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

Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH)

STUDY QUESTION: Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER: In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between -0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96-1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between -0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratchin

Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study): a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION: For couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, is 6 months expectant management (EM) inferior to IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS), in terms of live births?SUMMARY ANSWER: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of EM is inferior compared to IUI-OS in terms of live births.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis are often treated with IUI-OS. In couples with unexplained subfertility and a relatively good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), IUI-OS does not increase the live birth rate as compared to 6 months of EM. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months), the effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomized controlled trial within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We intended to include 1091 couples within 3 years. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 6 months EM or 6 months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied heterosexual couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the one-sided 90% risk difference (RD) CI was less than minus 7% compared to an expected live birth rate of 30% following IUI-OS. We calculated RD, relative risks (RRs) with 90% CI and a corresponding hazard rate for live birth over time based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analysis.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between October 2016 and September 2020, we allocated 92 couples to EM and 86 to IUI-OS. The trial was halted pre-maturely owing to slow inclusion. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Couples allocated to EM had a lower live birth rate than couples allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 (13%) in the EM group versus 28/86 (33%) in the IUI-OS group; RR 0.40 90% CI 0.24 to 0.67). This corresponds to an absolute RD of minus 20%; 90% CI: -30% to -9%. The hazard ratio for live birth over time was 0.36 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.70). In the PP analysis, live births rates were 8 of 70 women (11%) in the EM group versus 26 of 73 women (36%) in the IUI-OS group (RR 0.32, 90% CI 0.18 to 0.59; RD -24%, 90% CI -36% to -13%) in line with inferiority of EM.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial did not reach the planned sample size, therefore the results are limited by the number of participants.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study confirms the results of a previous trial that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, EM is inferior to IUI-OS

Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study): a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION: For couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, is 6 months expectant management (EM) inferior to IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS), in terms of live births?SUMMARY ANSWER: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of EM is inferior compared to IUI-OS in terms of live births.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis are often treated with IUI-OS. In couples with unexplained subfertility and a relatively good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), IUI-OS does not increase the live birth rate as compared to 6 months of EM. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months), the effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomized controlled trial within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We intended to include 1091 couples within 3 years. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 6 months EM or 6 months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied heterosexual couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the one-sided 90% risk difference (RD) CI was less than minus 7% compared to an expected live birth rate of 30% following IUI-OS. We calculated RD, relative risks (RRs) with 90% CI and a corresponding hazard rate for live birth over time based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analysis.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between October 2016 and September 2020, we allocated 92 couples to EM and 86 to IUI-OS. The trial was halted pre-maturely owing to slow inclusion. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Couples allocated to EM had a lower live birth rate than couples allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 (13%) in the EM group versus 28/86 (33%) in the IUI-OS group; RR 0.40 90% CI 0.24 to 0.67). This corresponds to an absolute RD of minus 20%; 90% CI: -30% to -9%. The hazard ratio for live birth over time was 0.36 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.70). In the PP analysis, live births rates were 8 of 70 women (11%) in the EM group versus 26 of 73 women (36%) in the IUI-OS group (RR 0.32, 90% CI 0.18 to 0.59; RD -24%, 90% CI -36% to -13%) in line with inferiority of EM.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial did not reach the planned sample size, therefore the results are limited by the number of participants.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study confirms the results of a previous trial that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, EM is inferior to IUI-OS

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

Economic evaluation of endometrial scratching before the second IVF/ICSI treatment:a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial (SCRaTCH trial)

STUDY QUESTION: Is a single endometrial scratch prior to the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment cost-effective compared to no scratch, when evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period? SUMMARY ANSWER: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for an endometrial scratch was €6524 per additional live birth, but due to uncertainty regarding the increase in live birth rate this has to be interpreted with caution. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometrial scratching is thought to improve the chances of success in couples with previously failed embryo implantation in IVF/ICSI treatment. It has been widely implemented in daily practice, despite the lack of conclusive evidence of its effectiveness and without investigating whether scratching allows for a cost-effective method to reduce the number of IVF/ICSI cycles needed to achieve a live birth. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation is based on a multicentre randomized controlled trial carried out in the Netherlands (SCRaTCH trial) that compared a single scratch prior to the second IVF/ICSI treatment with no scratch in couples with a failed full first IVF/ICSI cycle. Follow-up was 12 months after randomization.Economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare and societal perspective by taking both direct medical costs and lost productivity costs into account. It was performed for the primary outcome of biochemical pregnancy leading to live birth after 12 months of follow-up as well as the secondary outcome of live birth after the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment (i.e. the first after randomization). To allow for worldwide interpretation of the data, cost level scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: From January 2016 until July 2018, 933 women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle were included in the trial. Data on treatment and pregnancy were recorded up until 12 months after randomization, and the resulting live birth outcomes (even if after 12 months) were also recorded.Total costs were calculated for the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment and for the full 12 month period for each participant. We included costs of all treatments, medication, complications and lost productivity costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by calculating ICERs for scratch compared to control. Bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the uncertainty around cost and effect differences and ICERs. In the sensitivity and scenario analyses, various unit costs for a single scratch were introduced, amongst them, unit costs as they apply for the United Kingdom (UK). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: More live births occurred in the scratch group, but this also came with increased costs over a 12-month period. The estimated chance of a live birth after 12 months of follow-up was 44.1% in the scratch group compared to 39.3% in the control group (risk difference 4.8%, 95% CI -1.6% to +11.2%). The mean costs were on average €283 (95% CI: -€299 to €810) higher in the scratch group so that the point average ICER was €5846 per additional live birth. The ICER estimate was surrounded with a high level of uncertainty, as indicated by the fact that the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed that there is an 80% chance that endometrial scratching is cost-effective if society is willing to pay ∼€17 500 for each additional live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There was a high uncertainty surrounding the effects, mainly in the clinical effect, i.e. the difference in the chance of live birth, which meant that a single straightforward conclusion could not be ascertained as for now. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first formal cost-effectiveness analysis of endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. The results presented in this manuscript cannot provide a clear-cut expenditure for one additional birth, but they do allow for estimating costs per additional live birth in different scenarios once the clinical effectiveness of scratching is known. As the SCRaTCH trial was the only trial with a follow-up of 12 months, it allows for the most complete estimation of costs to date. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organization for funding healthcare research. A.E.P.C., F.J.M.B., E.R.G. and C.B. L. reported having received fees or grants during, but outside of, this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342)