Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Breast cancer grade and stage do not affect fertility preservation outcomes

  • Fertility Preservation
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate if breast cancer stage and grade affect fertility preservation outcomes.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study that included premenopausal women with breast cancer undergoing fertility preservation diagnosed between January 2011 and January 2019. The primary outcome measure was the number of mature oocytes (MII) per antral follicle count (AFC). Secondary outcome measures included total oocytes retrieved, total mature oocytes retrieved, and greater than 10 mature oocytes preserved. Univariate and multivariate models were used to assess the association of low vs. high stage (low stage I–II and high stage III–IV) and grade I vs. grade II/III with each outcome, with adjustment for confounders.

Results

A total of 267 premenopausal breast cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation were included in our study, with the majority presenting with low stage (N = 215, 80.5%), grade II/III (N = 235, 88.1%) disease. Baseline AFC, total gonadotropin dose, days of stimulation, and follicles \(\ge\) 13 mm on the day of trigger did not differ by stage or grade. After adjusting for age, BMI, and baseline AFC, we found that the mean MII per AFC did not differ by stage (1.0 vs. 1.1, P = 0.3) or grade (1.0 vs. 1.0, P = 0.92). Similarly, total oocytes retrieved, total MII retrieved, and percentage of patients who were able to preserve greater than 10 MII did not differ by breast cancer stage or grade (all P > 0.2).

Conclusion

Breast cancer grade and stage do not impact ovarian stimulation or fertility preservation outcome.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

We are unable to provide our data due to its identified nature.

Code Availability

Code may be made available upon request.

References

  1. Society. AC. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2019–2020. In: Society AC, ed., 2019.

  2. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address Aao. Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:380–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Oktay K, Harvey BE, Partridge AH, Quinn GP, Reinecke J, Taylor HS, et al. Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1994–2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anazodo A, Ataman-Millhouse L, Jayasinghe Y, Woodruff TK. Oncofertility-an emerging discipline rather than a special consideration. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65:e27297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Letourneau JM, Sinha N, Wald K, Harris E, Quinn M, Imbar T, et al. Random start ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation appears unlikely to delay initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2123–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Letourneau JM, Wald K, Sinha N, Juarez-Hernandez F, Harris E, Cedars MI, et al. Fertility preservation before breast cancer treatment appears unlikely to affect disease-free survival at a median follow-up of 43 months after fertility-preservation consultation. Cancer. 2020;126:487–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moravek MB, Confino R, Smith KN, Kazer RR, Klock SC, Lawson AK, et al. Long-term outcomes in cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:349–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baker JA, Buck GM, Vena JE, Moysich KB. Fertility patterns prior to testicular cancer diagnosis. Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16:295–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hendry WF, Stedronska J, Jones CR, Blackmore CA, Barrett A, Peckham MJ. Semen analysis in testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease: pre- and post-treatment findings and implications for cryopreservation. Br J Urol. 1983;55:769–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Spermon JR, Ramos L, Wetzels AM, Sweep CG, Braat DD, Kiemeney LA, et al. Sperm integrity pre- and post-chemotherapy in men with testicular germ cell cancer. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1781–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Viviani S, Ragni G, Santoro A, Perotti L, Caccamo E, Negretti E, et al. Testicular dysfunction in Hodgkin’s disease before and after treatment. Eur J Cancer. 1991;27:1389–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Whitehead E, Shalet SM, Blackledge G, Todd I, Crowther D, Beardwell CG. The effects of Hodgkin’s disease and combination chemotherapy on gonadal function in the adult male. Cancer. 1982;49:418–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Turan V, Quinn MM, Dayioglu N, Rosen MP, Oktay K. The impact of malignancy on response to ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:1347–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Volodarsky-Perel A, Cohen Y, Arab S, Son WY, Suarthana E, Dahan MH, et al. Effects of cancer stage and grade on fertility preservation outcome and ovarian stimulation response. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:530–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Volodarsky-Perel A, Cai E, Tulandi T, Son WY, Suarthana E, Buckett W. Influence of stage and grade of breast cancer on fertility preservation outcome in reproductive-aged women. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;40:215–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 2002;41:154–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Chung K, Irani J, Knee G, Efymow B, Blasco L, Patrizio P. Sperm cryopreservation for male patients with cancer: an epidemiological analysis at the University of Pennsylvania. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;113(Suppl 1):S7-11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tal R, Botchan A, Hauser R, Yogev L, Paz G, Yavetz H. Follow-up of sperm concentration and motility in patients with lymphoma. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1985–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Padron OF, Sharma RK, Thomas AJ Jr, Agarwal A. Effects of cancer on spermatozoa quality after cryopreservation: a 12-year experience. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:326–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rueffer U, Breuer K, Josting A, Lathan B, Sieber M, Manzke O, et al. Male gonadal dysfunction in patients with Hodgkin’s disease prior to treatment. Ann Oncol. 2001;12:1307–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rubin H. Systemic effects of cancer: role of multiple proteases and their toxic peptide products. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11:RA221-8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144:646–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Almog B, Azem F, Gordon D, Pauzner D, Amit A, Barkan G, et al. Effects of cancer on ovarian response in controlled ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:957–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Alvarez RM, Ramanathan P. Fertility preservation in female oncology patients: the influence of the type of cancer on ovarian stimulation response. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:2051–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Das M, Shehata F, Moria A, Holzer H, Son WY, Tulandi T. Ovarian reserve, response to gonadotropins, and oocyte maturity in women with malignancy. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:122–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Quinn MM, Cakmak H, Letourneau JM, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. Response to ovarian stimulation is not impacted by a breast cancer diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:568–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to make a special thanks to our nurses and care coordinators who provided patient education and fertility preservation coordination.

Funding

This study was supported by departmental research funding within the University of California, San Francisco Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, 499 Illinois Street, 6th Floor, CA, 94158, San Francisco, USA

    Kaitlyn Wald, Ange Wang, Mary Kathryn Abel, Jerrine Morris, Joseph M. Letourneau, Evelyn Mok-Lin, Marcelle I. Cedars & Mitchell P. Rosen

  2. School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 533 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA

    Mary Kathryn Abel

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Joseph M. Letourneau

Authors
  1. Kaitlyn Wald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ange Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary Kathryn Abel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jerrine Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joseph M. Letourneau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Evelyn Mok-Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marcelle I. Cedars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mitchell P. Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.W, A.W., M.K.A., and J.R.M.’s roles included data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing; J.M.L.’s roles included study design and data collection; E.M.L., M.I.C., and M.R.’s roles included study design and manuscript writing. All author roles meet the following criteria: (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, (3) final approval of the version to be published, and (4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ange Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Committee on Human Research and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

As part of the consent process, all participants gave written consent to use de-identified information for research purposes and publications.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

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

Kaitlyn Wald and Ange Wang are joint first authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wald, K., Wang, A., Abel, M.K. et al. Breast cancer grade and stage do not affect fertility preservation outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 1155–1161 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02473-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02473-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation