Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Safety of fertility preservation techniques before and after anticancer treatments in young women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

          The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

            David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample

              Background Usually the researchers performing meta-analysis of continuous outcomes from clinical trials need their mean value and the variance (or standard deviation) in order to pool data. However, sometimes the published reports of clinical trials only report the median, range and the size of the trial. Methods In this article we use simple and elementary inequalities and approximations in order to estimate the mean and the variance for such trials. Our estimation is distribution-free, i.e., it makes no assumption on the distribution of the underlying data. Results We found two simple formulas that estimate the mean using the values of the median (m), low and high end of the range (a and b, respectively), and n (the sample size). Using simulations, we show that median can be used to estimate mean when the sample size is larger than 25. For smaller samples our new formula, devised in this paper, should be used. We also estimated the variance of an unknown sample using the median, low and high end of the range, and the sample size. Our estimate is performing as the best estimate in our simulations for very small samples (n ≤ 15). For moderately sized samples (15 70), the formula range/6 gives the best estimator for the standard deviation (variance). We also include an illustrative example of the potential value of our method using reports from the Cochrane review on the role of erythropoietin in anemia due to malignancy. Conclusion Using these formulas, we hope to help meta-analysts use clinical trials in their analysis even when not all of the information is available and/or reported.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Hum Reprod
                Hum Reprod
                humrep
                Human Reproduction (Oxford, England)
                Oxford University Press
                0268-1161
                1460-2350
                May 2022
                27 February 2022
                27 February 2022
                : 37
                : 5
                : 954-968
                Affiliations
                [1 ] U.O. Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino , Genova, Italy
                [2 ] Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Sciences (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova , Genova, Italy
                [3 ] U.O.S.D. Breast Unit, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino , Genova, Italy
                [4 ] Clinical Epidemiology Unit, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino , Genova, Italy
                [5 ] U.O. Oncologia Medica 2, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino , Genova, Italy
                [6 ] Breast Unit, Ospedale Villa Scassi , Genova, Italy
                [7 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B) , Brussels, Belgium
                [8 ] Research Laboratory on Human Reproduction, Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B) , Brussels, Belgium
                [9 ] Physiopathology of Human Reproduction Unit, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino , Genova, Italy
                [10 ] Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics and Maternal and Child Health (DINOGMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova , Genova, Italy
                Author notes

                The authors consider that the first two authors should be regarded as joint First Authors.

                Correspondence address. IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, University of Genova, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genova, Italy. Tel: +39-010-555-4254; Fax: +39-010-555-6536; E-mail: matteo.lambertini@ 123456unige.it
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3818-0364
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9566-4579
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8821-4542
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8963-838X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5336-5578
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3287-1225
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6192-2840
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1104-8208
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1905-2786
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7794-3133
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9546-5841
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3192-6565
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1797-5296
                Article
                deac035
                10.1093/humrep/deac035
                9071231
                35220429
                b15e9072-e507-4783-aa6c-ae91d2c91246
                © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 23 October 2021
                : 19 January 2022
                : 03 February 2022
                Page count
                Pages: 15
                Funding
                Funded by: Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, DOI 10.13039/501100005010;
                Award ID: MFAG 2020 ID 24698
                Funded by: Italian Ministry of Health—5 × 1000 funds 2017;
                Categories
                Original Articles
                Infertility
                AcademicSubjects/MED00905

                Human biology
                controlled ovarian stimulation,assisted reproductive technologies,cos,art,breast cancer,young women,fertility preservation

                Comments

                Comment on this article