offered before starting chemotherapy and radiotherapy. However, each of those female fertility preservation options has both advantages and disadvantages and may not be suitable for all patients. That is why a fertility preservation strategy should be individualized and tailored distinctively for each patient in order to be effective. Artificial human ovary is a novel experimental in vitro technology to produce mature oocytes that could be the safest option to preserve and restore fertility of young women and girls with hematological malignancies especially when other fertility preservation options are not feasible or contraindicated. Further research and studies are needed to improve the results of artificial human ovary and establish it in clinical practice.

Stimulation of the ovaries in women with breast cancer undergoing fertility preservation: Alternative versus standard stimulation protocols; the study protocol of the STIM-trial

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy for breast cancer may have a negative impact on reproductive function due to gonadotoxicity. Fertility preservation via banking of oocytes or embryos after ovarian stimulation with FSH can increase the likelihood of a future live birth. It has been hypothesized that elevated serum estrogen levels during ovarian stimulation may induce breast tumour growth. This has led to the use of alternative stimulation protocols with addition of tamoxifen or letrozole. The effectiveness of these stimulation protocols in terms of oocyte yield is unknown.

METHODS/DESIGN

Randomized open-label trial comparing ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen and ovarian stimulation plus letrozole with standard ovarian stimulation in the course of fertility preservation. The study population consists of women with breast cancer who opt for banking of oocytes or embryos, aged 18-43years at randomisation. Primary outcome is the number of oocytes retrieved at follicle aspiration. Secondary outcomes are number of mature oocytes retrieved, number of oocytes or embryos banked and peak E2 levels during ovarian stimulation.

DISCUSSION

Concerning the lack of evidence on which stimulation protocol should be used in women with breast cancer and the growing demand for fertility preservation, there is an urgent need to undertake this study. By performing this study, we will be able to closely monitor the effects of various stimulation protocols in women with breast cancer and pave the way for long term follow up on the safety of this procedure in terms of breast cancer prognosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR4108.

State of the art on oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients: A critical review of the literature

During the last decades, important advances in therapeutic options have led to increased survival rates in cancer patients; however, cancer treatments are associated with several potential adverse effects including infertility in those diagnosed during their reproductive years. A proper discussion about fertility preservation options before the use of therapies with potential gonadotoxicity (i.e. oncofertility counseling) is standard of care and should be offered to all patients of childbearing age. Temporary ovarian suppression with LH-RH analogs, oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservation in female cancer patients. Oocyte cryopreservation should be preferred to embryo cryopreservation when this latter is prohibited by law, avoided for ethical or religious issues and in single women refusing sperm donation. Despite the increasing use of this strategy, data are still lacking about the efficacy and safety of the procedure in female cancer patients, with most of the evidence on this regard deriving from infertile non-oncologic women. This article aims at critically review the available evidence about the success of oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients with the final goal to further improve the oncofertility counseling of these women.

Fertility preservation in women with CNS tumors

INTRODUCTION

Fertility impairment due to treatments is a major concern for adolescents and young adult patients who survived cancer. Areas covered: Chemotherapy may determine a detrimental effect on ovary function, leading to infertility, and premature ovarian failure. Embryo and oocyte cryopreservation is a standard strategy for fertility preservation; other strategies, such as gonadal tissue cryopreservation and the use of gonadotropin - releasing hormone agonist, are still considered experimental. There are few data available regarding the effect of pregnancy on glioma, which indicates tumor progression during pregnancy in 33-45% of patients. Expert commentary: Glioma patients need to be advised about the risk of tumor progression during pregnancy, and about the possible, even if not proven, interaction between hormone stimulation and tumor growth.

Fertility preservation in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients

A possible side effect of anticancer treatments in premenopausal women is the occurrence of premature ovarian failure and subsequent infertility. The inheritance of a deleterious genetic mutation in the BRCA1 or 2 genes generates the hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Additional fertility counseling for breast cancer patients with BRCA mutations is warranted to educate them about the available fertility preservation options in the context of their unique concerns (i.e., prophylactic gynecologic surgery, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and risk of developing long-term treatment-related premature ovarian failure). In this report we discuss the available options for fertility preservation in women with breast cancer, with a particular focus on the specific issues in breast cancer patients with BRCA mutations.

The effects of cancer therapy on women's fertility: what do we know now?

