Get e-book Genetic Predisposition to Cancer, 2Ed (Hodder Arnold Publication)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Genetic Predisposition to Cancer, 2Ed (Hodder Arnold Publication) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Genetic Predisposition to Cancer, 2Ed (Hodder Arnold Publication) book. Happy reading Genetic Predisposition to Cancer, 2Ed (Hodder Arnold Publication) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Genetic Predisposition to Cancer, 2Ed (Hodder Arnold Publication) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Genetic Predisposition to Cancer, 2Ed (Hodder Arnold Publication) Pocket Guide.
Cancer, Fertility Preservation, and Future Pregnancy: A Comprehensive Review
Contents:


  1. Sanger Institute - Publications - Wellcome Sanger Institute
  2. Related Articles
  3. Risk management for Gorlin syndrome/nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome
  4. Obstetrics and Gynecology International

They can be asymptomatic, or can cause arrhythmia or obstruction of cardiac flow. When symptomatic, they usually present at birth or soon after. Some specialists recommend one-off screening at age 18, however there is no evidence of benefit in asymptomatic women. If asymptomatic ovarian fibromas are detected, there is a lack of evidence that intervention is required. Pre-natal ultrasound may detect macrocephaly, cleft palate or cardiac tumour.

First degree relatives should be referred to a local family cancer clinic. Link to information sheet on Informing family members about hereditary cancer. Genetic Alliance Australia. We have reviewed a series of 36 patients with the basal cell nevus syndrome seen at Roswell Park Memorial Institute from to Among these patients a number of disastrous complications occurred.

These include extensive uncontrolled basal cell epithelioma of the face resulting in one death from direct cerebral invasion via the orbit, one facial nerve palsy, two bilateral and two unilateral eye enucleations, and several severe facial mutilations in young patients. There were three patients who developed severe bradycardia and hypotension during induction of general anesthesia required postponement of the intended operation, and one patient with congenital hemiparesis who on investigation was found to have an absent internal carotid artery.

A review of the syndrome complex is presented with a plan for recognition and management. Discussed at national cancer genetics reference committee on April 19, and the following changes were made:. Frequency of review discussed at March 6, reference committee meeting and discussion continued via email:. Protocol reviewed and presented at November RCM. Discussion continued via email and approved for publication with the following amendments:.

Any clinician seeking to apply or consult this document is expected to use independent clinical judgement in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine any patient's care or treatment. Send feedback for this page. The currency of this information is guaranteed only up until the date of printing, for any updates please check:. Home Cancer genetics Risk management. ID: v. On this page Summary Target group Lifetime risk of cancer Cancer risk management guidelines Non-cancer risk management guidelines Management of associated health problems Evidence for risk management guidelines Support and information Website resources References History.

Target group. Lifetime risk of cancer. Cancer risk management guidelines. Prevention Sun protective behaviours including use of sunscreen and sun protective clothing. Maintain vitamin D within normal range. Non-cancer risk management guidelines. Jaw x-ray every months from age 8 years. Management of associated health problems. Evidence for risk management guidelines. Surveillance There is no evidence of benefit for radiological surveillance for medulloblastoma. Jaw keratocysts have not been reported in SUFU mutation carriers. Support and information. Medical treatments to suppress ovarian function during chemotherapy have also been reported to decrease the effect on cancer treatments on future ovarian function.

These modalities still rely on residual ovarian function after cancer treatments to conceive. Newer techniques to preserve ovarian reserve, oocytes, and embryos prior to cancer treatments have been developed to provide an opportunity to conceive in the event that cancer treatments result in permanent loss of ovarian function. This review will summarize available treatment options for fertility preservation in cancer patients. Concerns that will be addressed include the risk of the medications and procedures, the potential delay in cancer treatment, as well as the impact of future pregnancy on the recurrence risk of cancer.

Healthcare providers need to be aware of available treatment options including the risks, advantages, and disadvantages of fertility-preserving options to properly counsel patients. We performed a MEDLINE search to July using the following terms: fertility preservation, cancer, in vitro fertilization, assisted reproduction, ovarian stimulation, oocyte vitrification, ovarian preservation, hereditary cancer, childhood cancer, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, ovarian reserve, pregnancy, and cancer.

Studies included in this review include publications in peer-reviewed journals. Future fertility is a significant concern for patients undergoing cancer treatment. In fact, many women indicated that they may choose a less toxic dose of chemotherapy to help preserve fertility even if it may increase the risk of cancer recurrence [ 4 ]. Cancer survivors also have higher depression and distress scores if they have unmet informational needs about future reproductive options [ 5 ]. Recognizing these concerns, the American Society of Clinical Oncology ASCO published recommendations in on fertility preservation in cancer patients.

These guidelines state that oncologists should address the possibility of infertility with cancer patients and be prepared to discuss possible fertility preservation options or refer the patient to a reproductive specialist [ 6 ]. Factors that were associated with a higher likelihood to refer in patients with breast cancer included patients with a family history of breast cancer, older age, early stage cancer, and receiving care at an academic center [ 9 ]. The adverse effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy on female reproduction have long been recognized.

Radiation is typically administered as external beam therapy teletherapy , intracavitary brachytherapy , or total body irradiation as is utilized with stem-cell transplantation. The effects of radiation therapy are dependent on the dose and the field applied. Radiation is typically targeted at the affected area; however, the impact of scattered radiation during treatments is also a consideration. Limited field external beam radiation has a reduced risk depending on the location, dose, fractionation schedule, and age of the patient at the time of radiation treatment.

Although the uterus is relatively resistant to the effect of radiotherapy, there is a concern that radiation may decrease uterine blood supply, volume, and endometrial thickness. The impact of radiation on future uterine function is dependent on the age at radiation in childhood cancers. The prepubertal uterus appears to be more vulnerable to the effects of radiation. Hormonal stimulation with estrogen and progesterone to improve endometrial thickness, and blood flow after radiation has been evaluated with variable effectiveness.

The uterine volume increased significantly from 6. It was noted than patients exposed to prepubertal radiation had less improvement that patients exposed postpubertally [ 14 ]. These limited studies indicate that higher dosages of radiation affect uterine function and are most significant if administered prepubertally.

Hormonal therapy may have limited benefit for improving endometrial development and patients that conceive should be considered at higher risk of preterm labor, delivery, and low-birth weight. The primary impact of chemotherapy on fertility is related directly to the loss of ovarian function secondary to the gonadotoxicity of many chemotherapeutic agents. Cell-cycle nonspecific alkylating agents such as cyclophosphamide will destroy resting primordial oocytes while antimetabolite agents methotrexate have limited effect on ovarian function. The effect of chemotherapy will also depend on whether it is radical or adjuvant, single agent, or combination.

The newer Taxanes are still being evaluated for their impact on fertility but hopefully will be less gonadotoxic than currently used regimens. Unfortunately, estimates in the impact on fertility vary widely dependent on various factors, and, therefore, there is no definitive predictor prior to treatment making counseling on future fertility challenging for health care providers.

The peak number of oocytes is found in females at 20 weeks of fetal life, and this number declines until menopause. The number of primordial follicles is approximately , at menarche; menopause occurs once that pool is nearly depleted. Although chronologic age is the most important predictor of oocyte quality and quantity, there is variability in the rate of ovarian aging.

Although menstrual cycles do not start to become irregular until a mean age of 45 to 55 years, endocrinologic changes associated with ovarian aging have been demonstrated for women age 35 to 40 years and at earlier ages after cancer treatment. Several modalities have been evaluated as markers of ovarian reserve including cycle day FSH, antimullerian hormone AMH , and ovarian ultrasound of antral follicles. Basal FSH values drawn during menstrual day have been the routinely utilized as a marker of ovarian reserve. As FSH values increase, ovarian responsiveness decreases. It is important when assessing FSH values to also evaluate basal estradiol as an elevation may suppress FSH and give a falsely reassuring value.

FSH values may fluctuate widely between cycles particularly for patients with decreased ovarian reserve which limits its effectiveness as a marker of remaining ovarian function. AMH is a member of the transforming growth factor B family and is produced by the granulosa cells of the secondary, prenatal, and antral follicles. AMH levels decrease progressively until it becomes undetectable at menopause. Theoretically, this may be a better marker of ovarian reserve as it represents the number of early and developing follicles and appears to have less intercycle variability than FSH [ 18 ].

One significant advantage of this test is that it does not require assessment on cycle day 2 or 3 since there is limited variability during the menstrual. However, this test may not be routinely available at all laboratories, and no international standard has been developed yet for this assay. Ultrasound of ovarian follicle counts AFC has also been evaluated as a tool for predicting ovarian reserve. AFC is directly correlated with the number of oocytes retrieved during IVF and may prove to be the best predictor of ovarian reserve. Intercycle variability is present with all forms of ovarian reserve testing, and no single test has been consistently recommended.

There is limited information on the impact of cancer treatment on markers of ovarian reserve.

Sanger Institute - Publications - Wellcome Sanger Institute

One study evaluated 42 premenopausal women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy that were followed over 5 years. Further research is needed to determine the impact of cancer treatments on markers of ovarian reserve and any correlation with future fertility. It is important to consider that most research has evaluated these markers in relation to success of ovarian stimulation for IVF; therefore, caution must be used in counseling patients on the likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy or with other fertility treatments.

It has been well documented that chemotherapeutic agents, particularly alkylating agents, have high levels of ovarian toxicity. Oocytes are contained in ovarian primordial follicles, and it is estimated that hundreds to thousands of these follicles initiate the maturation process each month and are susceptible to the gonadotoxic effects of chemotherapy.


  1. Nothing but the Night.
  2. Genetic Predisposition To Cancer, 2Ed (Hodder Arnold Publication) – hujekarezubo.ga.
  3. Maryjanes Notebook;
  4. Sortie dautomne (French Edition).
  5. Calaméo - وصل حديثا/كتب طبية.

Primordial follicles are stimulated to initiate maturation through a complex process that is initiated by follicle stimulating hormone FSH release from the pituitary in response to hypothalamic gonadotropin releasing hormone GnRH. Suppression of ovarian function through manipulation of GnRH has been evaluated as a mechanism to decrease the loss of primordial follicles.

Administration of GnRH analogs results in downregulation of pituitary receptors within 10—14 days of administration and subsequent suppression of FSH release. This has been studied in animal models with promising results but data regarding effectiveness in humans is limited to small retrospective reports. A recent systematic review [ 23 ] evaluating the utility of GnRH agonists in patients with breast cancer summarized data on the 5 available nonrandomized studies.

However, only 3 pregnancies were reported [ 24 ]. Unfortunately, it cannot be determined from these studies that the administration of GnRH agonists provided definitive ovarian protection. There are 4 reported ongoing prospective, randomized trials in women with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer to evaluate the effect on preserving fertility [ 25 ].

Outcome data from these studies will provide valuable information on the utility of this treatment in preserving ovarian function. It should be noted that there is some concerns regarding the use of GnRH agonists. It has been suggested that GnRH agonists may decrease the effect of tamoxifen if administered simultaneously and until more data is available, the ASCO recommends that women interested in this treatment receive it only as part of an approved clinical trial [ 6 ].

The basic principle of cryopreservation is to store cells or tissue for future use. Damage to cells during the cryopreservation process has been a barrier to the general use of this technology. Cryopreservation is typically performed by incubation in a low concentration of cryoprotectant to minimize ice crystal formation during freezing; however, cells with a high osmotic content such as oocytes are particularly vulnerable to damage. Embryos are composed of multiple blastomere cells and are more stable for cryopreservation.

Due to the difficulties with oocyte cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation has been the primary modality for fertility preservation and has been available since the s. The most recent available data have indicated that over 21, embryo transfers occurred in USA in from frozen, thawed embryos resulting in per-cycle pregnancy rates of Embryo banking has several advantages for patients interested in preserving fertility.

It provides reassurance to a patient that she will have some potential to conceive if the cancer treatments result in permanent amenorrhea. There is also over 20 years of outcome data for cryopreserved embryos showing no effect on miscarriage, implantation rates, or live birth [ 26 ]. A disadvantage of embryo banking is the need to administer ovarian stimulation medications to obtain oocytes for fertilization.

Ovarian stimulation is a particular concern for patients with hormonal sensitive tumors such as breast cancer and will be addressed further in this review. These guidelines state that the only established method of female fertility preservation is embryo cryopreservation and that experimental procedures such as oocyte or ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be offered only in a research setting with IRB oversight [ 27 ]. However, these recommendations may be revised with improvements in oocyte preservation technology and increasing numbers of live birth reported in the past several years.

Recent advances in oocyte cryopreservation technology have expanded the use of this technology for fertility preservation. Disadvantages are similar to those of embryo banking including the risk of ovarian stimulation for patients with hormonally responsive cancers and the potential delay in starting cancer treatments. Until recently, the primary disadvantage of oocyte banking has been the lower success rate compared to embryo cryopreservation. The first pregnancy from oocyte cryopreservation was reported in [ 28 ], but few pregnancies were subsequently reported due to poor survival rates for oocytes.

The poor survival rates for oocytes that have been cryopreserved and thawed are attributable to several factors. Oocytes have a relatively high volume compared to other cells and are susceptible to intracellular ice crystal formation. Cryopreservation of oocytes has also been shown to result in chromosome and DNA abnormalities as the meiotic spindle of oocytes is very sensitive to chilling. Oocytes are also more susceptible to damage from reactive oxygen species than other cells.

Many of these parameters improve after fertilization, making embryos less susceptible to damage than oocytes [ 29 ]. The more recent development of oocyte vitrification incorporates several modifications to traditional cryopreservation that result in less toxicity to oocytes. Oocyte vitrification exposes oocytes to higher concentrations of cryoprotectants for shorter durations of time followed by very rapid cooling.

There have been over pregnancies reported worldwide since with improvements in oocyte cryopreservation techniques [ 30 ]. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing efficacy of oocyte vitrification reported similar fertilization, embryogenesis, and pregnancy from oocytes derived from vitrified oocytes compared to fresh oocytes. The authors state that increasing reports of successful cryopreservation of oocytes warrant reexamination of whether oocyte vitrification should still be considered an experimental technique [ 31 ].

Search eviQ

Ovarian tissue cryopreservation has also been evaluated as a modality to preserve future fertility. A portion of ovarian cortex is cryopreserved and then transplanted back to the pelvis, or other location arm or abdominal wall has been reported [ 32 , 33 ]. There have been fewer than 15 reported pregnancies worldwide with this technique; however, the first report of a woman that gave birth to a second child by natural conception after ovarian tissue transplantation has recently been reported [ 36 ].

Advantages of ovarian tissue transplantation include that it can be performed in prepubertal girls and adolescents, can be performed at any point in the menstrual cycle, has the potential to save large numbers of oocytes, and may allow for spontaneous pregnancy in the future without in vitro fertilization or ovarian stimulation.

Disadvantages include the need for surgery typically by laparoscopy to remove the tissue and risk of graft failure. There is also some evidence that oocyte quality may be compromised with lower than expected fertility rates even with IVF. Options that have been investigated to eliminate the risk of exposure to gonadotropins include in vitro maturation, IVM or in follicle maturation IFM of oocytes. These techniques require surgical removal of immature oocytes followed by in vitro exposure to gonadotropins to mature oocytes outside the body.

There has been limited success with this approach utilizing immature oocytes aspirated during either the follicular or luteal phase of the menstrual cycle and matured in vitro. Although the survival rate is lower than with oocytes matured in vivo and vitrified, survival rates of Further data is needed to determine if this will be an effective treatment option for patients.

Until recently, preserving oocytes or embryos have required a delay in cancer treatment of up to 4—6 weeks to complete the IVF cycle. Traditional ovarian preparation for IVF required 10—14 days of ovarian stimulation with exogenous gonadotropins preceded by ovarian suppression with GnRH agonists for approximately 2 weeks to prevent premature ovulation.

Medications were initiated in the luteal phase of the cycle which may add up to 3 additional weeks to the process depending on when the patient presents for treatment. Recent advances that include the development of GnRH antagonists have significantly decreased the interval from patient presentation to gamete cryopreservation. GnRH antagonists are initiated at approximately day 6 of gonadotropin stimulation which begins on day of a menstrual cycle. This approach still requires awaiting menses prior to initiating gonadotropins but decreases the interval to oocyte retrieval compared to traditional IVF stimulation protocols.

This was then followed by the standard 10—14 days of ovarian stimulation and subsequent oocyte retrieval. The goal was to decrease the time to oocyte retrieval for breast cancer patients and resulted in a reasonable ovarian response with 7—10 embryos cryopreserved per patient [ 38 ]. This approach provides a significant advantage by decreasing total time for the IVF cycle, but further data is needed to determine its effectiveness compared to traditional IVF stimulation regimens. In addition to the delay in cancer treatment, ovarian stimulation for IVF poses another theoretical risk to patients with hormonally responsive cancers.

The high estradiol levels sustained during IVF treatment are a particular concern in women with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. In the initial nonrandomized studies, stimulation protocols that include the selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors such as letrozole administered during gonadotropin treatment have been shown to decrease estradiol level production while not decreasing overall oocyte numbers. Initial reassuring data indicates that this approach has not been shown to increase short-term cancer recurrences for breast cancer patients [ 39 , 40 ].

Additionally, estradiol levels may be reduced after oocyte retrieval by the use of GnRH agonists to trigger ovulation instead of hCG. This has been shown to substantially reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation in patients undergoing IVF by decreasing ovarian stimulation after retrieval.

This has been evaluated in oocyte donors undergoing oocyte vitrification and has been shown in a retrospective study to result in similar numbers of oocytes retrieved. There was also no significant difference in the percentage of oocytes surviving thawing, oocyte fertilization, and pregnancy rates [ 41 ]. Further research is needed to determine if this will be beneficial in cancer patients undergoing oocyte or embryo banking but holds promise to further decrease any theoretical risks of breast cancer progression or recurrence as a result of ovarian stimulation.

Counseling of patients for future fertility should also include a discussion of alternative options including third-party reproduction. Oocyte donation may be utilized for patients without residual ovarian function after cancer treatment.

Related Articles

Oocyte donation enables a patient to conceive and carry a pregnancy if she is unable to conceive with her own oocytes. Gestational carriers are most commonly used for patients that do not have a functional uterus to carry a pregnancy. They may also be considered for patients that are concerned about the recurrence of hormonally responsive tumors during pregnancy or any increased risks of pregnancy complications after cancer treatment. Adoption is also a consideration for family building but may be more difficult for cancer survivors than patients without a history of cancer [ 42 ].

Unfortunately, a significant barrier for many cancer patients is the cost of fertility-preserving treatments. Despite the concerns for patients including costs and potential risks, a followup survey of 28 cancer survivors who attempted fertility preservation found that The fact that patients with cancer recurrence may die and leave a minor child with one parent is an ethical concern. It has been suggested that it may be unethical to enable a woman to reproduce if she is expected to have a shortened lifespan.

Risk management for Gorlin syndrome/nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome

A review of fertility preservation and reproduction in cancer patients by the Ethics Committee of the Society for Reproductive Medicine stated that this concern may not be persuasive given that the risk of recurrence for many patients may not be excessively high, and the child may have a meaningful life despite the death of a parent [ 27 ]. The likelihood of conceiving after cancer treatments is dependent on the type of cancer, age at diagnosis, treatments with gonadotoxic agents including type and duration, and various other fertility factors.

The chance for conception at best can only be estimated based on individual patient history and characteristics. It also appears that future fertility may also be influenced by gender. Overall, the likelihood of future children was found to be lower for female cancer survivors than male survivors either spontaneously or with fertility treatments [ 46 ].

If pregnancy is established, there are several potential risks to a fetus conceived after cancer treatment. Both radiation and chemotherapy may induce chromosomal aberrations in oocytes that may theoretically increase the risk of birth defects and genetic disease in offspring. A review of studies evaluating the risk of malformations in offspring of breast cancer survivors did not report an increased risk of birth defects compared with controls [ 47 ].

However, when considering the half-life of treatments and the duration of time for oocyte maturation, it has been recommended to delay pregnancy for at least 6 months [ 47 ] after treatment with chemotherapy and 12 months following completion of radiotherapy to minimize risks to offspring [ 48 ].

Pregnancy complications and the subsequent risk to the fetus are another concern for cancer patients. A review of pregnancies in patients previously treated for breast cancer reported variable outcomes [ 47 ]. This meta-analysis evaluated 6 studies reporting birth outcome data after breast cancer compared to women without breast cancer. Four studies found no increased risk of any pregnancy complications; however, one study reported a higher risk of miscarriage and another reported no higher risk of miscarriage but a higher risk of cesarean section, preterm birth, low birth weight, delivery complications, and congenital abnormalities.

The authors of the review suggest that although the large majority of births from women previously treated for breast cancer had no adverse effects, these women are at higher risk and may need careful monitoring until additional studies resolve the discrepancy in the data. A recent report of birth outcomes obtained from a childhood and adolescent cancer registry from 4 US regions has reported that infants born to female childhood cancer survivors were more likely to be preterm RR 1.

Although there appeared to be a higher risk during the pregnancy, there were no increased risks to the offspring of malformations, infant death, or altered sex ratio indicating no increased risk of germ cell mutagenicity [ 49 ]. A review of pregnancies postcancer diagnosis in adults indicated that subsequent pregnancy did not represent a major health risk for the mothers or children. In pregnancies there were no increased risk of congenital malformations OR 0.

It is not clear whether the increased risks in pregnancy are related to the malignancy itself or the result of treatments such as radiation or chemotherapy. Several considerations exist in cancer patients that may affect the risk to a developing fetus including altered metabolism, nutrition deficiencies from malabsorption of nutrients, increased stress, and general overall decreased health. It is also possible that these patients might be subjectively viewed as higher risk by their physicians and are electively delivered earlier.


  • Bareback Gay Sex Orgy With The 18-year-old Russian Lads?
  • Rogue’s Rules!
  • Scientific Articles;
  • LifeTime Manager - Defeating Depression and Anxiety;
  • In summary, it does appear that there may be an increased risk of preterm birth and associated neonatal complications for female cancer survivors, but the outcomes of the majority of pregnancies appear similar to noncancer patients. Although there does not appear to be a definitive increased risk of congenital abnormalities for the offspring of female cancer patients, there is a concern over the transmission of genetically linked cancers. Most hereditary cancers follow an autosomal dominant mode of inheritance with the most common being hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, familial breast and ovarian cancer, neurofibromatosis type 1, familial retinoblastoma, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, and familial adenomatous polyposis.

    Fewer hereditary cancers have an autosomal recessive inheritance such as ataxia teleangiectatica and Fanconi anemia [ 51 ]. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis PGD is a technique to screen embryos for genetically transmissible diseases prior to implantation.

    PGD involves removing one or more cells from an embryo after IVF and testing for predisposing mutations. PGD may be performed for genetic diseases where the gene has been identified and tested. PGD has been performed for all of the cancer predisposition syndromes mentioned previously in additional to several other less common susceptibility syndromes [ 52 ]. Significant controversy exists over the ethical aspects of screening embryos for disease.

    However, selection to avoid a genetic disease may not always be appropriate and factors such as the severity of the disease, the probability of its occurrence, and the age at onset should be considered. Cancer is diagnosed in one of every pregnant women each year. There are several concerns for patients pursuing pregnancy after cancer treatment that may be dependent on the type of cancer and treatments.

    Concerns include the risk of cancer recurrence either during or after treatment, the possible increased risk of cancer recurrence secondary to pregnancy itself breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and malignant melanoma , and the difficulty in detecting cancer during pregnancy breast cancer and endometrial cancer. For most cancers, future pregnancy does not negatively impact the likelihood of recurrence.

    However, concern exists for several hormonally mediated cancers due to the consideration that the hormonal milieu of pregnancy may increase the risk of recurrence. The most common female tumors in reproductive age women that have been associated with hormonal mediators include breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and malignant melanoma.

    The most common cancer in women of childbearing age is breast cancer and is particularly concerning due to its clear association with hormonal markers. Given the relatively young age at diagnosis and initial treatment, there is a risk of recurrence during the reproductive years. The overall risk of recurrence and timing of recurrence in the context of pregnancy is difficult to evaluate due to the complex associations with other predisposing factors such as age at diagnosis, prior pregnancy history, age at menarche, and family history.

    Additional considerations include whether or not pregnancy itself affects the long term survival for patients with breast cancer, and whether or not the timing of pregnancy affects any risk of recurrence. Initial studies in the s and early s indicated that there did not appear to be a difference in survival for time intervals from diagnosis to pregnancy [ 55 — 57 ].

    In contrast, followup data indicated that patients that become pregnant in the first 3 months [ 58 ] or the first 6 months [ 59 ] of the initial breast cancer diagnosis may have an increased mortality. Clark et al. Another population-based study in showed a statistically nonsignificant increased mortality risk RR 2. However, if the interval was more than 2 years, the risk of death was reduced significantly RR 0. A recent meta-analysis by Azim et al. Five studies compared patients who became pregnant within 6—24 months and after 2 years of a breast cancer diagnosis and found that pregnancy within 6—24 months or beyond 2 years did not have an effect on overall outcome.

    In summary, the data is controversial but it would appear prudent to advise waiting a minimum of 6 months after diagnosis to attempt pregnancy but more than 2 years is perhaps advisable and will depend on individual patient characteristics. For patients at higher risk of recurrence, a delay of 5 years or more may also be recommended. Interestingly, several studies have suggested that pregnancy is actually associated with a better long-term prognosis for breast cancer patients. The Azim et al. In a subgroup analysis, they compared the outcome of women with a history of breast cancer that became pregnant to breast cancer patients who did not get pregnant and did not find a difference in survival between the groups.

    The mechanism by which pregnancy may provide a protective effect is not clearly understood. Patterns of breast cancer recurrence have been evaluated with regard to estrogen receptor status in two randomized trials with 25 years of median followup. It was reported that most breast cancer recurrence occurred within the first 5—7 years in ER-negative after randomization while ER-positive patients had events spread through 10 years.

    Patients with ER-positive breast cancer generally receive 5 years of adjuvant hormonal therapy and are recommended to delay childbearing although some women may elect to interrupt hormonal therapy to conceive. Even for patients that may not be receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy, it is recommended that patients wait a minimum of 2 years following diagnosis to conceive due to a generally higher incidence of recurrence in the first 2 years after diagnosis [ 64 ].

    Overall, available data support that pregnancy after breast cancer are safe for women at low risk of recurrence but the timing of pregnancy will depend on individual patient characteristics and estrogen receptor status. Although less common than breast cancer, malignant melanoma is a cancer with a peak incidence in the 30s and 40s resulting in a substantial number of women in their reproductive years interested in pursuing pregnancy after treatment. In contrast to breast cancer, there is limited evidence that hormonal mediators significantly influence this cancer.

    It has been noted that patients diagnosed during pregnancy often have a more rapid progression of their cancer, and estrogen-receptor proteins have been detected in tumor specimens. However, most studies have not found a statistical difference in 5-year survival rate for pregnant or nonpregnant patients. A study investigating endocrine ablation with procedures such as oophorectomy on patients with melanoma showed no benefit [ 65 ]. However, this author does suggest advising against future pregnancies for patients with nodal metastases or those who experienced tumor activation during a prior pregnancy.

    Others have recommended that all women with a history of melanoma avoid pregnancy for 3—5 years after treatment [ 66 ]. Endometrial cancer is another hormonally mediated cancer as evidence by the fact that exposure to unopposed estrogen is a significant predisposing factor. Progesterone offers a protective effect on the endometrium but both estrogen and progesterone are elevated during gestation. Limited data is available regarding absolute risk of cancer progression or recurrence for patients with a history of endometrial cancer as most patients are treated with a hysterectomy.

    A small case series and literature review of 50 women reported data on women with early stage endometrial cancer treated with conservative hormonal treatment in lieu to a hysterectomy. There were 65 deliveries reported with 77 live births. No neonatal morbidity was noted but one of the 50 women died of her disease after delivery [ 67 ]. The ASCO published recommendations in on fertility preservation in cancer patients. These guidelines state that oncologists should address the possibility of infertility with cancer patients and be prepared to discuss possible fertility preservation options or refer the patient to a reproductive specialist.

    Advancements in ovarian reserve testing may help counsel patients about the impact of their cancer treatments on fertility and chances for future pregnancy. Ongoing trials will address the effectiveness of GnRH agonists in protecting ovarian reserve. Several technologies exist to help preserve future fertility including embryo cryopreservation, oocyte, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Embryo cryopreservation is currently the only recommended method of gamete preservation, but recent advances in oocyte vitrification may increase the utility of this treatment for cancer patients.

    Obstetrics and Gynecology International

    Additionally, PGD may decrease the risk of disease transmission of hereditary cancer syndromes. There may be an increased risk of preterm birth and associated neonatal complications for female cancer survivors, but the outcomes of the majority of pregnancies appear similar to noncancer patients. Also, the risk of disease recurrence will depend on several factors, but for most cancers the risk of recurrence is not increased secondary to pregnancy.

    Overall, pregnancy appears safe for most patients after cancer treatment but will depend on individual patient characteristics.