Search

Purpose: We investigated time to pregnancy, efficacy and safety of fertility preservation, and assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) in women with early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (BC) desiring future pregnancy., Patients and Methods: POSITIVE is an international, single-arm, prospective trial, in which 518 women temporarily interrupted adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy. We evaluated menstruation recovery and factors associated with time to pregnancy and investigated if ART use was associated with achieving pregnancy. The cumulative incidence of BC-free interval (BCFI) events was estimated according to the use of ovarian stimulation at diagnosis. The median follow-up was 41 months., Results: Two hundred seventy-three patients (53%) reported amenorrhea at enrollment, of whom 94% resumed menses within 12 months. Among 497 patients evaluable for pregnancy, 368 (74%) reported at least one pregnancy. Young age was the main factor associated with shorter time to pregnancy with cumulative incidences of pregnancy by 1 year of 63.5%, 54.3%, and 37.7% for patients age <35, 35-39, and 40-42 years, respectively. One hundred and seventy-nine patients (36%) had embryo/oocyte cryopreservation at diagnosis, of whom 68 reported embryo transfer after enrollment. Cryopreserved embryo transfer was the only ART associated with higher chance of pregnancy (odds ratio, 2.41 [95% CI, 1.75 to 4.95]). The cumulative incidence of BCFI events at 3 years was similar for women who underwent ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation at diagnosis, 9.7% (95% CI, 6.0 to 15.4), compared with those who did not, 8.7% (95% CI, 6.0 to 12.5)., Conclusion: In POSITIVE, fertility preservation using ovarian stimulation was not associated with short-term detrimental impact on cancer prognosis. Pregnancy rates were highest among those who underwent embryo/oocyte cryopreservation followed by embryo transfer.

Hereditary cancers mostly affect the adolescent and young adult population (AYA) at reproductive age. Mutations in BReast CAncer ( BRCA ) genes are responsible for the majority of cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. BRCA1 and BRCA2 act as tumor suppressor genes as they are key regulators of DNA repair through homologous recombination. Evidence of the accumulation of DNA double-strand break has been reported in aging oocytes, while BRCA expression decreases, leading to the hypothesis that BRCA mutation may impact fertility. Moreover, patients exposed to anticancer treatments are at higher risk of fertility-related issues, and BRCA mutations could exacerbate the treatment-induced depletion of the ovarian reserve. In this review, we summarized the functions of both genes and reported the current knowledge on the impact of BRCA mutations on ovarian ageing, premature ovarian insufficiency, female fertility preservation strategies and insights about male infertility. Altogether, this review provides relevant up-to-date information on the impact of BRCA1/2 mutations on fertility. Notably, BRCA -mutated patients should be adequately counselled for fertility preservation strategies, considering their higher sensitivity to chemotherapy gonadotoxic effects.

Background: Despite increasing evidence on the safety of pregnancy after anticancer treatments in breast cancer survivors, many physicians and patients remain concerned about a potential risk of pregnancy specifically in the case of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer., Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 31 March 2023 was carried out. To be included, articles had to be retrospective and prospective case-control and cohort studies as well as clinical trials comparing survival outcomes of premenopausal women with or without a pregnancy after prior diagnosis of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were the outcomes of interest. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Study protocol is registered in PROSPERO (n. CRD42023394232)., Results: Out of 7796 screened studies, 8 were eligible to be included in the final analysis. A total of 3805 patients with hormone receptor-positive invasive early breast cancer were included in these studies, of whom 1285 had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis. Median follow-up time ranged from 3.8 to 15.8 years and was similar in the pregnancy and non-pregnancy cohorts. In three studies (n = 987 patients) reporting on DFS, no difference was observed between patients with and those without a subsequent pregnancy (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75-1.24, P = 0.781). In the six studies (n = 3504 patients) reporting on OS, patients with a pregnancy after breast cancer had a statistically significant better OS than those without a pregnancy (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.77, P < 0.05)., Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies provides updated evidence that having a pregnancy in patients with prior history of hormone receptor-positive invasive early breast cancer appears safe without detrimental effect on prognosis., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The potential gonadotoxicity of anti-HER2 agents remains largely unknown, and limited, conflicting evidence exists for taxanes. Antimüllerian hormone (AMH) is an established biomarker of ovarian reserve that may aid in quantifying anticancer treatment-induced gonadotoxicity., Patients and Methods: The present biomarker analysis of the randomized phase III neoadjuvant NeoALTTO trial included premenopausal women aged ≤45 years at diagnosis of HER2-positive early breast cancer with available frozen serum samples at baseline (ie, before anticancer treatments), at week 2 (ie, the "biological window" of anti-HER2 therapy alone), and/or at the time of surgery (ie, after completing paclitaxel + anti-HER2 therapy, before starting adjuvant chemotherapy)., Results: The present analysis included 130 patients with a median age of 38 years (interquartile ratio [IQR], age 33-42 years). AMH values at the 3 time points differed significantly (P<.001). At baseline, median AMH levels were 1.29 ng/mL (IQR, 0.56-2.62 ng/mL). At week 2, a small but significant reduction in AMH levels was observed (median, 1.10 ng/mL; IQR, 0.45-2.09 ng/mL; P<.001). At surgery, a larger significant decline in AMH levels was observed (median, 0.01 ng/mL; IQR, 0.01-0.03 ng/mL; P<.001). Although the type of anti-HER2 treatment (trastuzumab and/or lapatinib) did not seem to impact the results, age and pretreatment ovarian reserve had a major influence on treatment-induced gonadotoxicity risk., Conclusions: This NeoALTTO biomarker analysis showed that anti-HER2 therapies alone had limited gonadotoxicity but that the addition of weekly paclitaxel resulted in marked AMH decline with possible negative implications for subsequent ovarian function and fertility.

Study Question: Is it safe to perform controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation before starting anticancer therapies or ART after treatments in young breast cancer patients?, Summary Answer: Performing COS before, or ART following anticancer treatment in young women with breast cancer does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in terms of breast cancer recurrence, mortality or event-free survival (EFS)., What Is Known Already: COS for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before starting chemotherapy is standard of care for young women with breast cancer wishing to preserve fertility. However, some oncologists remain concerned on the safety of COS, particularly in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors, even when associated with aromatase inhibitors. Moreover, limited evidence exists on the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors for achieving pregnancy after the completion of anticancer treatments., Study Design, Size, Duration: The present systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by three blinded investigators using the keywords 'breast cancer' and 'fertility preservation'; keywords were combined with Boolean operators. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 30 June 2021., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: To be included in this meta-analysis, eligible studies had to be case-control or cohort studies comparing survival outcomes of women who underwent COS or ART before or after breast cancer treatments compared to breast cancer patients not exposed to these strategies. Survival outcomes of interest were cancer recurrence rate, relapse rate, overall survival and number of deaths. Adjusted relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI were extracted. When the number of events for each group were available but the above measures were not reported, HRs were estimated using the Watkins and Bennett method. We excluded case reports or case series with <10 patients and studies without a control group of breast cancer patients who did not pursue COS or ART. Quality of data and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale., Main Results and the Role of Chance: A total of 1835 records were retrieved. After excluding ineligible publications, 15 studies were finally included in the present meta-analysis (n = 4643). Among them, 11 reported the outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent COS for fertility preservation before starting chemotherapy, and 4 the safety of ART following anticancer treatment completion. Compared to women who did not receive fertility preservation at diagnosis (n = 2386), those who underwent COS (n = 1594) had reduced risk of recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73) and mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76). No detrimental effect of COS on EFS was observed (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.06). A similar trend of better outcomes in terms of EFS was observed in women with hormone-receptor-positive disease who underwent COS (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20-0.65). A reduced risk of recurrence was also observed in patients undergoing COS before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.80). Compared to women not exposed to ART following completion of anticancer treatments (n = 540), those exposed to ART (n = 123) showed a tendency for better outcomes in terms of recurrence ratio (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70) and EFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17-1.11)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: This meta-analysis is based on abstracted data and most of the studies included are retrospective cohort studies. Not all studies had matching criteria between the study population and the controls, and these criteria often differed between the studies. Moreover, rate of recurrence is reported as a punctual event and it is not possible to establish when recurrences occurred and whether follow-up, which was shorter than 5 years in some of the included studies, is adequate to capture late recurrences., Wider Implications of the Findings: Our results demonstrate that performing COS at diagnosis or ART following treatment completion does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in young women with breast cancer, including among patients with hormone receptor-positive disease and those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): Partially supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; grant number MFAG 2020 ID 24698) and the Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds 2017 (no grant number). M.L. acted as consultant for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Ipsen, Takeda, Libbs, Knight, Sandoz outside the submitted work. F.S. acted as consultant for Novartis, MSD, Sun Pharma, Philogen and Pierre Fabre and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. I.D. has acted as a consultant for Roche, has received research grants from Roche and Ferring, has received reagents for academic clinical trial from Roche diagnostics, speaker's fees from Novartis, and support for congresses from Theramex and Ferring outside the submitted work. L.D.M. reported honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis and had an advisory role for Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript and decision to submit the manuscript for publication., Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Purpose: Ovarian stimulation for oocyte and embryo cryopreservation is the standard of care for fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients before gonadotoxic chemotherapy. The procedure should be started as soon as possible to avoid delay of treatment; thus, it is often performed concomitantly with tumor staging assessments. However, questions remain regarding the potential negative impact on oocyte quality that may occur due to exposure to scattered ionizing radiation from imaging techniques when staging assessment is conducted at the same time as ovarian stimulation., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on all breast cancer patients who performed ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation at our center between November 2012 and May 2020., Results: Gynecologic and oncological characteristics were similar between patients exposed (n = 14) or not (n = 60) to ionizing radiation. Exposed patients started the ovarian stimulation sooner after diagnosis than non-exposed patients (11.5 vs 28 days, respectively, P < 0.01). Cycle parameters, including the median number of oocytes collected (10.5 vs 7, P = 0.16), maturation rates (92.5% vs 85.7%, P = 0.54), and fertilization rates (62.2% vs 65.4%, P = 0.70), were similar between groups., Conclusion: This study shows that scattered ionizing radiation due to staging assessment appears to be safe without compromising follicular growth and maturation. Larger studies on fertility and obstetrical outcomes are needed to confirm these preliminary data., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Knowledge is growing on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in cancer survivors. No data exist, however, for the specific population of breast cancer patients harboring germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants., Patients and Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study across 30 centers worldwide including women diagnosed at ≤40 years with stage I-III breast cancer, between January 2000 and December 2012, harboring known germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. Patients included in this analysis had a post-treatment pregnancy either achieved through use of ART (ART group) or naturally (non-ART group). ART procedures included ovulation induction, ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryo transfer under hormonal replacement therapy., Results: Among the 1424 patients registered in the study, 168 were eligible for inclusion in the present analysis, of whom 22 were in the ART group and 146 in the non-ART group. Survivors in the ART group conceived at an older age compared with those in the non-ART group (median age: 39.7 versus 35.4 years, respectively). Women in the ART group experienced more delivery complications compared with those in the non-ART group (22.1% versus 4.1%, respectively). No other apparent differences in obstetrical outcomes were observed between cohorts. The median follow-up from pregnancy was 3.4 years (range: 0.8-8.6 years) in the ART group and 5.0 years (range: 0.8-17.6 years) in the non-ART group. Two patients (9.1%) in the ART group experienced a disease-free survival event (specifically, a locoregional recurrence) compared with 40 patients (27.4%) in the non-ART group. In the ART group, no patients deceased compared with 10 patients (6.9%) in the non-ART group., Conclusion: This study provides encouraging safety data on the use of ART in breast cancer survivors harboring germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2, when natural conception fails or when they opt for ART in order to carry out preimplantation genetic testing., Competing Interests: Disclosure EdA has acted as a scientific advisory board member and has received honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Zodiacs, Libbs, Pierre Fabre, and Lilly; has received travel grants from Roche/GNE and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)/Novartis; and has received research grants through his institution from Roche/GNE, AstraZeneca, GSK/Novartis, and Servier, outside the submitted work. FAP has acted as consultant for Ipsen, Roche Diagnostic, and Merck outside the submitted work. CRJ has acted as a scientific advisory board member and her institution has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Theramex, and Roche; and her institution has received speaker's fees from Theramex and BMS, outside the submitted work. AS has acted as a consultant for Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche; has received speaker's fees from Teva, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; has received travel grants from Neopharm, Celgene, and Medison; and has received grant support from Novartis and Roche, outside the submitted work. CVG has acted as a consultant, as a scientific advisory board member, and has received speaker's fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD); and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. OCC has acted as a scientific advisory board member for Ascires Sistemas Genómicos; and has received grant support from Roche Diagnostics, Neomedic, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. KP has acted as a scientific advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Teva, and Vifor Pharma; has acted as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; has received speaker's fees from Eli Lilly, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; has received travel grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and Roche, outside the submitted work. FP has acted as a scientific advisory board member and has received speaker's fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Takeda; has received travel grants from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and Roche, outside the submitted work. ARF has received honoraria from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Roche; and has received travel grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. JB has acted as consultant for AstraZeneca and Pfizer outside the submitted work. ID has acted as a scientific advisory board member and received grant from Roche; has received speaker's fees from Novartis; and has received travel grants from Theramex and Ferring, outside the submitted work. ML has acted as a consultant for Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, and Novartis; and has received honoraria from Sandoz, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Many patients and physicians remain concerned about the potential detrimental effects of pregnancy after breast cancer (BC) in terms of reproductive outcomes and maternal safety. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at providing updated evidence on these topics., Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies including patients with a pregnancy after BC (PROSPERO number CRD42020158324). Likelihood of pregnancy after BC, their reproductive outcomes, and maternal safety were assessed. Pooled relative risks, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using random effects models., Results: Of 6,462 identified records, 39 were included involving 8,093,401 women from the general population and 112,840 patients with BC of whom 7,505 had a pregnancy after diagnosis. BC survivors were significantly less likely to have a subsequent pregnancy compared with the general population (relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.49). Risks of caesarean section (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.25), low birth weight (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.73), preterm birth (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.88), and small for gestational age (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33) were significantly higher in BC survivors, particularly in those with previous chemotherapy exposure, compared with the general population. No significantly increased risk of congenital abnormalities or other reproductive complications were observed. Compared to patients with BC without subsequent pregnancy, those with a pregnancy had better disease-free survival (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.89) and overall survival (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68). Similar results were observed after correcting for potential confounders and irrespective of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, pregnancy outcome, and timing of pregnancy., Conclusion: These results provide reassuring evidence on the safety of conceiving in BC survivors. Patients' pregnancy desire should be considered a crucial component of their survivorship care plan., Competing Interests: Matteo LambertiniConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Theramex, Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz Richard A. AndersonHonoraria: Merck, IBSAConsulting or Advisory Role: NeRRe Therapeutics, Roche Diagnostics, SojournixResearch Funding: Roche Diagnostics Evandro de AzambujaHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, SeaGen, Zodiac PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Libbs, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Servier/Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline/NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline Philip D. PoorvuOther Relationship: Medscape Cynthia Villarreal-GarzaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, LillySpeakers' Bureau: Roche, Myriad Genetics, NovartisResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD Oncology, Pfizer Barbara PistilliConsulting or Advisory Role: Puma Biotechnology, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Myriad Genetics, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Merus, Daiichi-SankyoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Novartis Ines Vaz-LuisHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Pfizer Cristina SauraConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Roche, Exeter Pharmaceuticals, MediTech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Philips, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi/Aventis, SeaGen, ZymeworksResearch Funding: Genentech, AstraZeneca, Roche, Macrogenics, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Synthon, PiqurTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Puma Biotechnology Kathryn J. RuddyResearch Funding: MedtronicPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Spouse and Mayo Clinic have filed patents related to the application of artificial intelligence to the electrocardiogram for diagnosis and risk stratification, and Spouse and Mayo Clinic are involved in a potential equity or royalty relationship with AliveCor Hatem A. Azim JrEmployment: Innate PharmaStock and Other Ownership Interests: Innate PharmaHonoraria: NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: DiaacurateSpeakers' Bureau: GlaxoSmithKlineTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis Frederic AmantConsulting or Advisory Role: Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Samsung Bioepis Isabelle DemeestereConsulting or Advisory Role: RocheResearch Funding: Roche DiagnosticTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ferring Lucia Del MastroHonoraria: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, MSD OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Lilly, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi SankyoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Celgene Ann H. PartridgePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I receive small royalty payments for coauthoring the breast cancer survivorship section of UpToDateTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis Olivia PaganiConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Lilly, Debiopharm Group Fedro A. PeccatoriConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Molecular Diagnostics, IpsenNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: To determine whether germline BRCA (g BRCA ) pathogenic variants are associated with decreased ovarian reserve., Materials and Methods: An individual patient-level data meta-analysis was performed using five data sets on 828 evaluable women who were tested for g BRCA . Of those, 250 carried g BRCA , whereas 578 had tested negative and served as controls. Of the women with g BRCA, four centers studied those affected with breast cancer (n = 161) and one studied unaffected individuals (n = 89). The data were adjusted for the center, age, body mass index, smoking, and oral contraceptive pill use before the final analysis. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels in affected women were drawn before presystemic therapy., Results: The mean age of women with versus without g BRCA1/2 (34.1 ± 4.9 v 34.3 ± 4.8 years; P = .48) and with g BRCA1 versus g BRCA2 (33.7 ± 4.9 v 34.6 ± 4.8 years; P = .16) was similar. After the adjustments, women with g BRCA1/2 had significantly lower AMH levels compared with controls (23% lower; 95% CI, 4 to 38; P = .02). When the adjusted analysis was limited to affected women (157 with g BRCA v 524 without, after exclusions), the difference persisted (25% lower; 95% CI, 9 to 38; P = .003). The serum AMH levels were lower in women with g BRCA1 (33% lower; 95% CI, 12 to 49; P = .004) but not g BRCA2 compared with controls (7% lower; 95% CI, 31% lower to 26% higher; P = .64)., Conclusion: Young women with g BRCA pathogenic variants, particularly those affected and with g BRCA1 , have lower serum AMH levels compared with controls. They may need to be preferentially counseled about the possibility of shortened reproductive lifespan because of diminished ovarian reserve., Competing Interests: Matteo LambertiniConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Theramex, Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz Erica WangConsulting or Advisory Role: OncoPepResearch Funding: Merck Florian