PURPOSE
Fertility and pregnancy-related issues are highly relevant for young (≤ 40 years) patients with breast cancer. Limited evidence exists on knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) regarding these issues.
METHODS
A 19-item questionnaire adapted from an international survey exploring issues about fertility preservation and pregnancy after breast cancer was sent by e-mail between November 2019 and January 2020 to physicians from LMICs involved in breast cancer care. Descriptive analyses were performed.
RESULTS
A total of 288 physicians from Asia, Africa, America, and Europe completed the survey. Median age was 38 years. Responders were mainly medical oncologists (44.4%) working in an academic setting (46.9%). Among responders, 40.2% and 53.8% reported having never consulted the available international guidelines on fertility preservation and pregnancy after breast cancer, respectively. 25.0%, 19.1%, and 24.3% of responders answered to be not at all knowledgeable about embryo, oocyte, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively; 29.2%, 23.6%, and 31.3% declared that embryo, oocyte, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation were not available in their countries, respectively. 57.6% of responders disagreed or were neutral on the statement that controlled ovarian stimulation can be considered safe in patients with breast cancer. 49.7% and 58.6% of responders agreed or were neutral on the statement that pregnancy in breast cancer survivors may increase the risk of recurrence overall or only in those with hormone receptor–positive disease, respectively.
CONCLUSION
This survey showed suboptimal knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians from LMICs on fertility preservation and pregnancy after treatment completion in young women with breast cancer. Increasing awareness and education on these aspects are needed to improve adherence to available guidelines and to promote patients' oncofertility counseling.
INTRODUCTION
In young women worldwide, breast cancer is the most common tumor accounting for more than 30% of the total cases of newly diagnosed malignancies in patients younger than 40 years.1 Although breast cancer arising at a young age represents a minority of the total number of new diagnoses of breast malignancies in Western countries,2 it has a more significant burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).3,4 The reasons behind these epidemiologic differences across countries are poorly understood but they may be related to different age distribution of the population, reproductive behaviors, overall life expectancy, competitive causes of death, and environmental and genetic risk factors.5-7
CONTEXT
Key Objective
To explore knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) regarding fertility and pregnancy-related issues in young women with breast cancer.
Knowledge Generated
This survey provides an important picture of the current status on how fertility preservation and pregnancy after treatment completion in young women with breast cancer are managed by the 288 responding physicians practicing in LMICs from Asia, Africa, America, and Europe. We observed suboptimal adherence to guidelines when managing these issues that are of high relevance to many young patients.
Relevance
These results highlight the need for implementing targeted efforts in LMICs to overcome barriers and to increase awareness and education for improving adherence to available guidelines and patients' oncofertility counseling.
Breast cancer in young women is considered a public health problem because of its economic and societal implications, as well as the several age-related complex issues that need to be considered in the care of these patients.8,9 Among them, the development of premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) and subsequent infertility as a consequence of the use of anticancer therapies deserves special attention.10 Many young women are concerned about developing these side effects, and the desire for a future pregnancy may influence their treatment decisions.11-14 Thus, performing adequate oncofertility counseling and offering the available strategies for fertility preservation to improve chances of conception following anticancer therapies is now considered a key component in the care of young women with cancer.15-17
Well-established models of care in oncofertility exist to help physicians in dealing with these issues.18,19 However, knowledge, practice, and attitudes of breast cancer specialists toward management of fertility and pregnancy-related concerns in young patients are not always optimal.20 In our prior survey, the majority of responders were from Western countries, with only a minority of responding physicians practicing in LMICs.20 Considering that treating breast cancer in LMICs poses additional challenges including inequities in access to screening and effective therapeutic options,21-23 it is of paramount importance to investigate potential disparities in survivorship care, particularly in the field of oncofertility, also considering the different reproductive behaviors and fertility-related challenges compared with Western countries.24,25 Notably, lack of clear evidence exists on how survivorship care in young women with breast cancer is managed in LMICs.26
The present survey aimed at investigating knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians involved in cancer care and practicing in LMICs on fertility and pregnancy-related issues in young (≤ 40 years) women with breast cancer to portray treatment patterns and to raise awareness on the needs related to these important aspects of the care of these patients.
METHODS
An anonymous online survey was created by medical oncologists involved in breast cancer care. This survey was adapted from a prior questionnaire that was specifically created for the ESO-ESMO Breast Cancer in Young Women International Conference (BCY) by physicians from different specialties (medical oncologists, gynecologists, and fertility specialists) involved in the care of breast cancer in young women with a main expertise in the field of oncofertility.20 Specifically, the present survey covered issues related to fertility preservation and pregnancy after treatment completion in young women with breast cancer.
Between November 2019 and January 2020, the questionnaire was e-mailed to physicians involved in the management of patients with breast cancer and practicing in LMICs (defined according to the World Bank income grouping).27 In each country, a physician ambassador was selected and was responsible for local recruitment of physicians. The online platform for accessing the questionnaire was open for 60 days.
Institutional review board approval was not sought for this study following the Medical Research Council's advice that this work represented a low-risk health investigation, in alignment with the US 45 CFR 46 section 104 (category 5 for exemption). The research project was presented to study participants and they were asked for voluntary participation after provision of an informative letter for anonymized confidential data collection. Data processing complied with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR 2016/679) for information security.
Characteristics of the Survey
The survey included a 19-item structured questionnaire with multiple-choice mandatory answers divided into the following three sections (Data Supplement):
Demographic, medical training, and background information (questions 1-9)
Knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians toward fertility preservation in young women with breast cancer (questions 10-16)
Knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians toward pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment (questions 17-19)
Knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians toward these topics were investigated either by using Likert scales (from not at all knowledgeable to very knowledgeable, from never to always, and from disagree to agree), or by appositely created answer's options.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive analyses were conducted. Characteristics of responding physicians were described as the absolute number of responders for each answer's option on the total number of people responding to the questionnaire. If more than one option was allowed, the sum of percentages for each answer's option is foreseeably different from 100%.
RESULTS
Demographic, Medical Training, and Background Information
A total of 288 physicians practicing in LMICs and involved in breast cancer management took part in the survey (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Characteristics of Responding Physicians to the Survey
Responding physicians were predominantly men (n = 160, 55.6%), with a median age of 38 years (interquartile range, 33-45 years), from Latin America (n = 112, 38.9%), Asia (n = 99, 34.4%), Africa (n = 52, 18.1%), or Eastern Europe (n = 25, 8.7%). The majority of responders were medical oncologists (n = 128, 44.4%), working mainly in academic hospitals (n = 135, 46.9%) and in the public sector (n = 170, 59.0%). Responders reported to have a median of 8 years of experience in medical practice (interquartile range, 4-15 years). A total of 47.6% (n = 137) were affiliated to a breast unit.
Knowledge, Practice, and Attitudes of Physicians Toward Fertility Preservation in Young Patients With Breast Cancer
Table 2 summarizes responses of study participants. A total of 59.7% of responders (n = 172) reported having sometimes consulted international guidelines on fertility preservation in patients with cancer and survivors (Fig 1). Regarding strategies for fertility preservation, 65.2% of responding physicians (n = 188) reported being knowledgeable or very knowledgeable on the use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRHa) for ovarian function suppression during chemotherapy. Only 40.9% (n = 118), 32.3% (n = 93), and 28.1% (n = 81) considered to be well informed on oocyte cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively (Fig 2).
TABLE 2.
Knowledge, Practice, and Attitudes of Physicians Toward Fertility Preservation in Young Patients With Breast Cancera
FIG 1.
Physicians' knowledge on the available international guidelines on (A) fertility preservation and (B) pregnancy in breast cancer survivors.
FIG 2.
Physicians' knowledge on the available strategies for fertility preservation in patients with breast cancer. LHRHa, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist.
The possibility of impairing ovarian function and fertility with cytotoxic anticancer therapies was always or usually discussed with young patients with breast cancer by 71.6% of responding physicians (n = 207).
The primary reported factors preventing the access to the available fertility preservation procedures were the cost of the strategies (n = 185, 64.2%), the lack of collaboration with a specialized center for medically assisted reproduction (n = 157, 54.5%), patient-related factors (age, social status, instruction, availability of a partner, prior children, and cancer prognosis; n = 148, 51.4%), the lack of information about these procedures (n = 79, 27.4%), and being worried about delaying the start of chemotherapy (n = 69, 24.0%).
Among responding physicians, 43.8% (n = 126) reported that LHRHa was available and its cost covered or partially covered by the national health system or by their institution. However, oocyte cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation were covered for less than 10% of responders (7.6%, 4.2%, and 4.2%, respectively; Fig 3).
FIG 3.
Availability and health care coverage of fertility preservation procedures among regions and/or settings. LHRHa, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist.
LHRHa administration, oocyte cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation were always or usually suggested to young women with breast cancer interested in preserving fertility by 80.2% (n = 231), 49.3% (n = 142), 28.8% (n = 83), and 27.8% (n = 80) of physicians, respectively (Fig 4).
FIG 4.
Frequency at which fertility preservation strategies are suggested by physicians in young women with breast cancer. LHRHa, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist.
Attitudes toward the safety of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for embryo and/or oocyte cryopreservation were explored. It was considered a safe procedure in all patients by 42.4% of responding physicians (n = 122), whereas 29.9% (n = 86) and 18.1% (n = 52) of responders considered it not safe in patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer and in those candidates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, respectively (Fig 5). A total of 76.4% (n = 220) agreed that cryopreservation of ovarian tissue should be performed only in centers with adequate expertise.
FIG 5.
Physicians' attitudes toward the safety of controlled ovarian stimulation in young women with breast cancer.
Among responding physicians, 33.7% (n = 97) and 17.7% (n = 51) agreed that ovarian suppression with LHRHa during chemotherapy should be proposed only to patients who cannot access embryo/oocyte cryopreservation or only to patients with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer, respectively.
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice of Physicians Toward Pregnancy After Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Table 3 summarizes responses of study participants. For 43.8% of responders (n = 126), patient's pregnancy desire rarely alters the proposed systemic (neo)adjuvant treatment choice.
TABLE 3.
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice of Physicians Toward Pregnancy After Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatmenta
Attitudes of responding physicians toward pregnancy in survivors of breast cancer (ie, women previously affected by breast cancer) were explored. A total of 21.2% (n = 61) responding physicians considered that pregnancy might increase the risk of recurrence, particularly if it occurs within 2 years from cancer diagnosis (n = 92, 31.9%), and in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease (n = 73, 25.3%; Fig 6).
FIG 6.
Physicians' attitudes toward the potential detrimental prognostic effect of pregnancy after breast cancer.
A total of 73.6% (n = 212) of responding physicians disagreed that abortion should be considered as a therapeutic option. A temporary interruption of endocrine therapy to allow pregnancy in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease was considered safe by 31.6% of responding physicians (n = 91). A total of 192 (66.7%) responders thought that a pregnancy in breast cancer survivors should be considered as high-risk and 181 (62.8%) that breastfeeding was safe. Moreover, 55.9% (n = 161), 49% (n = 141), 46.2% (n = 133), and 47.25% (n = 136) of responders agreed that assisted reproductive technologies, COS, egg donation, and transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue harvested at the time of diagnosis could be safely performed in breast cancer survivors, respectively (Fig 7).
FIG 7.
Physicians' attitudes toward the safety of different assisted reproductive strategies in breast cancer survivors.
DISCUSSION
In this survey, we investigated knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians practicing in LMICs toward fertility preservation and issues related to pregnancy after treatment completion in young women with breast cancer. We observed a suboptimal performance in dealing with these issues, thus highlighting the need to overcome the existing difficulties and increase awareness and education on these important aspects of the care of young patients.
In women diagnosed with cancer during reproductive years, oncofertility counseling is now considered standard of care.15-17 However, prior surveys targeting mostly physicians practicing in Western countries have identified knowledge gaps in this domain.20,28-31 In the present survey, we provide a picture of these important aspects of young women's care focusing specifically on physicians from LMICs. Additional issues were observed.
In patients interested in fertility preservation (ie, to increase their chances of having a future pregnancy), oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are the first options to be discussed, leaving ovarian tissue cryopreservation as an alternative in women who do not have enough time before starting an anticancer treatment or have contraindications to undergo the 10-15 days of COS.15-17 Ovarian suppression with LHRHa during chemotherapy is now recognized as an established approach to reduce chemotherapy-induced POI but not a standalone fertility preservation strategy.15-17 Therefore, LHRHa during chemotherapy can be proposed not only to women with pregnancy desire after cryopreservation strategies but also to those concerned about the side effects of early menopause.32,33
In our survey, despite being involved in breast cancer care, approximately 40% of responding physicians had never consulted the available guidelines on fertility preservation in patients with cancer. Although most responders reported being well informed on the use of LHRHa during chemotherapy, only between 28% and 41% considered themselves to be knowledgeable or very knowledgeable about the three cryopreservation options, a poorer performance compared with the BCY survey.20 Similar numbers were observed when assessing how often these different strategies were offered, with more than 80% reporting to always or usually propose the use of LHRHa during chemotherapy and only between 28% and 49% supporting referral to cryopreservation options. Notably, although approximately 44% of responding physicians mentioned that LHRHa during chemotherapy is available and its cost is covered or partially covered by their national health system or institution, this percentage went down to < 10% for cryopreservation options. This means that the recommended fertility preservation procedures were reported to be not covered, so to be not affordable, or simply not available by a high number of responding physicians. This is the most important and alarming gap between the present results and prior findings from the BCY survey.20 Despite many requests to implement universal coverage for oncofertility services,16,34 two thirds of responders to our survey considered the cost of fertility preservation strategies as the most frequent barrier in addressing these issues. Moreover, more than half of the responding physicians considered the lack of collaboration with a specialized center for medically assisted reproduction as another important limitation. In this regard, considering that the proportion of young women with breast cancer motivated to have access to fertility units for cryopreservation options is relatively small (approximately 10%-15% of all newly diagnosed patients),11-14 efforts are needed to overcome structural barriers, thus highlighting the importance of creating infrastructures to accommodate or link to multidisciplinary fertility units. A hub and spoke model with many oncology units referring patients interested in fertility preservation to few selected fertility centers might be preferable not only to improve the chance of women to access these procedures but also in terms of cost optimization, to improve affordability, and should be envisioned worldwide including among LMICs.35 Barriers were also determined by social determinants of health. More than half of the responders reported that social status and instruction might affect the likelihood of accessing oncofertility services. Reimbursement of oncofertility services should be pursued according to the available resources, along with patient-empowering educational interventions to enhance health literacy for shared decisions,36 to enable patient-centered therapeutic plans and tackle cancer-related stigma, which is in part driven by the reduced pregnancy potential after anticancer treatments.37
Additionally, some misconceptions about the available strategies for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation were observed.
A high proportion of responding physicians (42.4%) was unsure that COS for embryo/oocyte cryopreservation is a safe procedure in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Although data remain limited and deriving mainly from retrospective evidence, several studies have shown that one cycle of COS before starting chemotherapy is safe for young women with breast cancer.38,39 This appears to be the case also for women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer and/or those candidates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.38 In addition, to avoid potential concerns, the addition of letrozole to the protocols for COS has shown to significantly reduce estradiol levels while maintaining the efficacy of the procedure.40 Therefore, the inclusion of letrozole in the protocols for COS is now supported as the preferred option in the breast cancer setting by all guidelines.15-17
Regarding the use of LHRHa during chemotherapy, it is important to highlight that this strategy has shown to be effective in reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced POI while data on post-treatment pregnancies are more limited.41 Therefore, it should be considered as an option for ovarian function preservation and not an alternative to cryopreservation strategies for women interested in fertility preservation.10,33 Although some trials investigating this approach have excluded patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer,32,42 the largest ones have included them.43,44 Considering that giving LHRHa during chemotherapy is safe without worsening patients' outcomes and equally effective in patients with hormone receptor–positive and –negative disease,45,46 it can be offered to all premenopausal patients with breast cancer interested in preserving ovarian function irrespective of the hormone receptor status of the tumor. Importantly, the use of LHRHa during chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, as also done in the TEXT trial,46 may avoid the issues of assessing ovarian function at the time of chemotherapy completion to decide on the best adjuvant endocrine therapy approach.47,48
Many young women with breast cancer have not yet completed their family planning at the time of diagnosis and are interested in future motherhood.49 However, breast cancer survivors have a lower likelihood of future conception compared with the general population and patients diagnosed with other cancers.50 In addition to the impact of breast cancer treatment on ovarian function, physicians' concerns on the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer should be considered important reasons for these findings.20 This is confirmed in our survey in which only half of the responding physicians disagreed with the statement that pregnancy in these patients may increase the risk of recurrence, a percentage that lowered to 41% in the case of women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. These percentages were 69.6% and 63.0% in the BCY survey, suggesting more concerns in this regard among physicians practicing in LMICs.20 These concerns are not supported by the growing amount of evidence that has become available showing that, after adequate treatment and period of follow-up, conceiving is safe for breast cancer survivors,50,51 including among those with hormone receptor–positive disease.52
Approximately 32% of responding physicians agreed that a temporary interruption of endocrine therapy to allow pregnancy in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease could be considered safe. Notably, no solid evidence exists so far to counsel patients in this regard, and the results from the POSITIVE trial are awaited to shed light in this important area.53,54
Interestingly, approximately half of the responding physicians supported the safety of assisted reproductive technologies including COS for in vitro fertilization procedures in young breast cancer survivors. However, it should be highlighted that the safety data in this regard exist for newly diagnosed patients who are then candidates to undergo chemotherapy afterward,38,39 whereas there is limited efficacy and safety evidence when these techniques are used following anticancer treatment completion.55 Referring interested patients to fertility units before initiating anticancer therapies should remain the preferred approach.
Some limitations need to be considered when interpreting the results of our survey. It was not possible to estimate the correct response rate considering that different approaches were used in each country to try to reach as many colleagues as possible. We observed differences in response rates across the countries, and from some of them, only few physicians responded to the questionnaire. Moreover, most of responders were young and practiced primarily in academic hospitals and/or specialized cancer institutions. More than a third reported working in the private sector, probably mirroring a more optimistic scenario than in the real life. No information on knowledge, practice, and attitudes of nursing staff, patients, and their caregivers in these topics were collected.
However, we believe that our survey with its large sample size is unique in addressing these important aspects of the care of young women with breast cancer specifically among physicians practicing in LMICs. Information were obtained from a large number of countries, four different world regions, and completely different health care systems.
In conclusion, our survey provides an important picture of the current status on knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians practicing in LMICs toward fertility preservation and pregnancy after treatment completion in young women with breast cancer. Some important misconceptions were observed toward these issues. Targeted efforts in LMICs should be implemented to overcome barriers and to increase awareness and education for improving adherence to available guidelines and patients' oncofertility counseling.
Cynthia Villarreal-Garza
Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly
Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Myriad Genetics, Novartis
Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Roche (Inst)
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD Oncology, Pfizer
Bhawna Sirohi
Honoraria: Roche Pharma AG, Eisai
Consulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst)
Research Funding: Dr Reddy's (Inst), Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst)
Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Elsevier Book on Modern GI Oncology, Harper Collins—book on cancer
Noam F. Ponde
Employment: IQVIA
Mariana Brandão
Speakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech
Research Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst)
Hatem A. Azim Jr
Employment: Innate Pharma, Pierre Fabre
Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Innate Pharma
Honoraria: Novartis
Consulting or Advisory Role: Diaacurate
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis
Ivana Bozovic-Spasojevic
Honoraria: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer
Research Funding: Roche (Inst)
Andrew Odhiambo
Honoraria: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche
Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Janssen, Beacon Medicare, Merck
Radu Vidra
Consulting or Advisory Role: Sandoz, Accord Healthcare, Servier
Speakers' Bureau: Lilly, Servier, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, Pfizer, Egis Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz
Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, Amgen, MSD, Roche
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen
Hampig Raphael Kourie
Honoraria: Pfizer, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen
Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca
Research Funding: Merck Serono (Inst)
Mehmet Akif Ozturk
Honoraria: Pfizer, Astellas
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer
Csongor György Lengyel
Employment: Bristol Myers Squibb
Karina Perez Sacardo
Consulting or Advisory Role: Eurofarma
Narjust Duma
Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, NeoGenomics Laboratories, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex
Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences
Bishal Gyawali
Consulting or Advisory Role: Vivio Health
Marco Tagliamento
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda
Other Relationship: Novartis, Amgen
Matteo Lambertini
Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca
Speakers' Bureau: Theramex, Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz
No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.
DISCLAIMER
The financial sponsors of the study (AIRC and 5x1000) had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report, and they had no access to the data. The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors.
PRIOR PRESENTATION
Presented at ESMO Asia 2020, November 20-22, 2020, virtual.
SUPPORT
Supported in part by the Italian Ministry of Health—5x1000 funds 2017 (no grant number) and the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC; MFAG 2020 ID 24698).
M.T. and M.L. contributed equally to this work.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conception and design: Shah Zeb Khan, Matteo Lambertini
Administrative support: Luca Arecco, Marco Tagliamento, Matteo Lambertini
Provision of study materials or patients: All authors
Collection and assembly of data: All authors
Data analysis and interpretation: Shah Zeb Khan, Marco Tagliamento, Matteo Lambertini
Manuscript writing: All authors
Final approval of manuscript: All authors
Accountable for all aspects of the work: All authors
AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/go/authors/author-center.
Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).
