Outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in women with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 1 (7th November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Meernik, Clare; Poole, Charles; Engel, Stephanie M; Rauh-Hain, J Alejandro; Luke, Barbara; Nichols, Hazel B
• Is Part Of: Human reproduction. Volume 38:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: 30
• Page End: 45
• Publication Date: 2022-11-07
• Subjects: assisted reproduction -- cancer survivors -- female infertility -- IVF/ICSI outcome -- oocyte maturation -- ovarian stimulation -- pregnancy; Human reproduction -- Periodicals; 618
• DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac235
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0268-1161

Abstract

Abstract: STUDY QUESTION: What are the associations between a history of cancer and outcomes after ART? SUMMARY ANSWER: Compared to women without cancer, on average, women with cancer had a lower return for embryo transfer and a lower likelihood of clinical pregnancy and live birth after ART. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Small, single-institution studies have suggested that cancer and its treatment may negatively affect ART outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing ART outcomes between women with and without cancer. PubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched for original, English-language studies published up to June 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Inclusion criteria required reporting of ART outcomes after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) among women with a history of cancer compared to women without cancer who used ART for any indication. Outcomes of interest ranged from duration of COS to likelihood of live birth after embryo transfer. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs and 95% prediction intervals (PIs). We assessed heterogeneity by age-adjustment, referent group indication for ART, study location and among women with breast cancer and women who initiated ART before cancer treatment. We used visual inspection, Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method to assess funnel plot asymmetry. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 6094 unique records identified, 42 studies met inclusion criteria, representing a median per study of 58 women with cancer (interquartile range (IQR) = 159) and 114 women without cancer (IQR = 348). Compared to women without cancer, on average, women with cancer had a lower return for embryo transfer (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.74; 95% PI: 0.00, 64.98); lower likelihood of clinical pregnancy (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.73; 95% PI: 0.19, 1.35); and lower likelihood of live birth (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.83; 95% PI: 0.19, 1.69). Substantial among-study heterogeneity was observed for COS duration, gonadotropin dose, cycle cancellation, total oocytes and mature oocytes. Fertilization percentage showed less heterogeneity, but study-specific estimates were imprecise. Similarly, number of embryos showed less heterogeneity, and most studies estimated minimal differences by cancer history. Funnel plot asymmetry was observed for estradiol peak and oocyte maturation percentage. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Appreciable confounding is possible in 11 studies that lacked adequate control for group differences in age, and among-study heterogeneity was observed for most outcomes. Lack of data limited our ability to assess how cancer clinical factors (e.g. cancers other than breast, cancer stage and treatment) and ART cycle characteristics (e.g. fresh versus frozen embryo transfers and use of gestational carriers) may affect outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Women with cancer may be less likely to achieve pregnancy and live birth after embryo transfer. Further examination of reproductive outcomes and sources of heterogeneity among studies is warranted to improve evidence of the expected success of ART after a cancer diagnosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported in part by R01 CA211093 and P30 ES010126. C.M. was supported by the University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Control Education Program (T32 CA057726) and the National Cancer Institute (F31 CA260787). J.A.R.-H. was supported by the National Cancer Institute (K08 CA234333, P30 CA016672). J.A.R.-H. reports receiving consulting fees from Schlesinger Group and Guidepoint. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.