ClatotHonoraria: Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck SeronoResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Roche DiagnosticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Serono, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb Beth Y. KarlanConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Pharma AG, Merck, Mercy BioAnalyticsResearch Funding: VBL Therapeutics, AstraZenecaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: US and EU patent on gene signatureOther Relationship: Elsevier Isabelle DemeestereConsulting or Advisory Role: RocheResearch Funding: Roche DiagnosticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: FerringNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Study Question: What is the risk of recurrence in young breast cancer survivors who undergo ARTs following completion of anticancer treatment?, Summary Answer: ART in breast cancer survivors does not appear to have a negative impact on disease-free survival., What Is Known Already: In healthy women, fertility treatment does not increase the risk of developing breast cancer. At the time of breast cancer diagnosis and before starting anticancer treatments, several studies have shown the safety of performing ART. However, the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors following completion of anticancer treatment remains under-investigated. In general, breast cancer survivors are counselled to avoid any hormonal treatment but there are limited data available on the effect of short exposure to high oestradiol levels during ART. The largest study in this regard included 25 breast cancer survivors exposed to ART and did not show a detrimental effect of ART on patient survival. Hence, taking into account that pregnancy after breast cancer does not affect cancer prognosis, defining the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors remains a priority., Study Design, Size, Duration: We conducted a retrospective multicentric matched cohort study including a cohort of breast cancer survivors who underwent ART (exposed patients) between January 2006 and December 2016. Exposed patients who were eligible for the study were matched according to known breast cancer prognostic factors. Matched breast cancer survivors did not undergo ART (non-exposed patients) and were disease-free for a minimum time that was not less than the time elapsed between breast cancer diagnosis and first ART for the matched ART-exposed patients., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Data were retrieved from all survivors who had been diagnosed with breast cancer in eight participating centres at an age of ≤40 years, without metastasis, ongoing pregnancy, pre-existing neoplasia or ovarian failure. ART included ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI, clomiphene citrate treatment and hormone replacement therapy for embryo transfer. Data were collected from an oncological database for the selection of breast cancer patients in the non-exposed group. Exposed patients were matched (1:2) for germline BRCA status, tumour stage, anticancer treatment and age, whenever feasible. Matched groups were compared at baseline according to characteristics using conditional logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to compare time to recurrence between groups, with the time of ART as starting point that has been adjusted in the non-exposed group. The analyses were performed using Stata IC/15.1., Main Results and the Role of Chance: A total of 39 breast cancer patients in the ART group were eligible for the analysis and were matched with 73 controls. There was no statistical difference between the two groups for the presence of BRCA mutation, tumour characteristics, use of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Exposed patients were younger than non-exposed patients (mean age 31.8 vs 34.3 years, respectively; P < 0.001). In the ART group, 89.7% were nulliparous at diagnosis compared to 46.6% of controls (P < 0.001). ART was performed at a mean age of 37.1 years old, after a median time of 4.1 years following breast cancer diagnosis (range: 1.5-12.5). Median anti-Müllerian hormone at the time of ART was 0.28 ng/ml (range: 0-4.4) and median serum oestradiol peak level was 696.5 pg/ml (range: 139.7-4130). Median follow-up time from first attempt of ART was 4.6 years (range: 2.4-12.5) in the ART group. Adjusted follow-up time for the non-exposed group was 6.9 years (range: 1.1-16.5 years) (P = 0.004). In the ART group, 59% of patients had a pregnancy after breast cancer compared to 26% in the non-exposed patients (P = 0.001). Breast cancer relapsed in 7.7% versus 20.5% women in the ART and non-exposed groups, respectively (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.13-1.62, P = 0.23). Median time to relapse was 1.3 (range: 0.3-2.7) years versus 4.5 (range: 0.4-11.1) years after ART and adjusted time in the ART and non-exposed groups, respectively (P = 0.14)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Although this is the first and largest multicentric study addressing the impact of ART on breast cancer recurrence to provide data on oestrogen exposure, only a small number of patients could be included. This reflects the reluctance of breast cancer survivors and/or oncologists to perform ART, and highlights the need for a prospective data registry to confirm the safety of this approach. This would offer the possibility for these patients, who are at a high risk of infertility, to fully benefit from ART., Wider Implications of the Findings: Although recent studies have proven that pregnancy after breast cancer has no detrimental impact on prognosis, counselling patients about the safety of ART remains challenging. Our study provides reassuring data on the use of ART in breast cancer survivors with favourable prognostic factors, for when natural conception fails., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): M.C. and I.D. are funded by FNRS, Télévie-FNRS and Fonds Erasme. M.D.V. is a CooperSurgical scientific advisory board member and receives lecture fees for MSD, Gedeon-Richter and Ferring, outside the submitted work. M.L. has acted as a consultant for Roche and Novartis and has received honoraria from Theramex, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis and Takeda, outside the submitted work. I.D. has acted as a consultant for ROCHE and has received speaker's fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. E.d.A. has received honoraria and is a