Due to the improvements of cancer treatment, the survival rate of cancer increased over the last decades. One of the detrimental side effects of cytotoxic treatment is the impairment or loss of fertility. Having a family is one of the important aspects for long-time survivors. The impact of gynecologic cancer on fertility depends on the site and kind of the cancer disease, the oncologic therapeutic regimen and additional the age of the patient. In cancer of the internal genital organs, fertility-preserving surgery techniques should be used, if possible. In case, that cytotoxic treatment has to be applied, fertility preservation techniques should be implemented into the oncologic treatment.

Female patients with lymphoma demonstrate diminished ovarian reserve even before initiation of chemotherapy when compared with healthy controls and patients with other malignancies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to investigate if female patients with lymphoma demonstrate diminished ovarian reserve prior to initiation of the lymphoma treatment.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for fertility preservation were compared with 365 healthy controls undergoing elective oocyte cryopreservation (controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH)) and 128 patients with other types of malignancy prompting fertility preservation. The data of all lymphoma patients, all elective, and all the patients with other types of malignancy who met the inclusion criteria and underwent COH for fertility preservation during the study period were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes included serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels (ng/mL) and antral follicle count (AFC).

RESULTS

Patients in the lymphoma group demonstrated significantly lower AMH levels and AFC and had less oocytes harvested and cryopreserved when compared to healthy controls as well as patients with other malignancies.

CONCLUSION

Patients with lymphoma demonstrate diminished ovarian reserve when compared with healthy controls and patients with other malignancies. This should be taken into consideration when deciding on the dose for COH.

Vitrification of embryos and oocytes for fertility preservation in cancer patients

As survival rates and the life expectancy of those with malignancy have increased, more women in their reproductive years are referred for fertility preservation. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy can severely affect ovarian function, and the effect is irreversible. Therefore, it is optimal to attempt fertility preservation before chemotherapy and radiotherapy are initiated. Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation is the most common option for fertility preservation in women. Several reports have proven that embryo and oocyte cryopreservation can achieve a successful pregnancy. This review discusses the impact of chemotherapy and radiotherapy on ovarian function, and the importance of oocyte and embryo cryopreservation for fertility preservation. In addition, the current status of pregnancy outcomes and potential for cryopreserved oocytes to result in live births in cancer patients was reviewed. This may provide useful information for decision-making in cancer patients regarding oocyte and embryo cryopreservation and fertility preservation.

Cancer and fertility preservation: international recommendations from an expert meeting

In the last years, thanks to the improvement in the prognosis of cancer patients, a growing attention has been given to the fertility issues. International guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients recommend that physicians discuss, as early as possible, with all patients of reproductive age their risk of infertility from the disease and/or treatment and their interest in having children after cancer, and help with informed fertility preservation decisions. As recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, sperm cryopreservation and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservations in male and female patients, respectively; other strategies (e.g. pharmacological protection of the gonads and gonadal tissue cryopreservation) are considered experimental techniques. However, since then, new data have become available, and several issues in this field are still controversial and should be addressed by both patients and their treating physicians.In April 2015, physicians with expertise in the field of fertility preservation in cancer patients from several European countries were invited in Genova (Italy) to participate in a workshop on the topic of "cancer and fertility preservation". A total of ten controversial issues were discussed at the conference. Experts were asked to present an up-to-date review of the literature published on these topics and the presentation of own unpublished data was encouraged. On the basis of the data presented, as well as the expertise of the invited speakers, a total of ten recommendations were discussed and prepared with the aim to help physicians in counseling their young patients interested in fertility preservation.Although there is a great interest in this field, due to the lack of large prospective cohort studies and randomized trials on these topics, the level of evidence is not higher than 3 for most of the recommendations highlighting the need of further research efforts in many areas of this field. The participation to the ongoing registries and prospective studies is crucial to acquire more robust information in order to provide evidence-based recommendations.

IVF for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients--efficacy and safety issues

BACKGROUND

Potential risks on future fertility have become a dominant issue in consultation and management of newly diagnosed young cancer patients. Several fertility preservation strategies are currently available. Of those, ovarian stimulation followed by IVF and embryo cryopreservation is the most established one and is especially applicable in reproductive aged breast cancer patients.

AIM

The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive review on ovarian stimulation and IVF for fertility preservation in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Review of relevant literature is available through PubMed and Google scholar.

