MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4396590916 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-gs02-11

Abstract GS02-11: Fertility preservation and assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in breast cancer (BC) patients (pts) interrupting endocrine therapy (ET) to attempt pregnancy

2024· article· en· W4396590916 sur OpenAlexaff
Hatem A. Azim, Samuel Niman, Ann H. Partridge, Isabelle Demeestere, Monica Ruggeri, Marco Colleoni, Cristina Saura, Chikako Shimizu, Anna Barbro Sætersdal, Judith R. Kroep, Audrey Mailliez, Ellen Warner, Virginia F. Borges, Frédéric Amant, Andrea Gombos, Akemi Kataoka, Christine Rousset‐Jablonski, Simona Borštnar, Junko Takei, Janice M. Walshe, Manuel Ruíz Borrego, Halle C. F. Moore, Christobel Saunders, Vesna Bjelic‐Radisic, Sneẑana Šušnjar, Fátima Cardoso, Natalie Klar, Tanya Spanic, Kathryn Ruddy, Martine Piccart, Larissa A. Korde, Aron Goldhirsch, Richard D. Gelber, Olivia Pagani, Fedro A. Peccatori

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Biology and Fertility
Établissements canadiensSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFertility preservationMedicineEndocrine systemGynecologyPregnancyFertilityBreast cancerObstetricsCancerOncologyPopulationInternal medicineHormoneBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The POSITIVE trial recently demonstrated that temporary interruption of ET to attempt pregnancy does not increase the short-term risk of recurrence in pts with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) BC. Yet, uncertainty exists regarding the safety of ovarian stimulation for embryo/oocyte cryopreservation to preserve fertility in these pts. In addition, very limited data exist regarding safety and efficiency of ART to achieve pregnancy after ET interruption. Methods: POSITIVE is an international, single-arm, prospective trial that enrolled pts ≤ 42 years with stage I-III HR+ BC who had already received 18-30 months of ET prior to enrollment. The use of ART was a predefined 2ry endpoint. We evaluated factors associated with time to pregnancy in a Fine and Gray competing risks model, which included chemotherapy (chemo) ± GnRH analogue (GnRHa), age, prior ET, prior birth, and menstrual status at enrollment. The cumulative incidence of pregnancy at 12 months from enrollment by age was estimated controlling for competing risks. We performed a logistic regression model to evaluate whether ART use was associated with achieving pregnancy, adjusting for age, receipt of chemo ± GnRHa. The cumulative incidence of BCFI events was estimated according to whether or not ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation was performed at diagnosis and prior to enrollment. BC-free interval (BCFI) was defined as the time from enrollment until the first BC event (invasive local, regional, or distant recurrence or contralateral disease). A 24-month landmark analysis was performed to investigate the safety of ART use after enrollment. Median follow-up was 41 months. Results: 497 out of 516 included pts (96%) were followed for at least 6 months and were evaluable for pregnancy status. 368 out of 497 evaluable pts (74%) reported at least one pregnancy. In a multivariable model, young age was the only factor associated with shorter time to pregnancy. The cumulative incidence of pregnancy at 12 months was 64%, 54% and 38% for pts aged < 35, 35-39 and 40-42 years, respectively. 179 pts (36.0%) had undergone ovarian stimulation for embryo/oocyte cryopreservation at diagnosis and prior to enrollment, of whom 68 (37.9%) reported cryopreserved embryo transfer after enrollment. 215 pts (43.3%) reported using any ART after enrollment, of whom 80 (37.2%) underwent ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization (FIVET) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Other ART used included clomiphene (n=19), intrauterine insemination (n=37) and egg donation (n=17). Pregnancy rates were 82.4% and 67.5% for women who underwent cryopreserved embryo transfer and FIVET/ICSI, respectively. In a multivariate model, cryopreserved embryo transfer was the only ART independently associated with a higher chance of pregnancy (OR:2.41, 95% CI: 1.75-4.95). The cumulative incidence of BCFI events at 3 years was similar for women who underwent ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation at diagnosis and before enrollment, 9.7% (95% CI: 6.0-15.4%), and those who did not, 8.7% (95% CI: 6.0-12.5%). A 24-month landmark analysis showed no impact of ovarian stimulation for FIVET/ICSI after enrollment on BCFI. Conclusions: This is the largest prospective study to investigate fertility preservation and ART in pts with HR+ BC. Young age was the main factor associated with shorter time to pregnancy. Embryo/oocyte cryopreservation at BC diagnosis followed by embryo transfer after ET interruption was the only approach associated with an increased chance of pregnancy. Ovarian stimulation either at BC diagnosis for embryo/oocyte cryopreservation or after enrollment to POSITIVE for FIVET/ICSI did not appear to impact prognosis in the short term. These data are of paramount importance for oncofertility counselling of young BC pts. Citation Format: Hatem Azim, Samuel Niman, Ann Partridge, Isabelle Demeestere, Monica Ruggeri, Marco Colleoni, Cristina Saura, Chikako Shimizu, Anna Saetersdal, Judith Kroep, Audrey Mailliez, Ellen Warner, Virginia Borges, Frédéric Amant, Andrea Gombos, Akemi Kataoka, Christine Rousset-Jablonski, Simona Borstnar, Junko Takei, Jeong Eon Lee, Janice Walshe, Manuel Ruíz - Borrego, Halle Moore, Christobel Saunders, Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Snezana Susnjar, Fatima Cardoso, Natalie Klar, Tanya Spanic, Kathryn Ruddy, Martine Piccart, Larissa Korde, Aron Goldhirsch, Richard Gelber, Olivia Pagani, Fedro Alessandro Peccatori. Fertility preservation and assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in breast cancer (BC) patients (pts) interrupting endocrine therapy (ET) to attempt pregnancy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr GS02-11.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,131
Tête enseignante GPT0,446
Écart entre enseignants0,315 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Research→Même sujetReproductive Biology and Fertility→Travaux en français237 207→