Roche/GNE, Novartis, SeaGen and Zodiac scientific advisory board member, has received travel grants from Roche/GNE and GSK/Novartis, and has received research grants from Roche/GNE, Astra-Zeneca, GSK/Novartis and Servier, outside the submitted work. A.D. is a recipient of a research grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals and receives lecture and/or consultancy fees from Merck, Gedeon-Richter and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Research Question: This study explored the knowledge, attitudes and practice of physicians towards fertility and pregnancy-related issues in young BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients., Design: Physicians attending two international breast cancer conferences completed a 26-item questionnaire exploring fertility preservation, pregnancy during (BCP) or after breast cancer. A statistical comparison was carried out of the responses exploring the same issues in young breast cancer patients overall or specifically in those with BRCA mutations., Results: The survey was completed by 273 physicians. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (33% versus 40%; P = 0.009) and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues during chemotherapy (74% versus 81%; P = 0.001) were less commonly suggested in BRCA-mutated patients than in the overall breast cancer population. 42% of respondents agreed or were neutral on the statement that ovarian stimulation should not be considered safe in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. 45% and 30% agreed or were neutral on the statement that pregnancy in breast cancer survivors may increase the risk of recurrence in BRCA-mutated patients or in the overall breast cancer population, respectively (P < 0.001). 15% and 3% disagreed that transplanting the cryopreserved ovarian tissue can be considered safe in BRCA-mutated patients or in the overall breast cancer population, respectively (P < 0.001). 33.3% were against the addition of platinum agents as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in BRCA-mutated patients with BCP., Conclusions: Several misconceptions on fertility preservation and pregnancy-related issues in breast cancer patients persist even among physicians directly involved in breast cancer care. Focused research efforts to address these issues in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients and education to improve physicians' knowledge and adherence to available guidelines are urgently needed., (Copyright © 2019 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fertility preservation (FP) protocols in case of breast cancer (BC) include mature oocyte cryopreservation following letrozole associated controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (Let-COH). To date, the impact of Let-COH on the follicular microenvironment has been poorly investigated, although a high androgen/estrogen ratio was previously associated with low oocyte quality., Methods: In this prospective study, follicular fluid (FF) steroid levels (estradiol, testosterone, progesterone) and cumulus cell (CC) gene expression related to oocyte quality (HAS2, PTGS2, GREM1) were compared between 23 BC patients undergoing Let-COH for FP and 24 infertile patients undergoing conventional COH without letrozole. All patients underwent an antagonist COH cycle, and ovulation was triggered with hCG or GnRHa in both groups., Results: FF estradiol levels were significantly lower while testosterone levels were significantly higher in the study group compared to controls irrespective of the trigger method. However, estradiol levels increased significantly with GnRHa triggering compared to hCG in the study group (median = 194.5 (95.4-438) vs 64.4 (43.8-152.4) ng/ml, respectively, p < 0.001), but not in the control group (median = 335.5 (177.5-466.7) vs 354 (179-511) ng/ml, respectively). After hCG trigger, Cumulus cell (CC) gene expression was lower in the study group compared to the control group, and difference was significant for PTGS2. Conversely, CC gene expression of PTGS2 and GREM1 was significantly higher in the study group compared to controls when ovulation was triggered with GnRHa., Conclusions: Let-COH triggered with hCG may negatively impact oocyte quality. However, ovulation triggering with GnRHa may improve the oocyte microenvironment and cumulus cell genes expression in Let-COH, suggesting a positive impact on oocyte quality in breast cancer patients., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov - NCT02661932 , registered 25 January 2016, retrospectively registered.

Background: Fertility and pregnancy-related issues are major concerns for young breast cancer patients. Limited data are available on physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practice in these fields., Methods: A 26-item questionnaire exploring 3 different topics (fertility preservation, pregnancy after breast cancer and breast cancer during pregnancy) was sent by email to physicians attending the 2016 3rd European School of Oncology (ESO) - European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer in Young Women Conference (BCY3) and the 15th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2017 (BCC 2017). Given the selected sample, survey respondents were expected to have a higher than average interest in the management of breast cancer patients. Descriptive analyses were performed., Results: A total of 273 physicians (105 at BCY3 and 168 at BCC 2017) completed the survey; 37.0%, 46.9% and 34.8% reported never having consulted the available international guidelines on fertility preservation, pregnancy after breast cancer and management of breast cancer during pregnancy, respectively. Up to 18.3% of respondents did not know if the different fertility preservation options were available in their country; 22.3% suggested that controlled ovarian stimulation should not be considered safe in patients with hormone receptor-positive disease. A total of 30.4% of respondents agreed or were neutral on the statement that pregnancy in breast cancer survivors may increase the risk of recurrence. Regarding breast cancer during pregnancy, 23.8% and 38.1% disagreed or were neutral on the statements that endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents should be avoided during pregnancy, respectively., Conclusions: Further educational initiatives are needed to improve physicians' knowledge and adherence to available guidelines when addressing fertility and pregnancy-related