A Jo Chien1, Julia Chambers2, Fiona Mcauley3, Tessa Kaplan4, Joseph Letourneau5, Jimmy Hwang3, Mi-Ok Kim3, Michelle E Melisko3, Hope S Rugo3, Laura J Esserman3, Mitchell P Rosen5. 1. Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero St., Box 1710, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. jo.chien@ucsf.edu. 2. University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero St., Box 1710, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. 4. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether fertility preservation with ovarian stimulation (OS) results in treatment delay in breast cancer (BC) patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). METHODS: This is a retrospective study of women screened for the prospective neoadjuvant ISPY2 trial at the University of California San Francisco. All patients were <43, had stage II-III BC, and received neoadjuvant therapy. Time to initiation of NAT was compared between women who underwent OS (STIM) and women who did not (control). Patient and tumor characteristics, as well as oncologic outcomes, were compared between STIM and control groups. RESULTS:82 patients were included (34 STIM and 48 control). STIM patients were overall younger (mean = 35 vs. 36.9 years old, p = 0.06), and more likely to be childless (79.4 vs 31.2%, p < 0.0001) than controls. Mean time from diagnosis to initiation of NAT was 40 days, with no significant difference between STIM and control groups (mean 39.8 days vs 40.9 days, p = 0.75). Mean time from diagnosis to fertility consultation was 16.3 days. With median follow-up of 79 months, 16 (19.5%) patients have recurred or died from BC. Rates of pCR, recurrence, and death were similar in both groups. Six of 34 STIM patients have undergone embryo transfer, resulting in one patient with two live births. CONCLUSION: Fertility preservation with OS can be performed in the neoadjuvant setting without delay in initiation of systemic therapy and should be discussed with all early-stage BC patients of reproductive age.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine whether fertility preservation with ovarian stimulation (OS) results in treatment delay in breast cancer (BC) patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). METHODS: This is a retrospective study of women screened for the prospective neoadjuvant ISPY2 trial at the University of California San Francisco. All patients were <43, had stage II-III BC, and received neoadjuvant therapy. Time to initiation of NAT was compared between women who underwent OS (STIM) and women who did not (control). Patient and tumor characteristics, as well as oncologic outcomes, were compared between STIM and control groups. RESULTS: 82 patients were included (34 STIM and 48 control). STIM patients were overall younger (mean = 35 vs. 36.9 years old, p = 0.06), and more likely to be childless (79.4 vs 31.2%, p < 0.0001) than controls. Mean time from diagnosis to initiation of NAT was 40 days, with no significant difference between STIM and control groups (mean 39.8 days vs 40.9 days, p = 0.75). Mean time from diagnosis to fertility consultation was 16.3 days. With median follow-up of 79 months, 16 (19.5%) patients have recurred or died from BC. Rates of pCR, recurrence, and death were similar in both groups. Six of 34 STIM patients have undergone embryo transfer, resulting in one patient with two live births. CONCLUSION: Fertility preservation with OS can be performed in the neoadjuvant setting without delay in initiation of systemic therapy and should be discussed with all early-stage BC patients of reproductive age.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Fertility preservation; Neoadjuvant; Ovarian stimulation; Time to chemotherapy; Treatment delay
Authors: Molly B Moravek; Rafael Confino; Angela K Lawson; Kristin N Smith; Ralph R Kazer; Susan C Klock; William J Gradishar; Jacqueline S Jeruss; Mary Ellen Pavone Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Leah Hawkins Bressler; Jennifer E Mersereau; Chelsea Anderson; Juan L Rodriguez; M Elizabeth Hodgson; Clarice R Weinberg; Dale P Sandler; Hazel B Nichols Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 6.860