Ovarian Function and Fertility Preservation in Breast Cancer: Should Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist be administered to All Premenopausal Patients Receiving Chemotherapy?

Abstract

Chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) is one of the potential drawbacks of chemotherapy use of particular concern for newly diagnosed premenopausal breast cancer patients. Temporary ovarian suppression obtained pharmacologically with the administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) during chemotherapy has been specifically developed as a method to counteract chemotherapy-induced gonadotoxicity with the main goal of diminishing the risk of POI. In recent years, important clinical evidence has become available on the efficacy and safety of this strategy that should now be considered a standard option for ovarian function preservation in premenopausal breast cancer patients, including women who are not interested in conceiving after treatment or that would not be candidates for fertility preservation strategies because of their age. Nevertheless, in women interested in fertility preservation, this is not an alternative to gamete cryopreservation, which remains as the first option to be offered. In this setting, temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy should be also proposed following gamete cryopreservation or to women who have no access, refuse, or have contraindications to surgical fertility preservation techniques. In this article, we present an overview about the role of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy in breast cancer patients by addressing the available clinical evidence with the aim of identifying both the best candidates for the use of this strategy and the still existing gray zones requiring further investigation.

Keywords

breast cancer ovarian function;fertility GnRHa premenopausal patients

Introduction

Breast cancer is responsible for the largest proportion of cancer diagnosis among young adult women.¹ The burden of breast cancer in young women appears to be on the rise and is of even more importance in certain parts of the world.^2–4 A significant proportion of young women with early breast cancer are candidates to receive chemotherapy as part of their treatment considering both the higher incidence of developing aggressive tumor subtypes and the tendency to be diagnosed at a more advanced stage.^5,6 In premenopausal women, one of the potential drawbacks of chemotherapy use is represented by its possible gonadal damage.⁷ The risk of developing chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) is of particular concern for young patients considering the potential significant negative impact on their quality of life, being associated with menopause-related symptoms, psychosocial issues, health problems, and infertility.⁸ In addition, since many women are now choosing to defer motherhood, a considerable proportion of them has not completed their family plans yet at the time of cancer diagnosis, but wish to do it after treatment completion.⁹ Recent data have helped to reassure patients and physicians on the safety of conceiving after prior history of breast cancer.^10–13 Therefore, discussing fertility and pregnancy-related issues with all newly diagnosed young patients is now considered mandatory before the initiation of anticancer treatments.^14–18

For women willing to preserve fertility, in order to have higher chances of conception after completing their treatment, embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are standard strategies and the first options to be proposed.^14–18 However, these techniques do no avoid the risk of chemotherapy-induced POI with its associated psychosocial and menopause-related concerns beyond infertility. Temporary ovarian suppression obtained pharmacologically with the administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) during chemotherapy has been specifically developed as a method to counteract chemotherapy-induced gonadotoxicity with the main goal of diminishing the risk of POI. Despite the existence of more than 30 years of research, the role of this strategy has remained highly debated.^19–27 In recent years, important clinical evidence has become available on the efficacy and safety of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy and this strategy is now recommended for premenopausal breast cancer patients who are candidates to systemic cytotoxic therapy.^16,18,28

In this article, we present an overview about the role of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy in breast cancer patients by addressing the available clinical evidence with the aim of identifying both the best candidates for the use of this strategy and the still existing gray zones requiring further investigation.

Clinical Evidence on the Role of GnRHa During Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer

Following the promising pivotal experimental studies by Ataya and colleagues in the 1980s,²⁹ the clinical development to demonstrate the protective gonadal effect of administering GnRHa during chemotherapy rapidly started.³⁰ Notably, most of the evidence on the topic derives from studies conducted in the breast cancer setting, with more limited data for women with other solid tumors or with hematological malignancies.³⁰

Initially, the potential protective gonadal effect of GnRHa use during chemotherapy was investigated in several observational and single-arm phase II trials.³¹ Overall, these studies suggested that the majority (70%-100%) of women treated with GnRHa during systemic cytotoxic therapy did not experience chemotherapy-induced POI, and more than 50 post-treatment pregnancies were described.³¹ Following these promising results, several randomized clinical trials were executed and pooled in different meta-analyses.

Randomized clinical trials in breast cancer patients

The largest amount of data from randomized clinical trials on the clinical efficacy of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function and potential fertility is available for premenopausal women with breast cancer. Fourteen randomized clinical trials have been performed in this setting (Table 1).^32–47

Table 1.

Randomized clinical trials in breast cancer patients assessing the role of temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist during chemotherapy.