issues in young breast cancer patients., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Preclinical evidence suggests a possible negative impact of deleterious BRCA mutations on female fertility. However, limited and rather conflicting clinical data are available. This study assessed the reproductive potential and performance of fertility preservation strategies in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients., Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of two prospective studies investigating oocyte cryopreservation and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in newly diagnosed early breast cancer patients. In the current analysis, baseline anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) and performance of cryopreservation strategies were compared between patients with or without germline deleterious BRCA mutations., Results: Out of 156 patients included, 101 had known BRCA status of whom 29 (18.6%) were BRCA-mutated and 72 (46.1%) had no mutation. Median age in the entire cohort was 31 years [interquartile range (IQR) 28-33). Median AMH levels were 1.8 μg/l (IQR 1.0-2.7) and 2.6 µg/l (IQR 1.5-4.1) in the BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative cohorts, respectively (P = 0.109). Among patients who underwent oocyte cryopreservation (N = 29), women in the BRCA-positive cohort tended to retrieve (6.5 versus 9; P = 0.145) and to cryopreserve (3.5 versus 6; P = 0.121) less oocytes than those in the BRCA-negative cohort. Poor response rate (i.e. retrieval of ≤4 oocytes) was 40.0% and 11.1% in the BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative cohorts, respectively (P = 0.147). Among patients who underwent ovarian tissue cryopreservation (N = 72), women in the BRCA-positive cohort tended to have a numerically lower number of oocytes per fragment (0.08 versus 0.14; P = 0.193) and per square millimeter (0.33 versus 0.78; P = 0.153) than those in the BRCA-negative cohort. Two BRCA-mutated patients were transplanted after chemotherapy and one delivered at term a healthy baby. No difference between BRCA1- and BRCA2-mutated patients was observed in any of the above-mentioned outcomes., Conclusion: A consistent trend for reduced reproductive potential and performance of cryopreservation strategies was observed in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Independent validation of these results is needed., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Fertility and pregnancy-related issues represent one of the main areas of concerns for young women with breast cancer. Carrying a germline deleterious BRCA mutation adds additional burden on this regard due to the specific issues that should be considered during the oncofertility counseling of this special patient group. Despite the availability of a growing amount of data in the general breast cancer population on the feasibility and safety of fertility preservation and pregnancy after diagnosis, numerous challenges remain for BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients in whom very limited studies have been performed so far. Therefore, studies aiming to address the specific issues of these patients, including the impact of the mutation on their fertility potential, the safety and efficacy of the different strategies for fertility preservation, and the feasibility of having a pregnancy after diagnosis, should be considered a research priority. The aim of the present manuscript is to perform an in depth overview on the role of BRCA mutations in breast cancer with a specific focus on their impact on reproductive potential, and to discuss the fertility and pregnancy issues faced by BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. The final goal of this manuscript is to highlight current and upcoming knowledge in this field for trying to help physicians dealing with these patients during oncofertility counseling., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: For trying to help physicians in counseling their young patients with breast cancer interested in fertility preservation and future reproductive plans, this manuscript aims to perform an overview of the main available data on 10 controversies in this field., Recent Findings: Thanks to the improvement in patients' prognosis, a growing attention towards fertility and pregnancy issues has been given over the past years and is currently provided to young breast cancer patients. However, several grey zones persist in many domains of this field and some physicians are still uncomfortable to deal with these issues., Summary: Despite the great number of breast cancer patients experiencing fertility and pregnancy concerns at the time of diagnosis, the pursuit of fertility preserving strategies is realized only for a small proportion of them. The lack of adequate oncofertility counseling at the time of anticancer treatment decisions and the high costs of fertility preserving procedures can be considered the main explanations for these findings. The several ongoing registries and prospective studies investigating fertility and pregnancy issues in young breast cancer patients are crucial to acquire more robust data and try to address and solve the still unmet controversies in this field.

Thanks to the improved survival outcomes observed in recent years, a growing attention has been given to the quality of life issues faced by young women with breast cancer such as fertility preservation and concerns related to future pregnancies. However, several challenges remain for young women with breast cancer considering undergoing fertility preservation strategies. Further specific issues on this regard should be taken into account in Latin America, where patients and physicians face particular barriers that hinder the routine adoption of this practice. Hence, further efforts are needed to overcome these deficiencies and improve the correct referral of breast cancer patients to fertility preservation strategies. The aim of the present review is to focus on the risk of anticancer treatment-related premature ovarian failure and infertility in young breast cancer patients, to summarize the current knowledge on the available options for fertility preservation, and to discuss the safety issues of pregnancy in breast cancer survivors. Furthermore, this review aims to highlight the specific clinical challenges in this field encountered by healthcare providers and young breast cancer patients from Latin American countries.

