Our act on fertility preservation for young breast cancer patients in our single institute.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 109-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasuyuki Kojima ◽  
Kyoko Tsuchiya ◽  
Chie Nishijima ◽  
Nao Suzuki ◽  
Koichiro Tsugawa
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation ◽  
Embryo Cryopreservation ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Er Positive ◽  
Young Breast Cancer

109 Background: Along with increasing number of newly diagnosed Japanese breast cancer patients, the number of breast cancer survivors in reproductive age is also increasing. Among newly diagnosed Japanese breast cancer patients, 3182(6.6%) are under age 40 in 2011, which was 1610 in 2006. In our institute, we have been cooperating with gynecologists and providing fertility preservation program since 2010. Our aim is to access our team management, clinical impact and outcome of fertility preservation among young breast cancer patients in our institute. Methods: A patient, 1)without distant metastasis, 2)systemic chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy planned, 3)within reproductive age and 4)willing to preserve fertility, will be referred to oncofertility clinic. Chart review was done retrospectively. Results: Ninety-five patients had consultation to the oncofertility clinic between April 2010 and April 2015. The average age at consultation was 34.1(range 22-44). Almost all patient had invasive cancer; cStage0:4%, cStageI:31%, cStageII:53%, cStageIII:11%. Fifty-five percent had estrogen receptor (ER) positive/HER2 negative, 31% had ER positive/HER2positive, 2% had ER negative/HER2 positive and 12% had ER negative/HER2 negative breast cancer. Forty-five had counseling without any procedure, 22 underwent ovarian tissue cryopreservation, 17 underwent embryo cryopreservation and 8 underwent oocyte cryopreservation. Because observation period is still short, we haven’t had any case that got pregnant or delivered, yet. Conclusions: The number of patient who choose to underwent fertility preservation is increasing. We have actually started facing proposition, when we shall lay aside adjuvant therapy and let them plan to be conceived. Taking risk into account, we are now evaluating the safety of cancer treatment and outcome of each procedure which undergone multidisciplinary deliberate decision-making process.

scholarly journals A retrospective study evaluating the impact of scattering radiation from imaging procedures on oocyte quality during ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margherita Condorelli ◽  
Maëlle Sens ◽  
Ornit Goldrat ◽  
Anne Delbaere ◽  
Judith Racapé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Ionizing Radiation ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Ovarian Stimulation ◽  
Oocyte Quality ◽  
Embryo Cryopreservation ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Young Breast Cancer

Abstract Purpose Ovarian stimulation for oocyte and embryo cryopreservation is the standard of care for fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients before gonadotoxic chemotherapy. The procedure should be started as soon as possible to avoid delay of treatment; thus, it is often performed concomitantly with tumor staging assessments. However, questions remain regarding the potential negative impact on oocyte quality that may occur due to exposure to scattered ionizing radiation from imaging techniques when staging assessment is conducted at the same time as ovarian stimulation. Methods We conducted a retrospective study on all breast cancer patients who received ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation at our center between November, 2012 and May, 2020. Results Gynecologic and oncologic characteristics were similar between patients exposed (n = 14) or not (n = 60) to ionizing radiation. Exposed patients started the ovarian stimulation sooner after diagnosis than non-exposed patients (11.5 vs 28 days, respectively, P < 0.01). Cycle parameters, including the median number of oocytes collected (10.5 vs 7, P = 0.16), maturation rates (92.5% vs 85.7%, P = 0.54), and fertilization rates (62.2% vs 65.4%, P = 0.70) were similar between groups. Conclusions This study shows that scattered ionizing radiation due to staging assessment appears to be safe without compromising follicular growth and maturation. Larger studies on fertility and obstetrical outcomes are needed to confirm these preliminary data.

scholarly journals Burning Questions in the Oncofertility Counseling of Young Breast Cancer Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 117822342095417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Arecco ◽  
Marta Perachino ◽  
Alessandra Damassi ◽  
Maria Maddalena Latocca ◽  
Davide Soldato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Young Women ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Prior History ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
History Of ◽  
Anticancer Treatment ◽  
Young Breast Cancer

The improved prognosis of breast cancer patients makes survivorship issues an area of crucial importance. In this regard, an increased attention is needed toward the development of potential anticancer treatment-related long-term side-effects, including gonadal failure and infertility in young women. Therefore, fertility preservation and family planning are crucial issues to be addressed in all young women of reproductive age with newly diagnosed cancer. Despite a growing availability of data on the efficacy and safety of fertility preservation options and the fact that conceiving after prior history of breast cancer has become more accepted over time, there are still several gray zones in this field so that many physicians remain uncomfortable to deal with these topics. The purpose of this review is to answer some of the most controversial questions frequently asked by patients during their oncofertility counseling, in order to provide a detailed and up-to-date overview on the evidence available in this field to physicians involved in the care of young women with breast cancer.

Referral trends for reproductive-age patients with breast cancer to a reproductive endocrinology clinic for fertility preservation counseling between 2004 and 2012.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 129-129
Author(s):  
Jonathan David Kort ◽  
Kira Seiger ◽  
Solomon Henry ◽  
Lynn Westphal
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Fertility Preservation ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Oocyte Cryopreservation ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Research Database ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Reproductive Endocrinology ◽  
Patients Âgés

129 Background: As of October 2012, both embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are considered non-experimental fertility preservation (FP) options for cancer patients facing potentially gonadotoxic therapy. This study aims to assess the historical referral frequency of reproductive aged breast cancer patients from a major cancer center to an associated reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) clinic for counseling regarding FP and also assess how frequently these patients underwent FP after referral. Methods: Using the Stanford Cancer Center Research Database in conjunction with our EMR, a query was made for patients of reproductive age (13-45) who were seen at the Stanford Cancer Center for a new breast cancer diagnosis between 2004 and 2012. These patients’ records were then searched for referral encounters in the REI department. Those who were seen by REI were assessed for having undergone FP via embryo or oocyte cryopreservation prior to starting chemotherapy. Results: 420 women, ages 20 to 45, were seen at our cancer center for a new diagnosis of breast cancer between 2004 and 2012. Sixty (14.3%) of these patients, ages 20 to 42 at diagnosis, were referred to the REI department for FP counseling. Patients who were referred for FP counseling were 5.1 years younger at diagnosis than those who were not (p<.005). Of those referred, 33.3% underwent FP with embryo (77%) or oocyte cryopreservation (23%) under an experimental protocol. Among breast cancer patients ≤35 years old, 35% were referred to our REI department for FP counseling and 53.5% of those referred underwent FP. Conclusions: Despite advances in FP technology, the majority of reproductive aged breast cancer patients are still not referred for FP counseling by a reproductive endocrinologist. This trend was also seen among patients younger than 35—a subgroup who is more likely to undergo and benefit most from FP. This study does not reflect patients who decline this opportunity or seek FP elsewhere, however additional study and outreach is needed to improve referral rates, which are now a measure of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document