» Articles » PMID: 35037166

History of Cancer and Fertility Treatment Outcomes: a Registry Linkage Study in Massachusetts

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2022 Jan 17
PMID 35037166
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Fertility preservation before and after cancer treatment in children, adolescents, and young adults.

Yang E, Strohl H, Su H Cancer. 2023; 130(3):344-355.

PMID: 37962199 PMC: 10841998. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.35108.


Assisted Reproductive Technology or Infertility: What underlies adverse outcomes? Lessons from the Massachusetts Outcome Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Stern J, Farland L, Hwang S, Dukhovny D, Coddington C, Cabral H F S Rev. 2022; 3(4):242-255.

PMID: 36505962 PMC: 9733832. DOI: 10.1016/j.xfnr.2022.06.003.

References
1.
Robertson A, Missmer S, Ginsburg E . Embryo yield after in vitro fertilization in women undergoing embryo banking for fertility preservation before chemotherapy. Fertil Steril. 2010; 95(2):588-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.028. View

2.
Knopman J, Noyes N, Talebian S, Krey L, Grifo J, Licciardi F . Women with cancer undergoing ART for fertility preservation: a cohort study of their response to exogenous gonadotropins. Fertil Steril. 2008; 91(4 Suppl):1476-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1727. View

3.
Stensheim H, Klungsoyr K, Skjaerven R, Grotmol T, Fossa S . Birth outcomes among offspring of adult cancer survivors: a population-based study. Int J Cancer. 2013; 133(11):2696-705. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28292. View

4.
Green D, Sklar C, Boice Jr J, Mulvihill J, Whitton J, Stovall M . Ovarian failure and reproductive outcomes after childhood cancer treatment: results from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(14):2374-81. PMC: 2677923. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.1839. View

5.
Cardozo E, Thomson A, Karmon A, Dickinson K, Wright D, Sabatini M . Ovarian stimulation and in-vitro fertilization outcomes of cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation compared to age matched controls: a 17-year experience. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015; 32(4):587-96. PMC: 4380886. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-015-0428-z. View