Assisted reproductive technology use and outcomes in childhood cancer survivors

被引:0
|
作者
Keefe, Kimberly W. [1 ,8 ]
Lanes, Andrea [1 ]
Stratton, Kayla [2 ]
Green, Daniel M. [3 ]
Chow, Eric J. [2 ]
Oeffinger, Kevin C. [4 ]
Barton, Sara [5 ]
Diller, Lisa [6 ,7 ]
Yasui, Yutaka
Leisenring, Wendy M. [2 ]
Armstrong, Gregory T. [3 ]
Ginsburg, Elizabeth S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Ctr Infertil & Reprod Surg, Boston, MA USA
[2] Fred Hutchinson Canc Ctr, Seattle, WA USA
[3] St Jude Childrens Res Hosp, Memphis, TN USA
[4] Duke Univ, Durham, NC USA
[5] Colorado Ctr Reprod Med, Denver, CO USA
[6] Dana Farber Canc Inst, Boston, MA USA
[7] Harvard Med Sch, Boston, MA USA
[8] Ctr Infertil & Reprod Surg, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
关键词
assisted reproduction; cancer survivor; childhood cancer survivor; female infertility; in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome; IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION; FEMALE SURVIVORS; OVARIAN RESERVE; PREGNANCY; CHEMOTHERAPY; MENOPAUSE; HISTORY; HEALTH; IMPACT; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1002/cncr.34995
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BackgroundTreatment exposures for childhood cancer reduce ovarian reserve. However, the success of assisted reproductive technology (ART) among female survivors is not well established.MethodsFive-year survivors of childhood cancer in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study were linked to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System, which captures national ART outcomes. The authors assessed the live birth rate, the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and associations with treatment exposure using generalized estimating equations to account for multiple ovarian stimulations per individual. Siblings from a random sample of survivors were recruited to serve as a comparison group.ResultsAmong 9885 female survivors, 137 (1.4%; median age at diagnosis, 10 years [range, 0-20 years]; median years of follow-up after age 18 years, 11 years [range, 2-11 years]) underwent 224 ovarian stimulations using autologous or donor eggs and/or gestational carriers (157 autologous ovarian stimulation cycles, 67 donor ovarian stimulation cycles). In siblings, 33 (1.4%) underwent 51 autologous or donor ovarian stimulations. Of those who used embryos from autologous eggs without using gestational carriers, 97 survivors underwent 155 stimulations, resulting in 49 live births, for a 31.6% chance of live birth per ovarian stimulation (vs. 38.3% for siblings; p = .39) and a 43.9% chance of live birth per transfer (vs. 50.0%; p = .33). Prior treatment with cranial radiation therapy (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.97) and pelvic radiation therapy (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.73) resulted in a reduced chance of live birth compared with siblings. The likelihood of live birth after ART treatment in survivors was not affected by alkylator exposure (cyclophosphamide-equivalent dose, & GE;8000 mg/m2 vs. none; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.52-2.05).ConclusionsChildhood cancer survivors are as likely to undergo treatment using ART as sibling controls. The success of ART treatment was not reduced after alkylator exposure. The results from the current study provide needed guidance on the use of ART in this population. Linking the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study database to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System revealed that childhood cancer survivors are as likely to undergo treatment with assisted reproductive technology as their siblings. The success of assisted reproductive technology was not reduced after alkylator exposure.
引用
收藏
页码:128 / 139
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology by European Childhood Cancer Survivors
    Borgmann-Staudt, Anja
    Michael, Simon
    Sommerhaeuser, Greta
    Fernandez-Gonzalez, Marta-Julia
    Friedrich, Lucia Alacan
    Klco-Brosius, Stephanie
    Kepak, Tomas
    Kruseova, Jarmila
    Michel, Gisela
    Panasiuk, Anna
    Schmidt, Sandrin
    Lotz, Laura
    Balcerek, Magdalena
    CURRENT ONCOLOGY, 2022, 29 (08) : 5748 - 5762
  • [2] Assisted reproductive technology outcomes in childhood cancer survivors: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.
    Keefe, Kimberly W.
    Lanes, Andrea
    Stratton, Kayla
    Green, Daniel M.
    Chow, Eric Jessen
    Oeffinger, Kevin C.
    Barton, Sara
    Diller, Lisa
    Yasui, Yutaka
    Leisenring, Wendy M.
    Armstrong, Gregory T.
    Ginsburg, Elizabeth S.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 38 (15)
  • [3] Reproductive Outcomes for Survivors of Childhood Cancer
    Hudson, Melissa M.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 116 (05): : 1171 - 1183
  • [4] Childhood outcomes of assisted reproductive technology
    Savage, Tim
    Peek, John
    Hofman, Paul L.
    Cutfield, Wayne S.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2011, 26 (09) : 2392 - 2400
  • [5] Assisted reproductive outcomes of male cancer survivors
    Ainhoa García
    María Belén Herrero
    Hananel Holzer
    Togas Tulandi
    Peter Chan
    Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 2015, 9 : 208 - 214
  • [6] Assisted reproductive outcomes of male cancer survivors
    Garcia, Ainhoa
    Herrero, Maria Belen
    Holzer, Hananel
    Tulandi, Togas
    Chan, Peter
    JOURNAL OF CANCER SURVIVORSHIP, 2015, 9 (02) : 208 - 214
  • [7] ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY & RISK OF CHILDHOOD CANCER
    Luke, B.
    Brown, M. B.
    Spector, L. G.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2017, 108 (03) : E53 - E53
  • [8] Assisted reproductive technology use and outcomes among women with a history of cancer
    Luke, Barbara
    Brown, Morton B.
    Missmer, Stacey A.
    Spector, Logan G.
    Leach, Richard E.
    Williams, Melanie
    Koch, Lori
    Smith, Yolanda R.
    Stern, Judy E.
    Ball, G. David
    Schymura, Maria J.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2016, 31 (01) : 183 - 189
  • [9] Assisted reproductive technology and association with childhood cancer subtypes
    Gulrajani, Natalie B.
    Montes, Samuel
    McGough, Daniel
    Wimberly, Courtney E.
    Khattab, Ameera
    Semmes, Eleanor C.
    Towry, Lisa
    Cohen, Jennifer L.
    Hurst, Jillian H.
    Landi, Daniel
    Hill, Sherika N.
    Walsh, Kyle M.
    CANCER MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (03): : 3410 - 3418
  • [10] ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY & RISK OF CHILDHOOD CANCER.
    Spector, L. G.
    Luke, B.
    Wantman, E.
    Schymura, M. J.
    Brown, M. B.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2013, 100 (03) : S165 - S165