Authors	POI definition (timing)	Number of patients	Main results (GnRHa vs control)	Protection
Li et al³²	Amenorrhea (12 months)	63	• POI rate: 32.1% vs 53.1% (P = .027)	YES
Badawy et al³³	Amenorrhea and no resumption of ovulation (8 months)	78	• POI rate: 11.4% vs 66.6% (P < .001)	YES
Sverrisdottir et al³⁴	Amenorrhea (up to 36 months)	94	• POI rate: 64% (93%) vs 90% (87%) (P = .006)	YES
Gerber et al³⁵	Amenorrhea (6 months)	60	• POI rate: 30% vs 43.3% (P = .142) Pregnancies: 1 vs 1	NO
Sun et al³⁶	Amenorrhea (12 months)	21	• POI rate: 27.3% vs 50.0% (P = .039)	YES
Del Mastro et al³⁷ and Lambertini et al⁴⁴	Amenorrhea and postmenopausal FSH and E2 levels (12 months)	281	• POI rate: 8.9% vs 25.9% (P < .001) Pregnancies: 8 vs 3 (P = .20)	YES
Munster et al³⁸	Amenorrhea (24 months)	49	• POI rate: 15% vs 14% (P = .32) Pregnancies: 0 vs 2	NO
Elgindy et al³⁹	Amenorrhea (12 months)	100	• POI rate: 20%/16% vs 20%/20% (P = 1.00/P = .71) Pregnancies: 2 vs 1	NO
Song et al⁴⁰	Amenorrhea and postmenopausal FSH and E2 levels (12 months)	183	• POI rate: 16.9% vs 28.7% (P < .01)	YES
Jiang et al⁴¹	Amenorrhea (NR)	21	• POI rate: 10.0% vs 45.5% (P = .05)	YES
Karimi-Zarchi et al⁴²	Amenorrhea (6 months)	42	• POI rate: 9.5% vs 66.7% (P < .001)	YES
Moore et al⁴³ and Moore et al⁴⁷	Amenorrhea and postmenopausal FSH levels (24 months)	218	• POI rate: 8% vs 22% (P = .04) Pregnancies: 23 vs 13 (P = .04)	YES
Leonard et al⁴⁵	Amenorrhea and postmenopausal FSH levels (between 12 and 24 months)	221	• POI rate: 18.5% vs 34.8% (P = .048) Pregnancies: 7 vs 5	YES
Zhang et al⁴⁶	Amenorrhea and postmenopausal FSH and E2 levels (36-72 months)	216	• POI rate: 23.1% vs 22.8% (P = .969)	NO

Abbreviations: E2, estradiol; FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; GnRHa, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist; NR, not reported; POI, premature ovarian insufficiency.

Patients included in these studies had a median age close to 40 years and often received anthracycline- and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Goserelin was the GnRHa administered in the majority of the studies (n = 8), followed by triptorelin (n = 5), and leuprolide acetate (n = 1). Most of these studies were also characterized by the following features: (1) small sample size (ie, less than 100 randomized patients); (2) definition of chemotherapy-induced POI based only on menstrual function after treatment; (3) variable timing for POI evaluation ranging from 6 months up to more than 5 years after chemotherapy completion. Notably, the largest trials providing the highest level of evidence on this regard (PROMISE-GIM6,^37,44 POEMS/SWOG S0230,^43,47 and Anglo Celtic Group OPTION⁴⁵) were characterized by a large sample size (more than 200 included patients) and defined chemotherapy-induced POI using a composite endpoint (ie, amenorrhea and postmenopausal hormonal levels) not earlier than 1 year after the end of chemotherapy.

With the exception of 4 trials, all the other studies showed that concurrent use of GnRHa during chemotherapy is associated with a significant reduction in POI risk. Specifically, the 3 largest trials (PROMISE-GIM6,^37,44 POEMS/SWOG S0230,^43,47 and Anglo Celtic Group OPTION⁴⁵) reported very similar results: the use of GnRHa during chemotherapy was associated with a significant 15% absolute reduction (from approximately 25% to less than 10%) in POI rates after chemotherapy. The only large trial showing no protective effect was the study by Zhang and colleagues; notably, in this trial, all patients received GnRHa and were randomized between its sequential or simultaneous administration with chemotherapy.⁴⁶ Therefore, the results on POI rates after chemotherapy should be considered with cautious also considering that patients in the two treatment arms received a different duration of GnRHa treatment (ranging between 2 and 5 years), the timepoint for the assessment of POI was highly variable, and only amenorrhea data were reported (despite the primary endpoint of POI was defined with a composite endpoint of amenorrhea and postmenopausal hormonal levels).²⁵

Despite the more consistent results in terms of protective effects in reducing POI risk, the evidence on the fertility preservation potential of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy remains more limited. The POEMS/SWOG S0230 trial was the only study with post-treatment pregnancies as a pre-planned secondary endpoint.^43,47 Notably, none of the studies was powered to detect differences in this outcome, wish for conceiving was not an inclusion criteria, and follow-up at the time of reporting chemotherapy-induced POI (ie, their primary endpoint) was relatively short. Therefore, they had limited possibility to assess post-treatment pregnancies considering both the inclusion of premenopausal patients older than 40 years at the time of diagnosis, as well as the fact that an adequate follow-up time to record post-treatment pregnancies is of particular importance for breast cancer patients who are often also candidates to 5-10 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy.^16,48–51 Nevertheless, taking into account these limitations, the POEMS/SWOG S0230 trial was the only trial among those reporting on post-treatment pregnancies showing that the use of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy was associated with a significant higher number of patients conceiving after the end of treatment.^43,47 More post-treatment pregnancies in patients treated with GnRHa during chemotherapy were also observed in the updated analysis of the PROMISE-GIM6 trial⁴⁴ and the Anglo Celtic Group OPTION study,⁴⁵ but the absolute numbers were small and no significant difference could be detected. Notably, none of these analyses were adjusted for pregnancy desire (this information was available only for a minority of randomized patients).

When discussing the role of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during systemic cytotoxic therapy in breast cancer patients and particularly in those with estrogen receptor-positive disease, two safety concerns have been raised: a potential antagonism with the concurrent administration of an endocrine agent during chemotherapy and the possible negative prognostic effect of preventing POI occurrence.⁵² However, recent evidence has helped to clarify and reassure physicians and patients on these two issues.

