| Literature DB >> 32313940 |
Anna Marklund1,2, Sandra Eloranta3, Ida Wikander4, Margareta Laczna Kitlinski5, Mikael Lood6, Elizabeth Nedstrand7, Ann Thurin-Kjellberg8, Pu Zhang9, Jonas Bergh1,10, Kenny A Rodriguez-Wallberg1,4,11.
Abstract
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,Entities:
Keywords: GnRHa trigger; antagonist protocol; breast cancer; controlled ovarian stimulation; cryopreservation; female; fertility preservation; letrozole; oocytes/embryos; random-start protocol
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32313940 PMCID: PMC7192532 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Reprod ISSN: 0268-1161 Impact factor: 6.918
Figure 1A flowchart of women with BC who were counseled on FP options at six Swedish university hospitals between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 2017.
Baseline characteristics of 610 women counseled on FP.
|
|
| |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 224 | 156 | 179 | 201 | 96 | 128 | ||||||
|
| 32.5 | 34.5 | <0.001 | 32.6 | 32.6 | 0.82 | 32.9 | 32.4 | 0.28 | 32.6 | 32.6 | 0.94 |
| Range | 21–42 | 21–43 | 21–42 | 21–42 | 21–42 | 22–42 | 23–40 | 21–42 | ||||
|
| 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.29 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.375 | ||||
| Range | 0–4 | 0–2 | <0.001 | 0–2 | 0–4 | 0.03 | 0–4 | 0–2 | 0.83 | 0–2 | 0–4 | 0.24 |
| Unknown | 2 | |||||||||||
|
| 23.7 | 24.8 | 23.7 | 23.9 | 23.8 | 23.8 | 24.0 | 23.4 | ||||
| Range | 16.2–46.5 | 19–47.2 | 0.136 | 16.2–42.8 | 17.4–46.5 | 0.79 | 16.2–46.5 | 16.4–42.8 | 0.92 | 17–42.8 | 16.2–41 | 0.3 |
| Unknown | 133 | 99 | 54 | 25 | 23 | 56 | 4 | 50 | ||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Yes | 312 (67) | 67 (47) | 154 (69) | 112 (72) | 124 (69) | 142 (71) | 63 (66) | 91 (71) | ||||
| No | 154 (33) | 39 (27) | 0.46 | 69 (39) | 44 (28) | 0.007 | 55 (31) | 59 (29) | 0.60 | 32 (33) | 37 (29) | 0.38 |
| Unknown | 2 | 36 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
|
| 17.5 | 14.6 | 17.4 | 17.5 | 16.4 | 18.3 | 19.9 | 14.8 | ||||
| Range | 2–60 | 5–40 | 0.09 | 3–40 | 2–40 | 0.96 | 2–40 | 3–40 | 0.14 | 4–40 | 3–40 | 0.0004 |
| Unknown | 287 | 112 | 100 | 117 | 101 | 116 | 34 | 66 | ||||
|
| 2.8 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 2.4 | ||||
| Range | 0.1–18.8 | 0.1–13.2 | 0.42 | 0.1–18.8 | 0.2–5.1 | 0.93 | 0.23–18.8 | 0.1–15 | 0.58 | 0.16–18.8 | 0.1–15 | 0.03 |
| Unknown | 289 | 105 | 76 | 138 | 105 | 109 | 28 | 48 | ||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Pos | 246 (53) | 59 (41.5) | 122 (54) | 75 (48) | 112 (63) | 85 (42.3) | 75 (78) | 47 (37) | ||||
| Neg | 112 (24) | 24 (17) | 0.67 | 29 (13) | 54 (35) | <0.001 | 42 (23) | 41 (20.4) | 0.34 | 14 (15) | 15 (12) | 0.19 |
| Unknown | 110 (23) | 59 (41.5) | 73 (33) | 27 (17) | 25 (14) | 75 (37.3) | 7 (7) | 66 (51) | ||||
AFC indicates antral follicle count; AMH, Anti-Müllerian hormone (ng/mL); ER, estrogen receptor.
Data on women that underwent FP through COS using GnRH antagonists are summarized according to the protocol used.
*Students’ t-test, Mann–Whitney test or Chi square test.
Comparison of outcomes of COS with and without letrozole.
| COS treatments in antagonist protocols, n = 380 | Letrozole-based protocols, n = 224 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cycle outcomes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 224 | 156 | 179 | 201 | 96 | 128 | |||
|
| 10.5 | 11.0 | 10.5 | 10.9 | 0.053 | 10.7 | 10.4 | ||
| Range | 5–18 | 7–17 |
| 5–17 | 5–18 | 6–18 | 5–18 | 0.34 | |
| Unknown | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |||
|
| 2330 | 2064 |
| 2066 | 2359 |
| 2379 | 2294 | 0.51 |
|
| 500–6750 | 800–5400 | 500–5550 | 750–6750 | 1050–6750 | 500–5850 | |||
| Range | |||||||||
|
| 12.32 | 12.21 | 0.917 | 12.3 | 12.2 | 0.79 | 13.66 | 11.32 |
|
| Range | 0–55 | 0–52 | 0–55 | 0–52 | 0–55 | 0–44 | |||
|
| 8.45 | 8.52 | 0.941 | 9.1 | 7.9 | 0.197 | 9.3 | 7.6 | |
| Range | 0–46 | 0–24 | 0–44 | 0–23 | 0–44 | 0–26 | 0.14 | ||
| Unknown | 5 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 4 | |||
|
| 0.71 | 0.79 |
| 0.76 | 0.70 | 0.078 | 0.74 | 0.68 | 0.106 |
|
| 6.48 | 7.19 | 0.193 | 7.29 | 6.31 |
| 6.65 | 6.35 | 0.693 |
| Range | 0–45.8 | 0–31.1 | 0–45.83 | 0–22.88 | 0–26 | ||||
|
| 9.7 | 10.0 | 0.81 | 10.6 | 8.97 | 0.067 | 10.4 | 9.1 | 0.252 |
| Range | 0–40 | 1–27 | 0–40 | 0–24 | 0–40 | 0–28 | |||
|
| 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.89 | 0.66 | 0.62 | 0.276 | 0.69 | 0.60 | 0.28 |
|
| 4.0 | 5.3 | 0.075 | 4.75 | 4.78 | 0.922 | 5.5 | 3.0 |
|
| Range | 0–11 | 0–29 | 0–16 | 0–29 | 0–11 | 0–9 | |||
In COS with letrozole, treatment outcomes were compared between those using GnRH agonist versus hCG trigger.
Note: data are presented as mean (range).
OSI indicates ovarian sensitivity index, the ration between oocyte yield and the dose of gonadotropins administered.
All comparisons were adjusted for age with linear regression models.
aIn total, 130 cycles in Letrozole group versus 58 cycles in No Letrozole group, 93 cycles in Conventional group versus 95 cycles in Random group and 62 cycles in GnRH agonist group versus 68 cycles in the hCG group were aimed for oocyte cryopreservation only.
bIn total, 53 cycles in Letrozole group versus 71 cycles in No Letrozole group, 59 cycles in Conventional group versus 65 cycles in Random group and 21 cycles in GnRH-agonist group versus 32 cycles in the hCG group were aimed for embryo cryopreservation only.
Figure 2Overall survival in women with breast cancer who underwent FP at six Swedish hospitals from 1995 to 2017 and in control women unexposed to FP. Left upper panel: a comparison of overall survival with Kaplan–Meier estimates in women who underwent FP with or without hormonal stimulation and that in women unexposed to fertility preservation (n = 610). Right panel: a comparison of overall survival with Kaplan–Meier estimates in women who underwent FP with COS and in women who were unexposed top COS (n = 610). Left lower panel: a comparison of OS with Kaplan–Meier estimates in women who underwent COS with (Letrozole) or without (No Letrozole) concurrent use of letrozole (n = 380). The use of letrozole alongside gonadotropins in cycles aimed at FP was implemented in Sweden in 2010.
Figure 3A flowchart of reproductive outcomes among women with BC who were counseled on FP options at six Swedish university hospitals between 1995 and June 2017.