Conference Coverage

Delaying cancer treatment for fertility preservation did not affect outcomes


 

AT 2016 ASRM

– Delaying cancer treatment to allow women to undergo fertility preservation did not affect long-term cancer outcomes, suggest the findings from a retrospective study of more than 500 patients.

Over a median of 3.7 years of follow-up, 2.3% of patients who elected fertility preservation developed recurrent cancer, compared with 5.3% of patients who did not undergo fertility preservation (P = .09), according to Molly Moravek, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and her associates.

Survival rates were 97.7% for patients who underwent fertility preservation and 94.1% for those who did not (P = .05), the investigators reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“Pursuing fertility preservation results in minimal delays to initiation of cancer treatment and is unlikely to be clinically significant,” the investigators wrote. “There is no evidence of increased recurrence or mortality in fertility preservation patients versus controls, suggesting fertility preservation is safe for eligible cancer patients.”

Progress in cancer detection and survival has sharpened the focus on quality of life issues, including fertility preservation, the researchers said. But oncologists and patients themselves have raised concerns about postponing cancer treatment for this reason, and some have recommended shortening the delay by triggering ovarian stimulation regardless of the phase of the menstrual cycle – known as the “random start” protocol.

To explore these issues, the researchers reviewed the charts of all 553 cancer patients who had used the online patient navigator for fertility preservation at Northwestern University from 2006 to 2015.

A total of 213 patients pursued fertility preservation, while 340 did not. Undergoing fertility preservation postponed treatment of breast, hematologic, gynecologic, and other cancers by an average of 10 days, but this delay did not translate to worse recurrence rates or mortality, either overall or for any cancer subtype.

Cycle outcomes were similar between the 117 patients who underwent random-start protocols and the 23 patients underwent cycle-specific protocols, the investigators reported. Both protocols were associated with similar numbers of oocytes retrieved, numbers of mature oocytes, peak serum estradiol levels, days of stimulation, and times to cancer treatment.

The Northwestern Memorial Foundation supported the work. Dr. Moravek reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Recommended Reading

Early days of IVF marked by competition, innovation
MDedge ObGyn
Oocyte donation may up risk of preterm birth
MDedge ObGyn
European Commission’s proposed criteria for endocrine disruptors trigger multiple concerns
MDedge ObGyn
Unexplained subfertility in RA linked to periconceptional NSAID use
MDedge ObGyn
Low serum AMH predicted miscarriage after IVF
MDedge ObGyn
Psychological stress did not harm IVF outcomes
MDedge ObGyn
Resveratrol cut androgen levels in small PCOS trial
MDedge ObGyn
Resveratrol may reduce androgen levels in PCOS
MDedge ObGyn
Injectable male contraceptive on par with other reversible options
MDedge ObGyn
Women recovered half their ovarian reserve 13 months after chemotherapy
MDedge ObGyn