Regarding the potential antagonism between endocrine agents and chemotherapy, it should be noted that this has been shown only for tamoxifen in preclinical studies,⁵³ but it has not been confirmed in clinical trials.⁵⁴ No data are available to suggest a potential negative interaction between ovarian suppression and chemotherapy. On the contrary, results from randomized clinical trials did not demonstrate any difference in the prognosis of patients who received chemotherapy with or without concurrent pharmacological or surgical ovarian suppression.^55–57 This has recently been confirmed in the TEXT and SOFT trials showing similar survival outcomes with concurrent or sequential administration of GnRHa in premenopausal breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-positive disease.⁵⁸

Regarding the second safety issue, it is known that chemotherapy-induced POI has a strong positive prognostic value in premenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.^59,60 As shown in the SOFT trial, prolonging ovarian suppression for a total duration of 5 years in this setting is beneficial,⁶¹ and it is endorsed by currently available guidelines.^16,49,51 This concern can be addressed with the possibility to prolong the administration of GnRHa as part of adjuvant endocrine treatment. The two randomized clinical trials that investigated temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy, also in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer and with sufficient follow-up to assess survival outcomes, confirmed the lack of negative prognostic impact for GnRHa administration during systemic cytotoxic therapy.^44,46 However, in both studies, the majority of the patients with estrogen receptor-positive disease received GnRHa as part of their adjuvant endocrine therapy in the case of ovarian function resumption after chemotherapy.^44,46 Reassuring data on the safety of administering GnRHa during chemotherapy also in women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer have been reported in other large retrospective studies.^62–64

Therefore, based on all these findings, it can be concluded that the administration of GnRHa during chemotherapy does not negatively interact with systemic cytotoxic therapy. However, it is preferable to prolong its use up to 5 years after diagnosis as adjuvant endocrine therapy in women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.^16,49,51

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials including breast cancer patients

Over the past years, the results from the available randomized clinical trials have been summarized in several meta-analyses (Table 2).^65–82 Notably, the first meta-analyses included also prospective non-randomized studies. Eight of these meta-analyses were restricted to breast cancer trials while the others also included patients with autoimmune diseases and/or hematological malignancies and/or ovarian cancer.

Table 2.

Meta-analyses including randomized clinical trials in breast cancer patients assessing the role of temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist during chemotherapy.

Authors	Included diseases other than breast cancer	No. included studies (no. patients)	Main results (GnRHa vs control)	Protection
Ben-Aharon et al⁶⁵	Autoimmune disease, HL and NHL	16^a (681)	• POI: RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.49 • POI (RCTs only): RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22-1.38 • Pregnancies: 47 (22%) vs 25 (12%); RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.01-2.28 • Pregnancies (RCTs only): 2 (4%) vs 9 (18%); RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.10-1.08	YES (NO in RCTs)
Kim et al⁶⁶	Autoimmune disease, HL and NHL	11^b (654)	• POI rate: 10% vs 53%; OR 10.57, 95% CI 5.22-21.39 • POI (RCTs only): 13% vs 57%; OR 5.76, 95% CI 0.47-71.03	YES
Bedaiwy et al⁶⁷	Ovarian cancer, and HL	6 (340)	• POI rate: 43% vs 65%; OR 3.46, 95% CI 1.13-10.57 • Pregnancies: 1 (2%) vs 4 (7%); OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.07-2.59	YES (NO for pregnancy)
Chen et al⁶⁸	Ovarian cancer and HL	4 (157)	• POI rate: 6% vs 55%; RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.33-2.70 • Pregnancies: 0 (0%) vs 2 (13%); RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01-4.09	YES (NO for pregnancy)
Yang et al⁶⁹	-	5 (528)	• POI: RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.75 • Pregnancies: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.20-4.56	YES (NO for pregnancy)
Wang et al⁷⁰	-	7 (677)	• POI: OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.52-5.25	YES
Sun et al⁷¹	Ovarian cancer, and HL	8 (621)	• POI rate: 10% vs 27%; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.92 • Pregnancies: 6 (2%) vs 6 (3%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.33-2.61	YES (NO for pregnancy)
Del Mastro et al⁷²	Ovarian cancer, HL and NHL	9 (765)	• POI rate: 22% vs 37%; OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22-0.84 • Pregnancies: 10 vs 3	YES
Vitek et al⁷³	-^c	4 (252)	• POI rate: 24% vs 27%; OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.60-3.62	NO
Elgindy et al⁷⁴	Ovarian cancer, HL and NHL	10 (907)	• POI rate: 32% vs 40%; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99-1.27 • Pregnancies: 30 (7%) vs 20 (5%); RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.94-2.82	NO
Shen et al⁷⁵	-	11 (1062)	• POI rate: 30% vs 45%; OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.65-4.01 • Pregnancies: 26 (9%) vs 16 (6%); OR 1.77, 95% CI 0.92-3.40	YES (NO for pregnancy)
Lambertini et al⁷⁶	-	12 (1231)	• POI rate: 19% vs 34%; OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.57 • Pregnancies: 33 (9%) vs 19 (6%); OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.02-3.28	YES
Munhoz et al⁷⁷	-	7 (856)	• POI rate at 6 months: 26% vs 43%; OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.40-4.15 • POI rate at 12-24 months: 26% vs 37%; OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.33-2.59 • Pregnancies: OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.02-3.36	YES
Silva et al⁷⁸	-	7 (1002)^d	• POI rate: 26% vs 39%; OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.18-3.47	YES
Bai et al⁷⁹	Ovarian cancer	15 (1540)^d	• POI rate: 23% vs 43%; OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.19-1.56 • Pregnancies: 34 (7%) vs 19 (4%); OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.06-3.41	YES
Senra et al⁸⁰	HL and NHL	13 (1208)	• POI rate: 20% vs 34%; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.79 • Pregnancies: 57 (11%) vs 42 (8%); RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.01-2.02	YES
Hickman et al⁸¹	Ovarian cancer, HL and NHL	10 (1051)	• POI rate: 29% vs 39%; OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.34-2.49	YES
Lambertini et al⁸²	-	5 (873)^e	• POI rate: 14% vs 31%; OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.57 • Pregnancies: 37 (10%) vs 20 (6%); IRR 1.83, 95% CI 1.06-3.15	YES

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; GnRHa, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist; HL, Hodgkin lymphoma; IRR, incidence rate ratio; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; OR, odds ratio; POI, premature ovarian insufficiency; RCT, randomized clinical trial; RR, relative risk/risk ratio/rate ratio.

