Outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in women with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 36342891
- PMCID: PMC9825268
- DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac235
Outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in women with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Keywords: IVF/ICSI outcome; assisted reproduction; cancer survivors; female infertility; oocyte maturation; ovarian stimulation; pregnancy.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Cumulative live birth rates after one ART cycle including all subsequent frozen-thaw cycles in 1050 women: secondary outcome of an RCT comparing GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist protocols.Hum Reprod. 2017 Mar 1;32(3):556-567. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew358. Hum Reprod. 2017. PMID: 28130435 Clinical Trial.
-
Impact of letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation on oocyte yield, embryo development, and live birth rate in women with normal ovarian reserve: secondary outcomes from the RIOT trial.Hum Reprod. 2023 Nov 2;38(11):2154-2165. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dead182. Hum Reprod. 2023. PMID: 37699851 Clinical Trial.
-
Assisted reproductive technology use and outcomes among women with a history of cancer.Hum Reprod. 2016 Jan;31(1):183-9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev288. Epub 2015 Nov 17. Hum Reprod. 2016. PMID: 26577302 Free PMC article.
-
Higher probability of live-birth in high, but not normal, responders after first frozen-embryo transfer in a freeze-only cycle strategy compared to fresh-embryo transfer: a meta-analysis.Hum Reprod. 2019 Mar 1;34(3):491-505. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey388. Hum Reprod. 2019. PMID: 30689865
-
Day 5 versus Day 6 blastocyst transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.Hum Reprod. 2019 Oct 2;34(10):1948-1964. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez163. Hum Reprod. 2019. PMID: 31644803 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Artificial Reproductive Technology Use and Family-Building Experiences of Female Adult Childhood Cancer Survivors: A Qualitative Study.Curr Oncol. 2025 Jun 25;32(7):369. doi: 10.3390/curroncol32070369. Curr Oncol. 2025. PMID: 40710180 Free PMC article.
-
Patients with gynecological malignancies are similar to other IVF patients without cancer for clinical and molecular reproductive parameters and DNA damage response pattern.Sci Rep. 2024 Jun 13;14(1):13628. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-64403-y. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38871783 Free PMC article.
-
Fertility preservation and in vitro fertilization (IVF) success rates after cancer.JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2025 Jul 1;9(4):pkaf057. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkaf057. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2025. PMID: 40493833 Free PMC article.
-
Reproductive outcomes of embryo cryopreservation and transfer at the start-up phase of fertility preservation in Japan.Reprod Med Biol. 2024 Jun 19;23(1):e12581. doi: 10.1002/rmb2.12581. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec. Reprod Med Biol. 2024. PMID: 38899000 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Arecco L, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, Ceppi M, Latocca MM, Marrocco C, Boutros A, Spagnolo F, Razeti MG, Favero D, et al.Safety of fertility preservation techniques before and after anticancer treatments in young women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2022;37:954–968. - PMC - PubMed
-
- Almog B, Azem F, Gordon D, Pauzner D, Amit A, Barkan G, Levin I.. Effects of cancer on ovarian response in controlled ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation. Fertil Steril 2012;98:957–960. - PubMed
-
- Barton SE, Missmer SA, Berry KF, Ginsburg ES.. Female cancer survivors are low responders and have reduced success compared with other patients undergoing assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2012;97:381–386. - PubMed
-
- Ben-Haroush A, Wertheimer A, Klochendler E, Sapir O, Shufaro Y, Oron G.. Effect of letrozole added to gonadotropins in controlled ovarianstimulation protocols on the yield and maturity of retrieved oocytes. Gynecol Endocrinol 2019;35:324–327. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous