| Literature DB >> 35626104 |
Chiara Di Tucci1, Giulia Galati1, Giulia Mattei1, Alessandra Chinè1, Alice Fracassi1, Ludovico Muzii1.
Abstract
The incidence of cancer in reproductive-aged women is 7%, but, despite the increased number of cancer cases, advances in early diagnosis and treatment have raised the survival rate. Furthermore, in the last four decades, there has been a rising trend of delaying childbearing. There has been an increasing number of couples referred to Reproductive Medicine Centers for infertility problems after one partner has been treated for cancer. In these cases, the main cause of reduced fertility derives from treatments. In this review, we describe the effects and the risks of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery in women with cancer, and we will focus on available fertility preservation techniques and their efficacy in terms of success in pregnancy and live birth rates.Entities:
Keywords: fertility sparing treatments; gynecologic cancers; infertility; ovarian damage
Year: 2022 PMID: 35626104 PMCID: PMC9139810 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14102500
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Ovarian damage risk with chemotherapeutic agents.
| Damage Risk | Cancer Treatment |
|---|---|
| High risk | CMF |
| Cyclophosphamide | |
| Melphalan | |
| Busulfan | |
| Intermediate risk | Cisplatin |
| Carboplatin | |
| Oxaliplatin | |
| Doxorubicin | |
| Low/very low | CHOP |
| Vinblastine | |
| Vincristine | |
| Methotrexate | |
| 5-fluorouracil |
Notes: CHOP, cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone; CMF, ciclofosfamide, methotrexate e 5-fluorouracile.
Figure 1Fertility Preservation Options.
Live birth rate after fertility preservation techniques.
| Techniques | Authors | LBR |
|---|---|---|
| Embryos-cryopreservation | Dolmans et al. 2015 | 20–40% |
| Oktay et al. 2015 | ||
| Oocytes cryopreservation | Cobo et al. 2016 | 20–50% |
| Diaz-Garcia et al. 2018 | ||
| Specchia et al. 2019 | ||
| Ovarian tissue | Donnez et al. 2015 | 18.2–41.6% |
| Van der Ven et al. 2016 | ||
| Diaz-Garcia et al. 2018 | ||
| Meirow et al. 2016 | ||
| Donnez et al. 2017 | ||
| Jensen et al. 2017 | ||
| Shapira et al. 2020 | ||
| In vitro maturation | Silvestris et al. 2020 | 8.9% |
| In vitro activation | Silvestris et al. 2020 | 7% |
| Oophoropexis | Terenziani et al. 2009 | Rare |
| Irten et al. 2013 |
Reproductive and oncological outcomes of patients after undergoing fertility-sparing surgical procedure.
| Type of Cancer | Author | Treatment | Patients | Reproductive Outcomes | Oncological Outcomes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | TTC (%) | N° Pregnancies | ART Pregnancies | LBR (%) | Recurrence (%) | Death (%) | |||
| Cervical cancer | Bentivegna et al. 2016 | ST | 212 | NA | 103 | NA | 74.0 | NA | NA |
| VRT | 1355 | NA | 499 | NA | 67.0 | NA | NA | ||
| RT (lptm) | 735 | NA | 175 | NA | 68.0 | NA | NA | ||
| RT(MIS) | 314 | NA | 74 | NA | 78.0 | NA | NA | ||
| NACT | 161 | NA | 93 | NA | 76.0 | NA | NA | ||
| Willows et al. 2016 | RT (a-b: lesion </> 2 cm) | 1238 (a) | 44 | 469 | NA | 66.7 | 4.5 | 1.7 | |
| 134 (b) | 30 | 10 | 70.0 | 11.1 | 4.2 | ||||
| Non-radical FSS | 124 | NA | 71 | NA | 67.6 | 2.7 | 0.5 | ||
| NACT | 62 | NA | 36 | NA | 72.2 | 6.3 | 1.3 | ||
| Nezhat et al. 2020 | ST/CKC | 283 | 29.3 | 131 | 8 | 86.4 | 1.4 | 0.2 | |
| VRT | 1387 | 43.8 | 606 | 78 | 63.4 | 3.7 | 1.1 | ||
| AbRT | 1060 | 43 | 229 | 104 | 65.7 | 3.6 | 0.7 | ||
| RT (MIS) | 314 | 22.6 | 81 | 16 | 56.5 | 3.3 | 0.1 | ||
| Schuurman et al. 2021 | LLETZ/CKC/ST | 612 | 48.5 | 241 | NA | 77.4 | 3.6 | 0.8 | |
| VRT | 1539 | 55 | 707 | NA | 70.6 | 4.2 | 1.7 | ||
| AbRT (lptm) | 1635 | 48 | 353 | NA | 58 | 3.1 | 1.5 | ||
| RT (MIS) | 344 | 35.7 | 81 | NA | 71.6 | 4.5 | 1.5 | ||
| Endometrial cancer | Park et al. 2013 | Progestin therapy (PG) | 141 | 49.6 | 51 | 44 | 66.0 | 31.9 | 0 |
| Harrison et al. 2019 | PG: alone (1); followed by hysterectomy (2) | 421 (1) | NA | 131 | 65 | 11.6 | NA | NA | |
| 397 (2) | NA | 34 | 216 | 52.0 | NA | NA | |||
| Leone et al. 2019 | LNG-IUD | 44 | 43.1 | 14 | 8 | 23.4 | 41.5 | NA | |
| Schuurman et al. 2021 | FSS/PG/LNG | 505 | 62.6 | 256 | NA | 72 | 34.7 | 0.8 | |
| Ovarian cancer | Bentivegna et al. 2016 | Conservative surgery * | 651 (EOC) | 42.8 | 323 | NA | 69.0 | 12 | 6 |
| Tamauchi et al. 2018 | Conservative surgery | 105 (OGCT) | 42.8 | 65 | 7 | 64.6 | 10.4 | 3.8 | |
| Plett et al. 2020 | Conservative surgery | 95 (BOT) | 43.1 | 48 | NA | 79.0 | 13 | NA | |
| Bercow et al. 2021 | Conservative surgery | 614 (EOC) | 50 | 242 | NA | 76–96 | 5–18 | 8.8 | |
| 992 (BOT) | NA | 657 | NA | 23–100 | 11.6 | 2.3 | |||
| Schuurman et al. 2021 | Conservative surgery | 750 | 44.2 | 280 | NA | 89.4 | 15.7 | 14.7 | |
Note: TTC: trying to conceive; ART: reproductive assisted techniques; LBR: live birth rate; NA: not available; ST: simple trachelectomy VRT—vaginal radical trachelectomy; RT: radical trachelectomy; NACT: neoadjuvant chemotherapy CK: cold knife conization; AbRT: abdominal radical trachelectomy; MIS: minimal invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotassisted); LLETZ: large loop excision of transformation zone; lptm: laparotomy; EOC: epitelian ovarian cancer; BOT: borderline ovarian tumor; OGCT: ovarian germ cell tumor. *: considered as the preservation of at least one ovary and the uterus.