Christina N Cordeiro Mitchell1, Bailey McGuinness2, Eliana Fine3, William G Kearns4,5, Mindy S Christianson4, James Segars4, Lisa M Pastore6. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. cmitch66@jh.edu. 2. New York University, Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, NY, USA. 3. School of Medicine, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA. 4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. AdvaGenix, Rockville, MD, USA. 6. OB/GYN and Reproductive Medicine Department, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Twelve percent of women in the USA will develop invasive breast cancer in their lifetime, and that risk increases to 80% if they carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. BRCA1/2 mutations are thought to potentially affect ovarian reserve and/or fertility. METHODS: PubMed and PubMed Central were searched for publications on ovarian reserve-related outcomes (i.e., AMH and response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols) that were reported in relation to BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations from 1950 through May 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted to create forest plots and summary effect measures using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: This article reviews the 16 qualifying publications. There were several fundamental methodological differences in the study designs and outcome details reported in AMH studies. Summary statistics found no difference in AMH levels between BRCA1/2+ women as compared with controls (Z overall test effects p ≥ 0.45). Regarding responses to COH, there were overall non-significantly fewer total and mature numbers of oocytes retrieved in BRCA1/2+ cases as compared with controls (meta-analysis Z overall test effects p ≥ 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: While the summary measures indicate no significant differences in AMH levels between BRCA1/2+ cases and controls, readers should be aware that there are significant methodological differences in the AMH reports. Additionally, the response to COH protocols does not seem to be significantly lower in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the existing literature. Continued research on both of these clinical parameters would be beneficial for patient counseling.
PURPOSE: Twelve percent of women in the USA will develop invasive breast cancer in their lifetime, and that risk increases to 80% if they carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. BRCA1/2 mutations are thought to potentially affect ovarian reserve and/or fertility. METHODS: PubMed and PubMed Central were searched for publications on ovarian reserve-related outcomes (i.e., AMH and response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols) that were reported in relation to BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations from 1950 through May 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted to create forest plots and summary effect measures using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: This article reviews the 16 qualifying publications. There were several fundamental methodological differences in the study designs and outcome details reported in AMH studies. Summary statistics found no difference in AMH levels between BRCA1/2+ women as compared with controls (Z overall test effects p ≥ 0.45). Regarding responses to COH, there were overall non-significantly fewer total and mature numbers of oocytes retrieved in BRCA1/2+ cases as compared with controls (meta-analysis Z overall test effects p ≥ 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: While the summary measures indicate no significant differences in AMH levels between BRCA1/2+ cases and controls, readers should be aware that there are significant methodological differences in the AMH reports. Additionally, the response to COH protocols does not seem to be significantly lower in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the existing literature. Continued research on both of these clinical parameters would be beneficial for patient counseling.
Entities:
Keywords:
BRCA1 mutation; BRCA2 mutation; anti mullerian hormone; controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; in vitro fertilization; ovarian reserve
Authors: C Oddoux; J P Struewing; C M Clayton; S Neuhausen; L C Brody; M Kaback; B Haas; L Norton; P Borgen; S Jhanwar; D Goldgar; H Ostrer; K Offit Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Kathleen E Malone; Janet R Daling; David R Doody; Li Hsu; Leslie Bernstein; Ralph J Coates; Polly A Marchbanks; Michael S Simon; Jill A McDonald; Sandra A Norman; Brian L Strom; Ronald T Burkman; Giske Ursin; Dennis Deapen; Linda K Weiss; Suzanne Folger; Jennifer J Madeoy; Danielle M Friedrichsen; Nicola M Suter; Mariela C Humphrey; Robert Spirtas; Elaine A Ostrander Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Harvey A Risch; John R McLaughlin; David E C Cole; Barry Rosen; Linda Bradley; Isabel Fan; James Tang; Song Li; Shiyu Zhang; Patricia A Shaw; Steven A Narod Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-12-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Juliet D French; Jasmyn Dunn; Chanel E Smart; Nathan Manning; Melissa A Brown Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: Miguel de la Hoya; Juan M Fernández; Alicia Tosar; Javier Godino; Ana Sánchez de Abajo; Jose A Vidart; Pedro Pérez-Segura; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Trinidad Caldés Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-08-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Drechsel Katja C E; van Tilborg Theodora C; Eijkemans Marinus J C; Lentjes Eef G W M; Homminga Irene; Goddijn Mariette; van Golde Ron J T; Verpoest Willem; Lichtenbelt Klaske D; Broekmans Frank J M; Bos Anna M E Journal: Reprod Sci Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 3.060
Authors: Łukasz Kępczyński; Katarzyna Połatyńska; Anna Nykel; Jordan Sałamunia; Tadeusz Kałużewski; Andrzej Kużawczyk; Agnieszka Gach Journal: Prz Menopauzalny Date: 2021-01-07