Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Obstetrical outcomes in women with history of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Potential risk of adverse obstetrical outcomes has been shown among breast cancer survivors. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the relationship between history of breast cancer (BC) and obstetrical outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline were searched from the inception of each database to April 2019. Selection criteria included prospective and retrospective cohort studies of BC pregnant survivors. The meta-analysis was performed by computing odds ratios (ORs) using both fixed and random-effects models. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the review was registered with PROSPERO number CRD42019127716.

Results

Four studies, including 1466 cases of BC survivors and 6,912,485 controls, were included. Compared with controls, a higher incidence of obstetrical complication was found in women with history of BC. The incidence of preterm birth (PTB) in the study group was 11.05% compared with 7.79% in the control group (1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.43–1.99). Breast cancer history was also associated with low birth weight (LBW) (study group: 9.26% vs. control group: 5.54%, 1.88, CI 95% 1.55–2.27), cesarean section (CS) (study group: 19.76% vs. control group 10.81%, 1.78, CI 95% 1.39–2.27), intrauterine fetal death (IUFD) (study group: 0.004% vs. control group 0.36%, of 1.25 CI 95% 0.36–4.35), and fetal anomalies (study group: 5.8% vs. control group: 4.26%, 1.45 CI 95% 1.01–2.09).

Conclusions

History of BC was associated with adverse obstetrical outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BC:

Breast cancer

PTB:

Preterm birth

LBW:

Low birth weight

CS:

Cesarean section

IUFD:

Intrauterine fetal death

NOS:

Newcastle–Ottawa Scale

ORs:

Odds ratios

CIs:

Confidence intervals

MeSH:

Relevant medical subject heading

References

  1. World Cancer Research Fund International (2015) Breast cancer statistics [Internet]. http://www.wcrf.org. Accessed 3 March 2019

  2. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F (2013) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 2 March 2019

  3. Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A (2016) Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends—an update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 25(1):16–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ginsburg O, Bray F, Coleman MP et al (2016) The global burden of women’s cancers: a grand challenge in global health. Lancet 389:847–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31392-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. DeSantis CE, Fedewa SA, Goding Sauer A, Kramer JL, Smith RA, Jemal A (2016) Breast cancer statistics, 2015: convergence of incidence rates between black and white women. Cancer J Clin 66(1):31–42. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Howlader NNA, Krapcho M, Miller D, Bishop K, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA (2016) Cancer Statistics Review, 1975^2013çSEER Statistics. Based on November 2015 SEER data submission. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2013/. Accessed 3 February 2019

  7. Estimated Number of New Cases for the Four Major Cancers by Sex and Age Group (2018) American Cancer Society, Surveillance Research. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2018/estimated-number-of-new-cases-for-the-four-major-cancers-by-sex-and-age-group-2018.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2018

  8. Kroman N, Jensen M-B, Wohlfahrt J, Ejlertsen B, Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (2008) Pregnancy after treatment of breast cancer—a population-based study on behalf of Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Acta Oncol Stockh Swed 47:545–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860801935491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shah NM, Scott DM, Kandagatla P, Moravek MB, Cobain EF, Burness ML et al (2019) Young women with breast cancer: fertility preservation options and management of pregnancy-associated breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07156-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Langagergaard V, Gislum M, Skriver MV et al (2006) Birth outcome in women with breast cancer. Br J Cancer 94:142–146. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602878

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Dalberg K, Eriksson J, Holmberg L (2006) Birth outcome in women with previously treated breast cancer—a population-based cohort study from Sweden. PLoS Med 3:e336. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030336

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Langagergaard V (2010) Birth outcome in women with breast cancer, cutaneous malignant melanoma, or Hodgkin’s disease: a review. Clin Epidemiol 3:7–19. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S12190

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ramírez-Torres N, Robles-Robles AG, Villafaña-Vázquez VH et al (2010) Breast cancer and subsequent pregnancy. Infertility, death risk and survival [in Spanish]. Ginecol Obstet Mex 78:85–93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Henderson LK, Craig JC, Willis NS, Tovey D, Webster AC (2010) How to write a Cochrane systematic review. Nephrology (Carlton) 15:617–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01380.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009) Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance forundertaking reviews in health care. University of York, York. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf. Retrieved from 3 Dec 2016

