Leslie V Farland1, Judy E Stern2, Sunah S Hwang3, Chia-Ling Liu4, Howard Cabral5, Richard Knowlton6, Susan T Gershman6, Charles C Coddington, Stacey A Missmer7,8,9. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. lfarland@email.arizona.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Lebanon, NH, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Section of Neonatology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Family Health and Nutrition, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Massachusetts Cancer Registry, Office of Data Management and Outcomes Assessment, Office of Population Health, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carolinas Medical Center/Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA. 8. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes among adolescent and young-adult female cancer survivors. METHODS: The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) data were linked to the Massachusetts Cancer Registry for 90,928 ART cycles in Massachusetts to women ≥ 18 years old from 2004 to 2013. To estimate relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), we used generalized estimating equations with a log link that accounted for multiple cycles per woman and a priori adjusted for maternal age and cycle year. The main outcomes of interest were ART treatment patterns; number of autologous oocytes retrieved, fertilized, and transferred; and rates of implantation, clinical intrauterine gestation (CIG), live birth, and pregnancy loss. RESULTS: We saw no difference in number of oocytes retrieved (aRR: 0.95 (0.89-1.02)) or proportion of autologous oocytes fertilized (aRR: 0.99 (0.95-1.03)) between autologous cycles with and without a history of cancer; however, cancer survivors required a higher total FSH administered (aRR: 1.12 (1.06-1.19)). Among autologous cycle starts, cycles in women with a history of cancer were less likely to result in CIG compared to no history of cancer (aRR: 0.73 (0.65-0.83)); this relationship was absent from donor cycles (aRR: 1.01 (0.85-1.20)). Once achieving CIG, donor cycles for women with a history of cancer were two times more likely to result in pregnancy loss (aRR: 1.99 (1.26-3.16)). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that cancer may influence ovarian stimulation response, requiring more FSH and resulting in lower CIG among cycle starts.
PURPOSE: To investigate assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes among adolescent and young-adult female cancer survivors. METHODS: The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) data were linked to the Massachusetts Cancer Registry for 90,928 ART cycles in Massachusetts to women ≥ 18 years old from 2004 to 2013. To estimate relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), we used generalized estimating equations with a log link that accounted for multiple cycles per woman and a priori adjusted for maternal age and cycle year. The main outcomes of interest were ART treatment patterns; number of autologous oocytes retrieved, fertilized, and transferred; and rates of implantation, clinical intrauterine gestation (CIG), live birth, and pregnancy loss. RESULTS: We saw no difference in number of oocytes retrieved (aRR: 0.95 (0.89-1.02)) or proportion of autologous oocytes fertilized (aRR: 0.99 (0.95-1.03)) between autologous cycles with and without a history of cancer; however, cancer survivors required a higher total FSH administered (aRR: 1.12 (1.06-1.19)). Among autologous cycle starts, cycles in women with a history of cancer were less likely to result in CIG compared to no history of cancer (aRR: 0.73 (0.65-0.83)); this relationship was absent from donor cycles (aRR: 1.01 (0.85-1.20)). Once achieving CIG, donor cycles for women with a history of cancer were two times more likely to result in pregnancy loss (aRR: 1.99 (1.26-3.16)). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that cancer may influence ovarian stimulation response, requiring more FSH and resulting in lower CIG among cycle starts.
Authors: Jaime M Knopman; Nicole Noyes; Sheeva Talebian; Lewis C Krey; James A Grifo; Frederick Licciardi Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Sara E Barton; Julie S Najita; Elizabeth S Ginsburg; Wendy M Leisenring; Marilyn Stovall; Rita E Weathers; Charles A Sklar; Leslie L Robison; Lisa Diller Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-07-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Eden R Cardozo; Alexcis P Thomson; Anatte E Karmon; Kristy A Dickinson; Diane L Wright; Mary E Sabatini Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2015-01-18 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Barbara Luke; Morton B Brown; Stacey A Missmer; Logan G Spector; Richard E Leach; Melanie Williams; Lori Koch; Yolanda R Smith; Judy E Stern; G David Ball; Maria J Schymura Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Daniel M Green; Charles A Sklar; John D Boice; John J Mulvihill; John A Whitton; Marilyn Stovall; Yutaka Yasui Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-13 Impact factor: 44.544