EDITORIALmenstruation cycle. Women who require chemotherapy tion in male patients who are receiving palliati...
of 2

Preservación de la fertilidad clínica mayo

Published on: Mar 4, 2016
Published in: Health & Medicine      

Transcripts - Preservación de la fertilidad clínica mayo

  • 1. EDITORIAL EDITORIAL January 2011 Volume 86 Number 1 Mayo Clinic Proceedings Should Oncologists Routinely Discuss Fertility Preservation With Cancer Patients of Childbearing Age?I n June 2006, the American Society of Clinical Oncol- ogy published guidelines to improve the clinical prac-tices of oncologists when they address fertility preserva- their cancer patients of childbearing age to a reproductive endocrinologist. In another survey of academic medical centers, 95% of oncologists reported thattion in and counseling of cancer patients.1 An expert panel they routinely discuss the effect that treat- See alsoagreed that any oncologist who sees fertile patients who ment may have on patients’ fertility, but only page 45are considering cancer therapy should address potential 39% routinely referred patients to a specialisttreatment-induced infertility before starting therapy. The in reproductive medicine.3 Regarding sperm conservation,panel reviewed extensive fertility preservation literature 91% of oncologists agreed it should be offered to eligiblefrom 1987 to 2005 and realized the paucity of large and/or men, but only 10% reported actually offering it.4randomized studies. As such, the proposed guidelines were Against this background, the article by Jensen et al5 inderived predominantly from cohort studies, case series, this issue of provides an excel-small nonrandomized clinical trials, and case reports. The lent review of contemporary fertility preservation strategiesmethods proven most efficacious to preserve fertility were and associated issues for individuals with cancer or othersperm cryopreservation in males and embryo cryopreser- serious illnesses. The article focuses on 4 key messages.vation in females. The panel did not attempt to review andquantify risks to fertility from various cancers and specific THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF CANCER TREATMENTtreatments. The consensus was that oncologists should dis- ON FUTURE FERTILITYcuss infertility as a potential risk of therapy. Additionally, Although the consensus is that cancer therapy can result inoncologists should answer basic questions about whether infertility, research data are insufficient to identify the riskfertility preservation options decrease the chance of suc- of each agent and/or regimen because of the complexity ofcessful cancer treatment, increase the risk of maternal variables involved. The effects of chemotherapy and radia-or perinatal complications, or compromise the health of tion therapy on fertility depend on the individual drug(s)offspring. Furthermore, oncologists should refer appropri- and/or size and location of the radiation field, overall dose,ate patients to reproductive specialists and practitioners of dose intensity, method of administration, disease, age, sex,psychosocial care.1 and pretreatment fertility of the patient. Most of the avail- Despite these guidelines that were designed to increase able literature that quantifies infertility risks reports ratesawareness and influence clinical practice, several national of azoospermia and amenorrhea, although these are onlysurveys have shown that oncologists are still not discussing surrogate measures of infertility. In addition, infertility risktreatment-associated fertility risks with patients and are data for patients undergoing newer chemotherapy regimensnot referring patients to reproductive specialists. In a na- and receiving targeted biologic agents are scant.1tional survey published in 2009, Quinn et al2 reported thatonly 47% of health care professionals routinely referred FERTILITY PRESERVATION OPTIONS Since 2006, new fertility preservation options have been introduced for both males and females, as outlined byAddress correspondence to Axel Grothey, MD, Division of Medical Oncology,Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (grothey.axel@mayo Jensen et al. However, in females, the most proven method,.edu). embryo cryopreservation, requires a 2- to 6-week delay© 2011 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research of chemotherapy, depending on the timing of the patient’s6 For personal use. Mass reproduce only with permission from Mayo Clinic Proceedings. a
  • 2. EDITORIALmenstruation cycle. Women who require chemotherapy tion in male patients who are receiving palliative care andmore urgently have the option of medical suppression of who desire offspring? Another issue that complicates deci-ovarian function to mitigate the effect of chemotherapy. sion making is that adoption agencies may discriminateHowever, this option is less well proven and at best merely against cancer survivors.12 Additionally, there is uncertaintyincreases the probability of resuming menses after therapy, about who should pay for fertility preservation. Althoughwhich does not equate with fertility potential.6 Of theo- most of the techniques are not covered by insurance, finan-retical concern (but potentially important) is the relapse cial support may be available from agencies such as theof hormonally sensitive tumors after subsequent ovarian “Sharing Hope” program (www.fertilehope.org).stimulation. Azim et al7 prospectively studied 79 womenusing letrozole for ovarian stimulation. Although they Shawnta L. Coleman, MDfound no increased risk of tumor recurrence, it is doubtful Axel Grothey, MDthat their study provided sufficient power to confidently Division of Medical Oncologycounsel patients. Mayo Clinic Rochester, MNPREGNANCY AFTER CANCER THERAPYThere is concern that pregnancy increases the risk of re- 1. Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Recommendations on Fertility Preservation in Cancer Patients [pub-current hormonally responsive tumors like breast cancer. lished correction appears in 2006;20;24(36):5790]. .The best available data are from large retrospective epide- 2006;24(18):2917-2931.miological studies conducted in Scandinavia that identified 2. Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, Lee JH, et al. Physician referral for fertility preservation in oncology patients: a national study of practice behaviors.no increased risk of breast cancer recurrence.8-10 Unfortu- . 2009;27(35):5952-5957.nately, no properly designed prospective studies exist to 3. Forman EJ, Anders CK, Behera MA. A nationwide survey of oncolo- gists regarding treatment-related infertility and fertility preservation in femalesupport this notion. cancer patients. . 2010;94(5):1652-1656. 4. Schover LR, Brey K, Lichtin A, Lipshultz LI, Jeha S. Oncologists’ at-FERTILITY PRESERVATION AS AN EMERGING DISCIPLINE titudes and practices regarding banking sperm before cancer treatment. . 2002;20(7):1890-1897.Currently, there are many unresolved issues related to fer- 5. Jensen JR, Morbeck DE, Coddington CC III. Fertility preservation.tility preservation in oncology patients. Cancer survivors Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86(1):45-49. 6. Ben-Aharon I, Gafter-Gvili A, Leibovici L, Stemmer SM. Pharmacologi-face risks of relapse and secondary malignancies. In this cal interventions for fertility preservation during chemotherapy: a systematiccontext, the risks of fertility preservation strategies are review and meta-analysis. . 2010;122(3):803-811.largely unknown. Some patients inherently have a higher 7. Azim AA, Costantini-Ferrando M, Oktay K. Safety of fertility preserva- tion by ovarian stimulation with letrozole and gonadotropins in patients withrisk of relapse by virtue of their age alone, and this in turn breast cancer: a prospective controlled study. . 2008;26(16):affects their long-term mortality. A retrospective study that 2630-2635. 8. Hemminki K, Försti A, Sundquist J, Ji J. Risk of familial breast can-evaluated more than 200,000 women in a SEER (Surveil- cer is not increased after pregnancy. . 2007;108(3):lance Epidemiology and End Results) database of patients 417-420. 9. Kroman N, Jensen MB, Wohlfahrt J, Ejlertsen B. Pregnancy after treat-diagnosed as having breast cancer between 1988 and 2003 ment of breast cancer: a population-based study on behalf of Danish Breastshowed that women younger than 40 years were 39% more Cancer Cooperative Group. . 2008;47(4):545-549.likely to die than were older patients.11 10. Kroman N, Jensen MB, Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Mouridsen HT. Should women be advised against pregnancy after breast-cancer treatment? . Optimal counseling for patients with a high risk of cancer 1997;350(9074):319-322.recurrence and mortality is unclear. Is it ethical to recom- 11. Anders CK, Johnson R, Litton J, Phillips M, Bleyer A. Breast cancer before age 40 years. . 2009;36(3):237-249.mend fertility preservation with such knowledge on overall 12. Rosen A. Third-party reproduction and adoption in cancer patients.prognosis? Is it ethical to recommend semen cryopreserva- . 2005;(34):91-93. 7 For personal use. Mass reproduce only with permission from Mayo Clinic Proceedings. a

Related Documents