Delaying cancer treatment for fertility preservation did not affect outcomes

SALT LAKE CITY – Delaying cancer treatment to allow women to undergo fertility preservation did not affect long-term cancer outcomes, suggest the findings from a retrospective study of more than 500 patients.

Over a median of 3.7 years of follow-up, 2.3% of patients who elected fertility preservation developed recurrent cancer, compared with 5.3% of patients who did not undergo fertility preservation (P = .09), according to Molly Moravek, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and her associates.

Survival rates were 97.7% for patients who underwent fertility preservation and 94.1% for those who did not (P = .05), the investigators reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“Pursuing fertility preservation results in minimal delays to initiation of cancer treatment and is unlikely to be clinically significant,” the investigators wrote. “There is no evidence of increased recurrence or mortality in fertility preservation patients versus controls, suggesting fertility preservation is safe for eligible cancer patients.”

Progress in cancer detection and survival has sharpened the focus on quality of life issues, including fertility preservation, the researchers said. But oncologists and patients themselves have raised concerns about postponing cancer treatment for this reason, and some have recommended shortening the delay by triggering ovarian stimulation regardless of the phase of the menstrual cycle – known as the “random start” protocol.

To explore these issues, the researchers reviewed the charts of all 553 cancer patients who had used the online patient navigator for fertility preservation at Northwestern University from 2006 to 2015.

A total of 213 patients pursued fertility preservation, while 340 did not. Undergoing fertility preservation postponed treatment of breast, hematologic, gynecologic, and other cancers by an average of 10 days, but this delay did not translate to worse recurrence rates or mortality, either overall or for any cancer subtype.

Cycle outcomes were similar between the 117 patients who underwent random-start protocols and the 23 patients underwent cycle-specific protocols, the investigators reported. Both protocols were associated with similar numbers of oocytes retrieved, numbers of mature oocytes, peak serum estradiol levels, days of stimulation, and times to cancer treatment.

The Northwestern Memorial Foundation supported the work. Dr. Moravek reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SALT LAKE CITY – Delaying cancer treatment to allow women to undergo fertility preservation did not affect long-term cancer outcomes, suggest the findings from a retrospective study of more than 500 patients.

Over a median of 3.7 years of follow-up, 2.3% of patients who elected fertility preservation developed recurrent cancer, compared with 5.3% of patients who did not undergo fertility preservation (P = .09), according to Molly Moravek, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and her associates.

Survival rates were 97.7% for patients who underwent fertility preservation and 94.1% for those who did not (P = .05), the investigators reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“Pursuing fertility preservation results in minimal delays to initiation of cancer treatment and is unlikely to be clinically significant,” the investigators wrote. “There is no evidence of increased recurrence or mortality in fertility preservation patients versus controls, suggesting fertility preservation is safe for eligible cancer patients.”

Progress in cancer detection and survival has sharpened the focus on quality of life issues, including fertility preservation, the researchers said. But oncologists and patients themselves have raised concerns about postponing cancer treatment for this reason, and some have recommended shortening the delay by triggering ovarian stimulation regardless of the phase of the menstrual cycle – known as the “random start” protocol.

To explore these issues, the researchers reviewed the charts of all 553 cancer patients who had used the online patient navigator for fertility preservation at Northwestern University from 2006 to 2015.

A total of 213 patients pursued fertility preservation, while 340 did not. Undergoing fertility preservation postponed treatment of breast, hematologic, gynecologic, and other cancers by an average of 10 days, but this delay did not translate to worse recurrence rates or mortality, either overall or for any cancer subtype.

Cycle outcomes were similar between the 117 patients who underwent random-start protocols and the 23 patients underwent cycle-specific protocols, the investigators reported. Both protocols were associated with similar numbers of oocytes retrieved, numbers of mature oocytes, peak serum estradiol levels, days of stimulation, and times to cancer treatment.

The Northwestern Memorial Foundation supported the work. Dr. Moravek reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SALT LAKE CITY – Delaying cancer treatment to allow women to undergo fertility preservation did not affect long-term cancer outcomes, suggest the findings from a retrospective study of more than 500 patients.

Over a median of 3.7 years of follow-up, 2.3% of patients who elected fertility preservation developed recurrent cancer, compared with 5.3% of patients who did not undergo fertility preservation (P = .09), according to Molly Moravek, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and her associates.

Survival rates were 97.7% for patients who underwent fertility preservation and 94.1% for those who did not (P = .05), the investigators reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“Pursuing fertility preservation results in minimal delays to initiation of cancer treatment and is unlikely to be clinically significant,” the investigators wrote. “There is no evidence of increased recurrence or mortality in fertility preservation patients versus controls, suggesting fertility preservation is safe for eligible cancer patients.”

Progress in cancer detection and survival has sharpened the focus on quality of life issues, including fertility preservation, the researchers said. But oncologists and patients themselves have raised concerns about postponing cancer treatment for this reason, and some have recommended shortening the delay by triggering ovarian stimulation regardless of the phase of the menstrual cycle – known as the “random start” protocol.

To explore these issues, the researchers reviewed the charts of all 553 cancer patients who had used the online patient navigator for fertility preservation at Northwestern University from 2006 to 2015.

A total of 213 patients pursued fertility preservation, while 340 did not. Undergoing fertility preservation postponed treatment of breast, hematologic, gynecologic, and other cancers by an average of 10 days, but this delay did not translate to worse recurrence rates or mortality, either overall or for any cancer subtype.

Cycle outcomes were similar between the 117 patients who underwent random-start protocols and the 23 patients underwent cycle-specific protocols, the investigators reported. Both protocols were associated with similar numbers of oocytes retrieved, numbers of mature oocytes, peak serum estradiol levels, days of stimulation, and times to cancer treatment.

The Northwestern Memorial Foundation supported the work. Dr. Moravek reported having no relevant financial disclosures.