Study Question: Are progesterone levels after letrozole-associated controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients, lower than after standard in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles?, Summary Answer: During the luteal phase of letrozole-associated COS cycles (triggered with human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG)) progesterone levels are similarly elevated to those obtained after standard COS without letrozole., What Is Known Already: Current fertility preservation strategies for breast cancer patients include association of COS with the aromatase inhibitor letrozole to harvest several mature oocytes while maintaining low estradiol levels. Data on progesterone levels are however lacking despite growing evidence of the role of progesterone in breast tumorigenesis., Study Design, Size, Duration: This is a prospective observational study comparing estradiol and progesterone levels of 21 breast cancer patients undergoing letrozole-associated COS with 21 infertile patients undergoing standard COS for IVF and/or intra cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: All patients underwent COS with a GnRH antagonist protocol. In the fertility preservation group, ovulation induction was started in the follicular or luteal phase depending on the chemotherapy schedule and in 10 cases a GnRH antagonist was administered during luteal phase to induce luteolysis. Final oocyte maturation was induced by hCG in all patients. Estradiol and progesterone levels were measured on the day of hCG, at oocyte retrieval, and on days 3 and 8 after oocyte retrieval. Hormone levels in fertility preservation patients were compared with those observed in infertility patients., Main Results and the Role of Chance: While estradiol levels were significantly lower in the fertility preservation group compared with the control group (P < 0.001), progesterone levels were similar at all times, including patients receiving a GnRH antagonist during the luteal phase., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The studied populations (breast cancer and infertile patients) are different, which may induce selection bias. The small sample size limits the study's statistical power and the possibility to perform multivariate analysis. Recruitment of the study and control patients was completed at the same time; however, enrollment of controls started at a later time., Wider Implications of the Findings: While the use of letrozole in fertility preservation patients has a favorable effect on estrogen levels, no benefit is seen for progesterone levels which are high and comparable with progesterone levels after standard COS in IVF patients. As progesterone has been associated with tumor cell proliferation, caution is mandatory. Modified protocols including GnRH agonist triggering should be investigated., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To develop molecular tools increasing the sensitivity of breast cancer micrometastases detection within ovarian tissue cryopreserved for fertility preservation., Design: Expression of breast markers was evaluated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction in ovarian tissue from patients with benign or cancerous diseases. Suspected tissues were long-term xenografted into mice., Setting: Academic research institute., Patient(s): Patients undergoing a fertility preservation procedure., Intervention(s): Ovarian tissue was processed for RNA extraction and quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis. Cryopreserved ovarian cortex from patients with breast cancer or benign disease was grafted for 6 months into severe combined immunodeficiency mice., Main Outcomes Measure(s): Predictive values of mammaglobin 1 (MGB-1), gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP-15), small breast epithelial mucine (SBEM), and mammaglobin 2 (MGB-2) to detect breast cancer cells in ovarian tissue, and the potential development of cancerous disease after xenograft of ovarian cortex from breast cancer patients., Result(s): MGB-1 and GCDFP-15 presented the highest predictive values to detect breast cancer micrometastases in the ovarian cortex, with an efficiency reaching 100% and 77%, respectively. The MGB-2 assay resulted in a high false-positive rate (47%) in the ovarian cortex but could be used to detect breast cancer cells in ovarian medulla. MGB-1 was detected in three of five ovarian cortex samples from early-stage breast cancer patients but not in the ovarian tissue from advanced breast cancer patients (none of 10). None of the mice grafted with ovarian tissue expressing these markers developed cancerous disease., Conclusion(s): MGB-1, GCDFP-15, and MGB-2 can serve as molecular markers for the detection of breast cancer micrometastases within the ovarian tissue of breast cancer patients. However, the clinical relevance of such a highly sensitive assay must be further investigated., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Aims: We have previously shown that pregnancy is safe following breast cancer, even in endocrine sensitive disease. Yet infertility remains common following systemic treatment. To date, no study has evaluated the safety of assisted reproductive technology (ART) after breast cancer treatment. In this study, we evaluated the impact of ART on pregnancy and long-term outcomes of young breast cancer survivors., Methods: This is a multi-centre retrospective study in which women who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2009, and had a pregnancy following breast cancer diagnosis were eligible. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether ART following primary systemic therapy was performed to achieve pregnancy. We evaluated the association between ART use and clinic-pathological characteristics, pregnancy outcome and long-term breast cancer outcome., Results: A total of 198 patients were evaluated; of whom 25 underwent ART. No significant differences in tumour characteristics were observed between both groups, except for histological grade 3 tumours, which were fewer in the ART group (36% versus 59%, p=0.033). Around 90% of patients received primary adjuvant chemotherapy and more than 50% had an endocrine sensitive disease. Patients in the ART group were older at diagnosis (31.4 versus 33.7 years, p=0.009), at conception (38 versus 35 years, p<0.001), and experienced more miscarriages (23.5 versus 12.6%, p=0.082). Full term pregnancies were achieved in 77% and 76% of the spontaneous and ART groups, respectively. Mean follow-up between conception and last follow-up was 63 and 50 months in the spontaneous and ART groups, respectively with no difference in breast cancer outcome observed between the two groups (p=0.54)., Conclusion: Pregnancy using ART in women with history of breast cancer is feasible and does not seem to be detrimental to cancer outcome. Larger studies are needed to further confirm this observation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure (POF) is still controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of GnRHa, given before and during chemotherapy, in the prevention of POF in premenopausal cancer patients., Methods: Studies were retrieved by searching PubMed, Web of Knowledge database and the proceedings of major conferences. We calculated Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for POF from each trial and obtained pooled estimates through the random effects model as suggested by DerSimonian and Laird., Results: Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis with 225 events of POF occurring in 765 analyzed patients. The pooled OR estimate indicates a highly significant reduction in the risk of POF (OR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; p=0.013) in patients receiving GnRHa. There was statistically significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2)=55.8%; p=0.012). There was no evidence of publication bias. Subgroups analyses showed that the protective effect of GnRHa against POF was similar in subgroups of patients defined by age and timing of POF assessment, while it was present in breast cancer but unclear in ovarian cancer and lymphoma patients., Conclusions: Our pooled analysis of randomized studies shows that the temporary ovarian suppression induced by GnRHa significantly reduces the risk of chemotherapy-induced POF in young cancer patients., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)