MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertility preservationMedicineEndocrine systemGynecologyPregnancyFertilityBreast cancerObstetricsCancerOncologyPopulationInternal medicineHormoneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicReproductive Biology and Fertility→French-language works237,207→