Five out of 16 were RCTs

Three out of 11 were RCTs

Data from breast cancer patients with hormone receptor-negative disease only.

Data from the original publication³⁷ and the updated analysis⁴⁴ of the PROMISE-GIM6 trial were considered twice instead of as from the same study.

Meta-analysis based on individual patient-level data.

A protective effect of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy therapy in reducing POI risk was observed in all but two meta-analyses with a more pronounced and clearer benefit observed in those that included only the trials conducted in the breast cancer setting. The most recent meta-analyses including a higher number of patients and the largest trials showed not only a reduction in the risk of chemotherapy-induced POI, but also a significantly higher rate of post-treatment pregnancies in premenopausal women treated with GnRHa during chemotherapy.

The largest meta-analysis performed to summarize the results of the breast cancer trials showed positive results.⁷⁶ When pooling the results from 12 randomized clinical trials including 1231 breast cancer patients, the use of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy was associated with both reduced POI rates (15% absolute reduction [from 34% to 19%]; 64% relative reduction [odds ratio [OR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.57]) and increased chances of post-treatment pregnancies (33 vs 19; OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.02-3.28).⁷⁶ More recently, a meta-analysis including individual patient-level data from 873 patients randomized in the 5 major breast cancer trials showed similar results.⁸² Chemotherapy-induced POI rate was 14.1% in patients who received GnRHa and 30.9% in the control group (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.57). The protective effect of GnRHa administration was observed irrespectively of patients’ age at the time of treatment (including those older than 40 years), estrogen receptor status (including those with estrogen receptor-positive disease), type and duration of chemotherapy. In terms of fertility rates, 37 and 20 patients had at least one post-treatment pregnancy in the GnRHa and control groups, respectively (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.83, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.15). In addition, concurrent use of GnRHa during chemotherapy was associated with no impact on disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI 0.72-1.42) and a non-significant trend toward better overall survival (HR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.42-1.06). The safety of this approach was observed irrespectively of tumor estrogen receptor status.⁸²

When considering the results from the meta-analyses that were not restricted to breast cancer trials, the protective effect of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy was present in the overall population, but could not be observed for women with hematological malignancies. The largest meta-analysis, that also included lymphoma trials, pooled the results from 13 studies and a total of 1208 patients with breast cancer (n = 1099) and hematological malignancies (n = 109).⁸⁰ Globally, GnRHa administration was associated with a significantly reduced risk of chemotherapy-induced POI (POI rate: 20% vs 34%; relative risk [RR] 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.79), but this benefit did not persist in the subgroup analysis restricted to lymphoma patients (POI rate: 19% vs 32%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.20-2.47). More women treated with GnRHa had a post-treatment pregnancy (57 vs 42; RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.01-2.02), but the benefit was not observed in the subgroup of women with hematological malignancies (17 vs 18; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66-1.93).⁸⁰

The Still Missing Evidence in the Field

Despite all the research efforts conducted over the past 30 years and the evidence on the protective effect of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy shown in the recently published large trials, several gray zones remain in the field both overall and specifically for breast cancer patients.

First, it should be highlighted that the mechanisms by which GnRHa administration can protect ovarian function during chemotherapy are not yet fully elucidated.^30,83 None of the biological hypotheses including gonadotropin suppression, decrease of follicular recruitment, reduction in ovarian blood flow or direct effects on the ovaries have been clearly demonstrated by experimental studies.³⁰ Notably, the majority of the experimental data has been obtained with in vivo studies in rodents (ie, the most studied model in reproductive biology). However, extrapolating the results obtained from these studies to humans remains hazardous. Therefore, additional well-conducted research efforts in the field including species other than rodents are warranted in the next years.³⁰

Second, despite the consistent results observed in the trials conducted in the breast cancer setting, limited evidence exists on the role of this strategy to counsel women diagnosed with other tumors. The four randomized trials performed in women with hematological malignancies showed no protective effect for temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy.^84–88 However, it should be highlighted that all these studies had a small sample size with a total of approximately 150 patients when considered all together. Other large retrospective or prospective series have shown a potential protective effect of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy in preserving ovarian function and potential fertility also in women with hematological malignancies.^89–93 In women with solid tumors other than breast cancer, only one small randomized trial has assessed the role of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy in 30 young patients with ovarian cancer.⁹⁴ The study showed a significant reduction in the risk of chemotherapy-induced POI with the use of GnRHa during chemotherapy, but no information on post-treatment pregnancies was reported.⁹⁴

Third, limited evidence exists on the role of administering GnRHa during chemotherapy on patients’ ovarian reserve and on its long-term protective effect. Amenorrhea alone, as used in the majority of the randomized clinical trials that investigated this strategy, is not an optimal surrogate for defining POI development.⁹⁵ In fact, it has been shown that the use of chemotherapy can have a negative impact on a woman ovarian reserve leading to infertility and early menopause beyond the risk of acute POI.⁹⁶ Irrespectively of the primary endpoint definition of chemotherapy-induced POI used in the different randomized clinical trials conducted in this setting, none of them have reported age at menopause for patients who received chemotherapy with or without concurrent GnRHa. Long-term follow-up from the currently available randomized trials would be crucial to capture this important information. In addition, there is paucity of data on the actual protective effect of GnRHa treatment on patients’ ovarian reserve. A prospective study including 88 premenopausal breast cancer patients has recently shown that antral follicle count recovered faster and to a greater degree among women who received GnRHa during chemotherapy.⁹⁷ Nevertheless, so far, data on the dynamic of anti-mullerian hormone (AMH, a promising biomarker of chemotherapy-induced gonadal damage^98–101) during and after treatment are limited and mostly negative. Specifically, among the breast cancer trials with available information on patients’ hormonal profile, only a minority evaluated post-treatment AMH, which did not differ between women who received chemotherapy alone or with concurrent administration of GnRHa.^35,39,45 In women with hematological malignancies, the only exception was the trial by Demeestere and colleagues that showed higher post-treatment AMH levels in patients who received GnRHa during chemotherapy at 1-year follow-up (P = .040),⁸⁷ but no difference after 5 years (P = .520).⁸⁸ Ongoing prospective studies are currently investigating the hormonal profile including AMH in women receiving temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy.^102–104