RESULTS

The use of IVF for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients raises dilemmas regarding efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian stimulation. Among these are the suggested role of malignancy and BRCA mutation in reducing ovarian response to stimulation, strategies designated to protect against hyper-estrogenic state associated with stimulation (co-treatment with tamoxifen or letrozole), and possible adjustments to accommodate oncologic-related time constraints.

CONCLUSION

Ovarian stimulation followed by IVF forms an important fertility preservation strategy for newly diagnosed young breast cancer patients, though live born rates following thawed embryo transfer in these patients are still lacking. Recent advances in controlled ovarian stimulation protocols provide practical options for some of the challenges that breast cancer patients present.

Fertility preservation in female cancer patients: An overview

Fertility preservation is becoming increasingly important to improve the quality of life in cancer survivors. Despite guidelines suggesting that discussion of fertility preservation should be done prior to starting cancer therapies, there is a lack of implementation in this area. A number of techniques are available for fertility preservation, and they can be used individually or together in the same patient to maximize efficiency. Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are now established techniques but have their limitations. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation though considered experimental at present, has a wider clinical application and the advantage of keeping the fertility window open for a longer time. Both chemotherapy and radiotherapy have a major impact on reproductive potential and fertility preservation procedures should be carried out prior to these treatments. The need for fertility preservation has to be weighed against morbidity and mortality associated with cancer. There is thus a need for a multidisciplinary collaboration between oncologists and reproductive specialists to improve awareness and availability.

Preserving fertility when choosing chemotherapy regimens - the role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists

INTRODUCTION

The late effects of cancer treatment have recently gained a worldwide ubiquitous interest among reproductive endocrinologists, oncologists, and all health care providers. Despite many publications on this subject, there are many equivocal issues necessitating summary. The case for and against using GnRH-agonist for fertility preservation is summarized with the rationale that preventing ovarian failure may be better than treating it.

AREAS COVERED

We searched Medline in the last 10 years using terms: 'fertility preservation', 'female chemotherapy', 'Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues', 'GnRH agonists' 'gonadotoxicity', and 'cancer treatment'. We included mainly publications from the past 7 years, but did not exclude previous, commonly referenced publications. Here, we summarize the various methods available for fertility preservation and minimizing chemotherapy induced gonadotoxicity.

EXPERT OPINION

Until now, 20 studies (15 retrospective and 5 randomized controlled trial) have reported on 2038 patients treated with GnRH-a in parallel to chemotherapy, showing a significant decrease in premature ovarian failure (POF) rate in survivors versus 8 studies reporting on 509 patients, with negative results. Patients treated with GnRH-a in parallel to chemotherapy preserved their cyclic ovarian function in 91% of cases as compared to 41% of controls, with a pregnancy rate of 19 - 71% in the treated patients. Furthermore, over 10 recent meta-analyses have concluded that GnRH-a are beneficial and may decrease the risk of POF in survivors. Because most of the methods involving ovarian or egg cryopreservation are not yet clinically established and unequivocally successful, these young patients deserve to be informed with all the various modalities to minimize gonadal damage and preserve ovarian function and future fertility. Combining the various modalities for a specific patient may increase the odds of preservation of future fertility.

Fertility preservation and breast cancer: a review

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, and its incidence increases with age, with the majority of patients diagnosed after menopause. However, in 15–25% of cases, patients are premenopausal at the time of diagnosis, and about 7% of them are below the age of 40. Therefore, a considerable amount of young women are diagnosed with breast cancer during their reproductive life. Within this group, most cancer cases require cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or hormone therapy, which are responsible for a decrease in the patients’ reproductive function, along with their age. The efficacy of such treatments, among other factors, has led to a high five-year-survival rate, which results in an increasing number of young women who survive breast cancer before having fulfilled their reproductive wishes, especially considering the current trend to delay pregnancy until the late 30s or early 40s in developed countries. The combination of these factors justifies the importance of fertility preservation and reproductive counselling at the time of breast cancer diagnosis in young women.

A wide range of fertility preservation techniques has been developed, such as ovarian suppression, oocyte and embryo cryopreservation, immature oocyte retrieval and in vitro maturation, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation.

Early counselling and referral of these patients to fertility specialists are fundamental factors in order to maximise their chances of pregnancy. This review aims to update the knowledge about the influence of breast cancer in fertility, the influence of pregnancy and fertility preservation techniques in breast cancer patients and assessment of ovarian reserve for a better treatment choice. A special section dedicated to BRCA-mutation carriers has been included because of their specific features.

A comprehensive literature search has been conducted, including publications from the last five years.