Matteo Lambertini1,2, Isabelle Demeestere3,4, Margherita Condorelli5,6, Maëlle Sens6, Oranite Goldrat5, Anne Delbaere5, Judith Racapé7,8. 1. Medical Oncology Department, U.O.C. Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy. 2. Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy. 3. Fertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. isabelle.demeestere@ulb.be. 4. Research Laboratory on Human Reproduction, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. isabelle.demeestere@ulb.be. 5. Fertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 6. Research Laboratory on Human Reproduction, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 7. Chair in Health and Precarity, Faculty of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 8. Research Center in Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Clinical Research, School of Public Health, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ovarian stimulation for oocyte and embryo cryopreservation is the standard of care for fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients before gonadotoxic chemotherapy. The procedure should be started as soon as possible to avoid delay of treatment; thus, it is often performed concomitantly with tumor staging assessments. However, questions remain regarding the potential negative impact on oocyte quality that may occur due to exposure to scattered ionizing radiation from imaging techniques when staging assessment is conducted at the same time as ovarian stimulation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on all breast cancer patients who performed ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation at our center between November 2012 and May 2020. RESULTS: Gynecologic and oncological characteristics were similar between patients exposed (n = 14) or not (n = 60) to ionizing radiation. Exposed patients started the ovarian stimulation sooner after diagnosis than non-exposed patients (11.5 vs 28 days, respectively, P < 0.01). Cycle parameters, including the median number of oocytes collected (10.5 vs 7, P = 0.16), maturation rates (92.5% vs 85.7%, P = 0.54), and fertilization rates (62.2% vs 65.4%, P = 0.70), were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that scattered ionizing radiation due to staging assessment appears to be safe without compromising follicular growth and maturation. Larger studies on fertility and obstetrical outcomes are needed to confirm these preliminary data.
PURPOSE: Ovarian stimulation for oocyte and embryo cryopreservation is the standard of care for fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients before gonadotoxic chemotherapy. The procedure should be started as soon as possible to avoid delay of treatment; thus, it is often performed concomitantly with tumor staging assessments. However, questions remain regarding the potential negative impact on oocyte quality that may occur due to exposure to scattered ionizing radiation from imaging techniques when staging assessment is conducted at the same time as ovarian stimulation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on all breast cancer patients who performed ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation at our center between November 2012 and May 2020. RESULTS: Gynecologic and oncological characteristics were similar between patients exposed (n = 14) or not (n = 60) to ionizing radiation. Exposed patients started the ovarian stimulation sooner after diagnosis than non-exposed patients (11.5 vs 28 days, respectively, P < 0.01). Cycle parameters, including the median number of oocytes collected (10.5 vs 7, P = 0.16), maturation rates (92.5% vs 85.7%, P = 0.54), and fertilization rates (62.2% vs 65.4%, P = 0.70), were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that scattered ionizing radiation due to staging assessment appears to be safe without compromising follicular growth and maturation. Larger studies on fertility and obstetrical outcomes are needed to confirm these preliminary data.
Authors: Kutluk Oktay; Brittany E Harvey; Ann H Partridge; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Joyce Reinecke; Hugh S Taylor; W Hamish Wallace; Erica T Wang; Alison W Loren Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Jo Chien; Julia Chambers; Fiona Mcauley; Tessa Kaplan; Joseph Letourneau; Jimmy Hwang; Mi-Ok Kim; Michelle E Melisko; Hope S Rugo; Laura J Esserman; Mitchell P Rosen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: M Lambertini; F A Peccatori; I Demeestere; F Amant; C Wyns; J-B Stukenborg; S Paluch-Shimon; M J Halaska; C Uzan; J Meissner; M von Wolff; R A Anderson; K Jordan Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: S Paluch-Shimon; F Cardoso; A H Partridge; O Abulkhair; H A Azim; G Bianchi-Micheli; M-J Cardoso; G Curigliano; K A Gelmon; N Harbeck; J Merschdorf; P Poortmans; G Pruneri; E Senkus; T Spanic; V Stearns; Y Wengström; F Peccatori; O Pagani Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: E Copson; T Maishman; S Gerty; B Eccles; L Stanton; R I Cutress; D G Altman; L Durcan; P Simmonds; L Jones; W Tapper; Diana Eccles Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 7.640