Fourth, particularly important for breast cancer patients, there is lack of data on the efficacy and safety of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy in patients with hereditary cancer syndromes, such as those with pathogenic germline BRCA mutations.¹⁰⁵ To our knowledge, the only piece of information on this regard derives from the case series by Wong and colleagues in which out of 4 BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients receiving GnRHa during chemotherapy, 3 resumed menstrual function before undergoing prophylactic gynecological surgery.¹⁰⁶ Preclinical evidence suggests that the presence of BRCA mutations can be associated with decreased ovarian reserve as well as increased risk of fertility-related problems and primary ovarian insufficiency.¹⁰⁵ In breast cancer patients, although not confirmed by other studies,^107–109 some of the available data suggest the possible presence of reduced baseline ovarian reserve in BRCA-mutated patients with subsequent potential higher risk of developing chemotherapy-induced POI and reduced efficacy of fertility preservation procedures.^110–112 To acquire evidence on the protective effect of GnRHa administration during chemotherapy in this setting within the currently available randomized clinical trials would be of particular importance. However, these women are candidates to receive prophylactic gynecological surgery before the age of 40-45 years due to the significant risk of developing ovarian cancer.¹¹³ Therefore, temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy is not an optimal strategy in this setting, and it should be offered only to women diagnosed years before the age of recommended prophylactic gynecological surgery.¹⁰⁵

Conclusions

More than 30 years have passed since the publication of the first preclinical data suggesting a possible protective role of administering GnRHa during chemotherapy in order to preserve ovarian function and potential fertility in premenopausal cancer patients through systemic cytotoxic therapy.²⁹ In the last years, results from the largest randomized clinical trials conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of this strategy in premenopausal women with newly diagnosed early breast cancer have supported its protective role.^{43–45,76,82} Therefore, recent guidelines support the use of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy in this setting.^16,18,28 Indeed, this strategy is now available and covered in many countries.^28,114,115

Premenopausal patients interested in reducing the risk of developing chemotherapy-induced POI are the best candidates for this strategy irrespectively of their pregnancy desire and their age at diagnosis. In other words, temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy should be considered a standard strategy for ovarian function preservation in breast cancer patients. This strategy will impact on reducing the risk of menopausal signs and symptoms including loss of bone density in the long-term; these are issues of crucial importance also in premenopausal patients including women not interested in conceiving after treatment or not candidates to fertility preservation strategies because they are older than 40 years at diagnosis.

On the other hand, the role of this option as a strategy for fertility preservation is to be considered with more caution. In fact, although the most recent studies showed a significantly higher number of post-treatment pregnancies in the group of women who received GnRHa during chemotherapy,^43,76,82 more limited data are available as compared to those on POI so that no strong conclusions on this endpoint can be drawn to date. Therefore, in these patients, gamete cryopreservation remains the first option to be discussed, but temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy should be also proposed following this strategy or to women who have no access, refuse, or have contraindications to surgical fertility preservation techniques. For women who receive gamete cryopreservation followed by temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy, the type of agent to be used and the best timing for GnRHa administration (considering its potential use as trigger of follicular maturation instead of chorionic gonadotropin or short-acting GnRHa)⁸² are important to be clarified in the coming years.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ML acknowledges the support from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) for a Translational Research Fellowship at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels (Belgium). FR acknowledges the support from Les Amis de Bordet for a post-doctoral fellowship at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels (Belgium).

Funding:

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests:

ML served as a consultant for Teva and received honoraria from Theramex outside the submitted work. All remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Author Contributions

All the authors participated in the writing of this article.

ORCID iDs

Matteo Lambertini

François Richard

References

Fidler

Gupta

Soerjomataram

Ferlay

Steliarova-Foucher

Bray

Cancer incidence and mortality among young adults aged 20-39 years worldwide in 2012: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1579–1589.

Merlo

Ceppi

Filiberti

et al . Breast cancer incidence trends in European women aged 20-39 years at diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134:363–370.

Ghiasvand

Adami

H-O

Harirchi

Akrami

Zendehdel

Higher incidence of premenopausal breast cancer in less developed countries; myth or truth?

BMC Cancer. 2014;14:343.

Huang

Wen

Zheng

et al . Breast cancer incidence and mortality: trends over 40 years among women in Shanghai, China. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:1129-1134.

Poggio

Lambertini

Bighin

et al . Management of young women with early breast cancer. ESMO Open. 2018; 3(Suppl 1): e000458.

Lambertini

Pinto

Ameye

et al . The prognostic performance of Adjuvant! Online and Nottingham Prognostic Index in young breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2016;115:1471–1478.

Lambertini

Goldrat

Clatot

Demeestere

Awada

Controversies about fertility and pregnancy issues in young breast cancer patients: current state of the art. Curr Opin Oncol. 2017;29:243–252.

Howard-Anderson

Ganz

Bower

Stanton

AL.

Quality of life, fertility concerns, and behavioral health outcomes in younger breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:386–405.

Letourneau

Ebbel

Katz

et al . Pretreatment fertility counseling and fertility preservation improve quality of life in reproductive age women with cancer. Cancer. 2012;118:1710–1717.

10.

Hartman

Eslick

GD.

The prognosis of women diagnosed with breast cancer before, during and after pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160:347–360.

11.

Iqbal

Amir

Rochon

Giannakeas

Sun

Narod

SA.

Association of the timing of pregnancy with survival in women with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:659–665.

12.

Lambertini

Kroman

Ameye

et al . Long-term safety of pregnancy following breast cancer according to estrogen receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(4):426–429.

13.

Lambertini

Martel

Campbell

et al . Pregnancies during and after trastuzumab and/or lapatinib in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer: analysis from the NeoALTTO (BIG 1-06) and ALTTO (BIG 2-06) trials. Cancer. 2019;125(2):307–316.

14.

Kim

Donnez

Barri

et al . Recommendations for fertility preservation in patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and breast cancer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:465–468.

15.

Peccatori

Azim

Jr Orecchia

et al . Cancer, pregnancy and fertility: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:160–170.

16.

Paluch-Shimon

Pagani

Partridge

et al . ESO-ESMO 3rd international consensus guidelines for breast cancer in young women (BCY3). Breast. 2017;35:203–217.

17.

Martinez

, International Society for Fertility Preservation-ESHRE-ASRM Expert Working Group. Update on fertility preservation from the Barcelona International Society for Fertility Preservation-ESHRE-ASRM 2015 expert meeting: indications, results and future perspectives. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:407-415.e11.

18.

Oktay

Harvey

Partridge

et al . Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1994–2001.

19.

Turner

Partridge

Sanna

Di Leo

Biganzoli

Utility of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients: the benefit remains uncertain. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2224-2235.

20.

Blumenfeld

Katz

Evron

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”: the case for and against GnRH-agonist for fertility preservation. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1719–1728.

21.

Lambertini

Peccatori

Moore

Del Mastro

Reply to the letter to the editor ‘Can ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRHa) preserve fertility in cancer patients?’ by Rodriguez-Wallberg et al . Ann Oncol. 2016;27(3):548–549

22.

Lambertini

Falcone

Unger

Phillips

K-A

Del Mastro

Moore

HCF

. Debated role of ovarian protection with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy for preservation of ovarian function and fertility in women with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:804–805.

23.

Del Mastro

Lambertini

. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs for ovarian function protection during chemotherapy in young early breast cancer patients: the last piece of the puzzle? Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1683–1685.

24.

Blumenfeld

Fertility preservation by endocrine suppression of ovarian function using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists: the end of the controversy?

J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1895–1897.

25.

Poggio

Conte

Lambertini

. Treatment-induced early menopause and the protective role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy [published online ahead of print May 9, 2018]. Breast Cancer Res Treat. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4806-y.

26.

Blumenfeld

Reply to

. Turan et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:88–89.

27.

Lambertini

Partridge

Del Mastro

Reply to

. Turan et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(1):86–88.

28.

Lambertini

Cinquini

Moschetti

et al . Temporary ovarian suppression during chemotherapy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in breast cancer patients: a GRADE approach for evidence evaluation and recommendations by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2017;71:25–33.

29.

Ataya

McKanna

Weintraub

Clark

LeMaire

WJ.

A luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced ovarian follicular loss in rats. Cancer Res. 1985;45:3651–3656.

30.

Lambertini

Horicks

Del Mastro

Partridge

Demeestere

Ovarian protection with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy in cancer patients: from biological evidence to clinical application. Cancer Treat Rev. 2019;72:65–77.

31.

Del Mastro

Giraudi

Levaggi

Pronzato

. Medical approaches to preservation of fertility in female cancer patients. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2011;12:387–396.

32.

Huang

Liang

Tan

Lin

Effect of Zoladex administered before chemotherapy on menstruation of patients with breast cancer. Chin J Clin Oncol. 2008;35:905–907.

33.

Badawy

Elnashar

El-Ashry

Shahat

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for prevention of chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage: prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:694–697.

34.

Sverrisdottir

Nystedt

Johansson

Fornander

Adjuvant goserelin and ovarian preservation in chemotherapy treated patients with early breast cancer: results from a randomized trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117:561–567.

35.

Gerber

von Minckwitz

Stehle

et al . Effect of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist on ovarian function after modern adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: the GBG 37 ZORO study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2334–2341.

36.

Sun

Ren

Effect of Zoladex administered before chemotherapy on menstruation of patients with breast cancer. China Disabil Med. 2011;19:15–16.

37.

Del Mastro

Boni

Michelotti

et al . Effect of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin on the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced early menopause in premenopausal women with breast cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;306:269–276.

38.

Munster

Moore

Ismail-Khan

et al . Randomized trial using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triptorelin for the preservation of ovarian function during (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:533–538.

39.

Elgindy

El-Haieg

Khorshid

et al . Gonadatrophin suppression to prevent chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:78–86.

40.

Song

Gao

Yuan

Effect of leuprolide acetate on ovarian function after cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-based chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with breast cancer: results from a phase II randomized trial. Med Oncol. 2013;30:667.

41.

Jiang

Zhang

Zeng

Protective effect of GnRHa on chemo-therapy induced ovarian damage in breast cancer patients. Shandong Med J. 2013;53:16–18.

42.

Karimi-Zarchi

Forat-Yazdi

Vafaeenasab

et al . Evaluation of the effect of GnRH agonist on menstrual reverse in breast cancer cases treated with cyclophosphamide. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2014;35:59–61.

43.

Moore

HCF

Unger

Phillips

K-A

et al . Goserelin for ovarian protection during breast-cancer adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:923–932.

44.

Lambertini

Boni

Michelotti

et al . Ovarian suppression with triptorelin during adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy and long-term ovarian function, pregnancies, and disease-free survival: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:2632–2640.

45.

Leonard

RCF

Adamson

DJA

Bertelli

et al . GnRH agonist for protection against ovarian toxicity during chemotherapy for early breast cancer: the Anglo Celtic Group OPTION trial. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1811–1816.

46.

Zhang

et al . Sequential versus simultaneous use of chemotherapy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) among estrogen receptor (ER)-positive premenopausal breast cancer patients: effects on ovarian function, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168:679–686.

47.

Moore

HCF

Unger

Phillips

K-A

et al . Final Analysis of the Prevention of Early Menopause Study (POEMS)/SWOG Intergroup S0230 [published online ahead of print October 27, 2018]. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djy185.

48.

Burstein

Temin

Anderson

et al . Adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline focused update. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2255–2269.

49.

Burstein

Lacchetti

Anderson

et al . Adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update on ovarian suppression. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1689–1701.

50.

Curigliano

Burstein

HJP

Winer

et al . De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen international expert consensus conference on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700–1712.

51.

Gori

Puglisi

Cinquini

et al . Adjuvant endocrine therapy in premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer: evidence evaluation and GRADE recommendations by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM). Eur J Cancer. 2018;99:9–19.

52.

Rugo

Rosen

MP.

Reducing the long-term effects of chemotherapy in young women with early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 2011;306:312–314.

53.

Osborne

Kitten

Arteaga

CL.

Antagonism of chemotherapy-induced cytotoxicity for human breast cancer cells by antiestrogens. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:710–717.

54.

Poggio

Ceppi

Lambertini

et al . Concurrent versus sequential adjuvant chemo-endocrine therapy in hormone-receptor positive early stage breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2017;33:104–108.

55.

International Breast Cancer Study Group. Late effects of adjuvant oophorectomy and chemotherapy upon premenopausal breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 1990;1:30–35.

56.

Rivkin

Green

O’Sullivan

et al . Adjuvant CMFVP versus adjuvant CMFVP plus ovariectomy for premenopausal, node-positive, and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:46–51.

57.

Arriagada

Lê

Spielmann

et al . Randomized trial of adjuvant ovarian suppression in 926 premenopausal patients with early breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:389–396.

58.

Regan

Walley

Francis

et al . Concurrent and sequential initiation of ovarian function suppression with chemotherapy in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: an exploratory analysis of TEXT and SOFT. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:2225–2232.

59.

Zhao

Liu

Chen

et al . What lies behind chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea for breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145:113–128.

60.

Lambertini

Campbell

Bines

et al . Adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy, treatment-related amenorrhea, and survival in premenopausal HER2-positive early breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(1):86–94.

61.

Francis

Pagani

Fleming

et al . Tailoring adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:122–137.

62.

Torrisi

Colleoni

Veronesi

et al . Primary therapy with ECF in combination with a GnRH analog in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive T2-T4 breast cancer. Breast. 2007;16:73–80.

63.

Kim

Lee

et al . Ovarian function preservation with GnRH agonist in young breast cancer patients: does it impede the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy? Breast. 2014;23:670–675.

64.

Kim

Lee

et al . Oncologic safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for ovarian function protection during breast cancer chemotherapy. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:e1165–e1172.

65.

Ben-Aharon

Gafter-Gvili

Leibovici

Stemmer

SM.

Pharmacological interventions for fertility preservation during chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;122:803–811.

66.

Kim

Lee

Jee

et al . Use of hormonal protection for chemotherapy-induced gonadotoxicity. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53:740–752.

67.

Bedaiwy

Abou-Setta

Desai

et al . Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog cotreatment for preservation of ovarian function during gonadotoxic chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:906-914.e1.

68.

Chen

Cui

Adjuvant gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for the prevention of chemotherapy induced premature ovarian failure in premenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;11:CD008018.

69.

Yang

Shi

Yang

et al . Concurrent treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage in premenopausal women with breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Breast. 2013;22:150–157.

70.

Wang

Chen

Huang

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog cotreatment for the preservation of ovarian function during gonadotoxic chemotherapy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e66360.

71.

Sun

Dongol

Jiang

Kong

Protection of ovarian function by GnRH agonists during chemotherapy: a meta-analysis. Int J Oncol. 2014;44:1335–1340.

72.

Del Mastro

Ceppi

Poggio

et al . Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure in cancer women: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40:675–683.

73.

Vitek

Shayne

Hoeger

Han

Messing

Fung

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for the preservation of ovarian function among women with breast cancer who did not use tamoxifen after chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:808–815.e1.

74.

Elgindy

Sibai

Abdelghani

Mostafa

Protecting ovaries during chemotherapy through gonad suppression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:187–195.

75.

Shen

Y-W

Zhang

X-M

et al . Utility of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for prevention of chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage in premenopausal women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotargets Ther. 2015;8:3349–3359.

76.

Lambertini

Ceppi

Poggio

et al . Ovarian suppression using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy to preserve ovarian function and fertility of breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:2408–2419.

77.

Munhoz

Pereira

AAL

Sasse

et al . Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for ovarian function preservation in premenopausal women undergoing chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:65–73.

78.

Silva

Caramelo

Almeida-Santos

Ribeiro Rama

AC.

Factors associated with ovarian function recovery after chemotherapy for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2737–2749.

79.

Bai

et al . Protecting effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist on chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage in premenopausal breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Care. 2017;12:48–52.

80.

Senra

Roque

Talim

MCT

Reis

Tavares

RLC

. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for ovarian protection during cancer chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51:77–86.

81.

Hickman

Llarena

Valentine

Liu

Falcone

Preservation of gonadal function in women undergoing chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the potential role for gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:571–581.

82.

Lambertini

Moore

HCF

Leonard

RCF

et al . Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy for preservation of ovarian function and fertility in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(19):1981–1990.

83.

Blumenfeld

How to preserve fertility in young women exposed to chemotherapy? The role of GnRH agonist cotreatment in addition to cryopreservation of embrya, oocytes, or ovaries. Oncologist. 2007;12:1044–1054.

84.

Waxman

Ahmed

Smith

et al . Failure to preserve fertility in patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1987;19:159–162.

85.

Giuseppe

Attilio

Edoardo

Loredana

Cristina

Vincenzo

Ovarian function after cancer treatment in young women affected by Hodgkin disease (HD). Hematol. 2007;12:141–147.

86.

Behringer

Wildt

Mueller

et al . No protection of the ovarian follicle pool with the use of GnRH-analogues or oral contraceptives in young women treated with escalated BEACOPP for advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Final results of a phase II trial from the German Hodgkin Study Group. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:2052–2060.

87.

Demeestere

Brice

Peccatori

et al . Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in patients with lymphoma: 1-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:903–909.

88.

Demeestere

Brice

Peccatori

et al . No evidence for the benefit of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in preserving ovarian function and fertility in lymphoma survivors treated with chemotherapy: final long-term report of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2568–2574.

89.

Blumenfeld

Avivi

Eckman

Epelbaum

Rowe

Dann

EJ.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist decreases chemotherapy-induced gonadotoxicity and premature ovarian failure in young female patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:166–173.

90.

Behringer

Thielen

Mueller

et al . Fertility and gonadal function in female survivors after treatment of early unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) within the German Hodgkin Study Group HD14 trial. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1818–1825.

91.

Blumenfeld

Patel

Leiba

Zuckerman

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist may minimize premature ovarian failure in young women undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1266–1270.e1.

92.

Huser

Smardova

Janku

et al . Fertility status of Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with chemotherapy and adjuvant gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1187–1193.

93.

Blumenfeld

Zur

Dann

EJ.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist cotreatment during chemotherapy may increase pregnancy rate in survivors. Oncologist. 2015;20:1283–1289.

94.

Gilani

Hasanzadeh

Ghaemmaghami

Ramazanzadeh

Ovarian preservation with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog during chemotherapy. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2007;3:79–83.

95.

Lambertini

Demeestere

Another step towards improving oncofertility counselling of young women with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1264–1266.

96.

Letourneau

Ebbel

Katz

et al . Acute ovarian failure underestimates age-specific reproductive impairment for young women undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. Cancer. 2012;118:1933–1939.

97.

Sinha

Letourneau

Wald

et al . Antral follicle count recovery in women with menses after treatment with and without gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist use during chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1861–1868.

98.

Bozza

Puglisi

Lambertini

Osa

E-O

Manno

Del Mastro

Anti-Mullerian hormone: determination of ovarian reserve in early breast cancer patients. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21:R51–R65.

99.

Fréour

Barrière

Masson

Anti-müllerian hormone levels and evolution in women of reproductive age with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2017;74:1–8.

100.

Dezellus

Barriere

Campone

et al . Prospective evaluation of serum anti-Müllerian hormone dynamics in 250 women of reproductive age treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2017;79:72–80.

101.

Anderson

Mansi

Coleman

Adamson

DJA

Leonard

RCF

. The utility of anti-Müllerian hormone in the diagnosis and prediction of loss of ovarian function following chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2017;87:58–64.

102.

Lambertini

Anserini

Fontana

et al . The PREgnancy and FERtility (PREFER) study: an Italian multicenter prospective cohort study on fertility preservation and pregnancy issues in young breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:346.

103.

Lambertini

Fontana

Massarotti

et al . Prospective study to optimize care and improve knowledge on ovarian function and/or fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients: results of the pilot phase of the PREgnancy and FERtility (PREFER) study. Breast. 2018;41:51–56.

104.

Lee

D-Y

Park

Lee

Choi

Prediction of ovarian function recovery in young breast cancer patients after protection with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist during chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171:649–656.

105.

Lambertini

Goldrat

Toss

et al . Fertility and pregnancy issues in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Cancer Treat Rev. 2017;59:61–70.

106.

Wong

O’Neill

Walsh

Smith

IE.

Goserelin with chemotherapy to preserve ovarian function in pre-menopausal women with early breast cancer: menstruation and pregnancy outcomes. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:133–138.

107.

Shapira

Raanani

Feldman

et al . BRCA mutation carriers show normal ovarian response in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1162–1167.

108.

Gunnala

Fields

Irani

et al . BRCA carriers have similar reproductive potential at baseline to noncarriers: comparisons in cancer and cancer-free cohorts undergoing fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(2):363–371.

109.

Grynberg

Dagher Hayeck

Papanikolaou

Sifer

Sermondade

Sonigo

BRCA1/2 gene mutations do not affect the capacity of oocytes from breast cancer candidates for fertility preservation to mature in vitro. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:374–379.

110.

Oktay

Kim

Barad

Babayev

SN.

Association of BRCA1 mutations with occult primary ovarian insufficiency: a possible explanation for the link between infertility and breast/ovarian cancer risks. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:240–244.

111.

Lambertini

Goldrat

Ferreira

et al . Reproductive potential and performance of fertility preservation strategies in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(1):237–243.

112.

Turan

Bedoschi

Emirdar

Moy

Oktay

Ovarian stimulation in patients with cancer: impact of Letrozole and BRCA mutations on fertility preservation cycle outcomes. Reprod Sci. 2018;25:26–32.

113.

Paluch-Shimon

Cardoso

Sessa

et al . Prevention and screening in BRCA mutation carriers and other breast/ovarian hereditary cancer syndromes: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for cancer prevention and screening. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:v103–v110.

114.

Lambertini

Di Maio

Pagani

et al . The BCY3/BCC 2017 survey on physicians’ knowledge, attitudes and practice towards fertility and pregnancy-related issues in young breast cancer patients. Breast. 2018;42:41–49.

115.

Cui

Stern

Hickey

et al . Preventing ovarian failure associated with chemotherapy. Med J Aust. 2018;209:412–416.