  16. Welch V, Petticrew M, Petkovic J et al (2016) Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 70:68–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA 313:1657–1665. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al (2018) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non randomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 27 Feb 2018

  19. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DJ (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN (1997) Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 315(7121):1533–1537. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50:1088–1101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Jacob L, Kalder M, Arabin B, Kostev K (2017) Impact of prior breast cancer on mode of delivery and pregnancy-associated disorders: a retrospective analysis of subsequent pregnancy outcomes. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143:1069–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-017-2352-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hartnett KP, Ward KC, Kramer MR, Lash TL, Mertens AC, Spencer JB, Fothergill A, Howards PP (2017) The risk of preterm birth and growth restriction in pregnancy after cancer. Int J Cancer 141(11):2187–2196. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30914

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Iqbal J, Amir E, Rochon PA, Giannakeas V, Sun P, Narod SA (2017) Association of the timing of pregnancy with survival in women with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol 3(5):659–665. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0248

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Azim HA Jr, Kroman N, Paesmans M et al (2013) Prognostic impact of pregnancy after breast cancer according to estrogen receptor status: a multicenter retrospective study. J Clin Oncol 31:73. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.44.2285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Black KZ, Nichols HB, Eng E, Rowley DL (2017) Prevalence of preterm, low birthweight, and small for gestational age delivery after breast cancer diagnosis: a population-based study. Breast Cancer Res 19(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0803-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Romero R, Espinoza J, Goncalves LF, Kusanovic JP, Friel L, Hassan S (2007) The role of inflammation and infection in preterm birth. Semin Reprod Med 25(1):21–39. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-956773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hakim FT, Cepeda R, Kaimei S et al (1997) Constraints on CD4 recovery postchemotherapy in adults: thymic insufficiency and apoptotic decline of expanded peripheral CD4 cells. Blood 90(9):3789–3798

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wiser I, Orr N, Kaufman B et al (2010) Immunosuppressive treatments reduce long-term immunity to smallpox among patients with breast cancer. J Infect Dis 201(10):1527–1534. https://doi.org/10.1086/651950

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Signorello LB, Mulvihill JJ, Green DM et al (2010) Stillbirth and neonatal death in relation to radiation exposure before conception: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 376:624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60752-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Winther JF, Olsen JH, Wu H et al (2012) Genetic disease in the children of Danish survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:27. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.35.0504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Signorello LB, Mulvihill JJ, Green DM et al (2012) Congenital anomalies in the children of cancer survivors: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Clin Oncol 30:239. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.37.2938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Green DM, Peabody EM, Nan B et al (2002) Pregnancy outcome after treatment for Wilms tumor: a report from the National Wilms Tumor Study Group. J Clin Oncol 20:2506. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2002.07.159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ståhl O, Boyd HA, Giwercman A et al (2011) Risk of birth abnormalities in the offspring of men with a history of cancer: a cohort study using Danish and Swedish national registries. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:398. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq550

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Witt KL, Bishop JB (1996) Mutagenicity of anticancer drugs in mammalian germ cells. Mutat Res 355(1–2):209–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Braems G, Denys H, De Wever O, Cocquyt V, Van den Broecke R (2011) Use of tamoxifen before and during pregnancy. Oncologist 16(11):1547–1551

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Momen NC, Ernst A, Arendt LH et al (2017) Maternal cancer and congenital anomalies in children—a Danish nationwide cohort study. PLoS ONE 12(3):e0173355

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No specific funding was obtained.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Valentina D’Ambrosio, Flaminia Vena, Daniele Di Mascio, Ida Faralli, Lucia Musacchio, Chiara Boccherini, Roberto Brunelli, Maria Grazia Piccioni, Pierluigi Benedetti Panici & Antonella Giancotti

Authors
  1. Valentina D’Ambrosio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Flaminia Vena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniele Di Mascio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ida Faralli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lucia Musacchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chiara Boccherini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Roberto Brunelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Maria Grazia Piccioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Pierluigi Benedetti Panici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Antonella Giancotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Flaminia Vena.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Ambrosio, V., Vena, F., Di Mascio, D. et al. Obstetrical outcomes in women with history of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 178, 485–492 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05408-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05408-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation