Risk of cancer in children and young adults conceived by assisted reproductive technology

STUDY QUESTION: Do children conceived by ART have an increased risk of cancer? SUMMARY ANSWER: Overall, ART-conceived children do not appear to have an increased risk of cancer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Despite the increasing use of ART, i.e. IVF or ICSI worldwide, information about possible long-term health risks for children conceived by these techniques is scarce. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A nationwide historical cohort study with prospective follow-up (median 21 years), including all live-born offspring from women treated with subfertility treatments between 1980 and 2001. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All offspring of a nationwide cohort of subfertile women (OMEGA study) treated in one of the 12 Dutch IVF clinics or two fertility clinics. Of 47 690 live-born children, 24 269 were ART-conceived, 13 761 naturally conceived and 9660 were conceived naturally or through fertility drugs, but not by ART. Information on the conception method of each child and potential confounders were collected through the mothers’ questionnaires and medical records. Cancer incidence was ascertained through linkage with The Netherlands Cancer Registry from 1 January 1989 until 1 November 2016. Cancer risk in ART-conceived children was compared with risks in naturally conceived children from subfertile women (hazard ratios [HRs]) and with the general population (standardized incidence ratios [SIRs]). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The median follow-up was 21 years (interquartile range (IQR): 17–25) and was shorter in ART-conceived children (20 years, IQR: 17–23) compared with naturally conceived children (24 years, IQR: 20–30). In total, 231 cancers were observed. Overall cancer risk was not increased in ART-conceived children, neither compared with naturally conceived children from subfertile women (HR: 1.00, 95% CI 0.72–1.38) nor compared with the general population (SIR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.90–1.36). From 18 years of age onwards, the HR of cancer in ART-conceived versus naturally conceived individuals was 1.25 (95% CI: 0.73–2.13). Slightly but non-significantly increased risks were observed in children conceived by ICSI or cryopreservation (HR = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.81–2.85; 1.80, 95% CI: 0.65–4.95, respectively). Risks of lymphoblastic leukemia (HR = 2.44, 95% CI: 0.81–7.37) and melanoma (HR = 1.86, 95% CI: 0

Implementing targeted expectant management in fertility care using prognostic modelling: a cluster randomized trial with a multifaceted strategy

Item does not contain fulltextSTUDY QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on improving the adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management for couples with unexplained infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: The multifaceted implementation strategy did not significantly increase adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management compared to care as usual. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without ovarian hyperstimulation has no beneficial effect compared to no treatment for 6 months after the fertility work-up for couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis of natural conception. Therefore, various professionals and policy makers have advocated the use of prognostic profiles and expectant management in guideline recommendations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cluster randomized controlled trial in 25 clinics in the Netherlands was conducted between March 2013 and May 2014. Clinics were randomized between the implementation strategy (intervention, n = 13) and care as usual (control, n = 12). The effect of the implementation strategy was evaluated by comparing baseline and effect measurement data. Data collection was retrospective and obtained from medical record research and a patient questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 544 couples were included at baseline and 485 at the effect measurement (247 intervention group/238 control group). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Guideline adherence increased from 49 to 69% (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.45-4.89) in the intervention group, and from 49 to 61% (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.38-3.00) in the control group. Multilevel analysis with case-mix adjustment showed that the difference of 8% was not statistically significant (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.67-2.59). The ongoing pregnancy rate within six months after fertility work-up did not significantly differ between intervention and control group (25% versus 27%: OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.40-1.27). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: There is a possible selection bias, couples included in the study had a higher socio-economic status than non-responders. How this affects guideline adherence is unclear. Furthermore, when powering for this study we did not take into account the unexpected improvement of adherence in the control group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Generalization of our results to other countries with recommendations on expectant management might be questionable because barriers for expectant management can be very different in other countries. Furthermore, due to a large variation in improved adherence rate in the intervention group it will be interesting to further analyse the process of implementation in each clinic with a process evaluation on professionals and couples' exposure to and experiences with the strategy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 171203005). No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial Register, www.trialregister.nl NTR3405. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 April 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 July 2012

Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Ovarian Stimulation for In Vitro Fertilization

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Apart from lifestyle factors, sex hormones also seem to have a role in the etiology of colorectal cancer. This raises interest in the possible effects of fertility drugs, especially because the use of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) has strongly increased over the past decades. METHODS: In 1996, a nationwide cohort study was set up to examine cancer risk in a population that included 19,158 women who received ovarian stimulation for IVF (IVF group) and 5950 women who underwent subfertility treatments other than IVF (non-IVF group). Cancer incidence was ascertained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Colorectal cancer risk in the IVF group was compared with those in the general population and in the non-IVF group. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 21 years, 109 colorectal cancers were observed. Compared with the general population, risk of colorectal cancer was not increased in the IVF group (standardized incidence ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.23), and was significantly decreased in the non-IVF group (standardized incidence ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.88). Women in the IVF group had a significant increase in risk compared with women in the non-IVF group (multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.10-2.94). No trend emerged with more IVF cycles or more ampules of gonadotropins administered. Colorectal cancer risk did not increase with longer follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: Although women who receive ovarian stimulation for IVF do not have an increased risk for colorectal cancer compared with the general population, findings from our nationwide cohort study indicate that their risk is increased compared with women who received subfertility treatments other than IVF. Further research is warranted to examine whether ovarian stimulation for IVF contributes to development of colorectal cancer

Ovarian Stimulation for In Vitro Fertilization and Long-term Risk of Breast Cancer

Item does not contain fulltextIMPORTANCE: Previous studies of breast cancer risk after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment were inconclusive due to limited follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term risk of breast cancer after ovarian stimulation for IVF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Historical cohort (OMEGA study) with complete follow-up through December 2013 for 96% of the cohort. The cohort included 19,158 women who started IVF treatment between 1983 and 1995 (IVF group) and 5950 women starting other fertility treatments between 1980 and 1995 (non-IVF group) from all 12 IVF clinics in the Netherlands. The median age at end of follow-up was 53.8 years for the IVF group and 55.3 years for the non-IVF group. EXPOSURES: Information on ovarian stimulation for IVF, other fertility treatments, and potential confounders was collected from medical records and through mailed questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incidence of invasive and in situ breast cancers in women who underwent fertility treatments was obtained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry (1989-2013). Breast cancer risk in the IVF group was compared with risks in the general population (standardized incidence ratios [SIRs]) and the non-IVF group (hazard ratios [HRs]). RESULTS: Among 25,108 women (mean age at baseline, 32.8 years; mean number of IVF cycles, 3.6), 839 cases of invasive breast cancer and 109 cases of in situ breast cancer occurred after a median follow-up of 21.1 years. Breast cancer risk in IVF-treated women was not significantly different from that in the general population (SIR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.93-1.09]) and from the risk in the non-IVF group (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.19]). The cumulative incidences of breast cancer at age 55 were 3.0% for the IVF group and 2.9% for the non-IVF group (P = .85). The SIR did not increase with longer time since treatment (>/=20 years) in the IVF group (0.92 [95% CI, 0.73-1.15]) or in the non-IVF group (1.03 [95% CI, 0.82-1.29]). Risk was significantly lower for those who underwent 7 or more IVF cycles (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.39-0.77]) vs 1 to 2 IVF cycles and after poor response to the first IVF cycle (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.96] for /=4 collected oocytes). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among women undergoing fertility treatment in the Netherlands between 1980 and 1995, IVF treatment compared with non-IVF treatment was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer after a median follow-up of 21 years. Breast cancer risk among IVF-treated women was also not significantly different from that in the general population. These findings are consistent with absence of a significant increase in long-term risk of breast cancer among IVF-treated women

Low oocyte yield during IVF treatment and the risk of a trisomic pregnancy

A low number of antral follicles may result in the selection of suboptimal oocytes that are prone to meiotic errors. The aim of this case-control study was to evaluate women receiving IVF treatment with low oocyte yield (defined as three or fewer oocytes retrieved after ovarian stimulation) who are at an increased risk of a trisomic pregnancy. Data were obtained from Danish and Dutch medical registries between 1983 and 2011. Analyses were carried out in 105 cases and 442 controls matched by age and year of IVF treatment. Cases were women with a trisomic pregnancy (trisomies 13, 18 or 21) resulting from fresh IVF treatment and confirmed by karyotyping. Cases were included regardless of pregnancy outcome. Controls were women with a live born child without a trisomy, resulting from fresh IVF treatment. Low oocyte yield was observed in 6.6% (29/440) of the women, of which 8.4% (7/83) were cases and 6.2% (22/357) controls. Low oocyte yield in IVF treatment was not associated with a higher risk of trisomic pregnancy (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.19). Stratification for female age, adjustment for history of ovarian surgery, and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone protocol used did not change the results

Long-Term Risk of Ovarian Cancer and Borderline Tumors After Assisted Reproductive Technology

Background: Long-term effects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on ovarian tumor risk are unknown. Methods: This nationwide cohort study comprises 30 625 women who received ovarian stimulation for ART in 1983-2000 and 9988 subfertile women not treated with ART. Incident invasive and borderline ovarian tumors were ascertained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Pathology Registry until July 2018. Ovarian tumor risk in ART-treated women was compared with risks in the general population and the subfertile non-ART group. Statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: After a median follow-up of 24 years, 158 invasive and 100 borderline ovarian tumors were observed. Ovarian cancer risk in the ART group was increased compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 1.71) but not when compared with the non-ART group (age- and parity-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.50). Risk decreased with higher parity and with a larger number of successful ART cycles (resulting in childbirth, Ptrend = .001) but was not associated with the number of unsuccessful ART cycles. Borderline ovarian tumor risk was increased in ART-treated women compared with the general population (SIR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.86) and with non-ART women (HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.08 to 3.14). Risk did not increase with more ART cycles or longer follow-up time. Conclusions: Increased ovarian cancer risk in ART-treated women compared with the general population is likely explained by nulliparity rather than ART treatment. The increased risk of borderline ovarian tumors after ART must be interpreted with caution because no dose-response relationship was observed.Cervix cance