Cynthia Villarreal-Garza
Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly
Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Myriad Genetics, Novartis
Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Roche (Inst)
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD Oncology, Pfizer
Bhawna Sirohi
Honoraria: Roche Pharma AG, Eisai
Consulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst)
Research Funding: Dr Reddy's (Inst), Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst)
Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Elsevier Book on Modern GI Oncology, Harper Collins—book on cancer
Noam F. Ponde
Employment: IQVIA
Mariana Brandão
Speakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech
Research Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst)
Hatem A. Azim Jr
Employment: Innate Pharma, Pierre Fabre
Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Innate Pharma
Honoraria: Novartis
Consulting or Advisory Role: Diaacurate
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis
Ivana Bozovic-Spasojevic
Honoraria: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer
Research Funding: Roche (Inst)
Andrew Odhiambo
Honoraria: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche
Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Janssen, Beacon Medicare, Merck
Radu Vidra
Consulting or Advisory Role: Sandoz, Accord Healthcare, Servier
Speakers' Bureau: Lilly, Servier, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, Pfizer, Egis Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz
Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, Amgen, MSD, Roche
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen
Hampig Raphael Kourie
Honoraria: Pfizer, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen
Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca
Research Funding: Merck Serono (Inst)
Mehmet Akif Ozturk
Honoraria: Pfizer, Astellas
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer
Csongor György Lengyel
Employment: Bristol Myers Squibb
Karina Perez Sacardo
Consulting or Advisory Role: Eurofarma
Narjust Duma
Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, NeoGenomics Laboratories, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex
Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences
Bishal Gyawali
Consulting or Advisory Role: Vivio Health
Marco Tagliamento
Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda
Other Relationship: Novartis, Amgen
Matteo Lambertini
Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca
Speakers' Bureau: Theramex, Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz
No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.
REFERENCES
- 1.Fidler MM, Gupta S, Soerjomataram I, et al. : Cancer incidence and mortality among young adults aged 20-39 years worldwide in 2012: A population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18:1579-1589, 2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. : Cancer statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 71:7-33, 2021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Villarreal-Garza C, Aguila C, Magallanes-Hoyos MC, et al. : Breast cancer in young women in Latin America: An unmet, growing burden. Oncologist 18:26-34, 2013. (suppl) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Heer E, Harper A, Escandor N, et al. : Global burden and trends in premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer: A population-based study. Lancet Glob Health 8:e1027-37, 2020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lambertini M, Santoro L, Del Mastro L, et al. : Reproductive behaviors and risk of developing breast cancer according to tumor subtype: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Cancer Treat Rev 49:65-76, 2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lee SK, Kim SW, Yu J-H, et al. : Is the high proportion of young age at breast cancer onset a unique feature of Asian breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 173:189-199, 2019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Poggio F, Lambertini M, Bighin C, et al. : Management of young women with early breast cancer. ESMO Open 3:e000458, 2018. (suppl 1) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Rosenberg SM, Newman LA, Partridge AH: Breast cancer in young women: Rare disease or public health problem? JAMA Oncol 1:877-878, 2015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Paluch-Shimon S, Cardoso F, Partridge AH, et al. : ESO-ESMO 4th International Consensus Guidelines for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY4). Ann Oncol 31:674-696, 2020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Arecco L, Perachino M, Damassi A, et al. : Burning questions in the oncofertility counseling of young breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 14:1178223420954179, 2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ruddy KJ, Gelber SI, Tamimi RM, et al. : Prospective study of fertility concerns and preservation strategies in young women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 32:1151-1156, 2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lambertini M, Fontana V, Massarotti C, 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 41:51-56, 2018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ruggeri M, Pagan E, Bagnardi V, et al. : Fertility concerns, preservation strategies and quality of life in young women with breast cancer: Baseline results from an ongoing prospective cohort study in selected European Centers. Breast 47:85-92, 2019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Blondeaux E, Massarotti C, Fontana V, et al. : The PREgnancy and FERtility (PREFER) study investigating the need for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies in premenopausal women with early breast cancer. Front Oncol 11:690320, 2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Oktay K, Harvey BE, Partridge AH, et al. : Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 36:1994-2001, 2018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lambertini M, Peccatori FA, Demeestere I, et al. : Fertility preservation and post-treatment pregnancies in post-pubertal cancer patients: ESMO clinical practice guidelines†. Ann Oncol 31:1664-1678, 2020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.ESHRE Guideline Group on Female Fertility Preservation, Anderson RA, Amant F, et al. : ESHRE guideline: Female fertility preservation. Hum Reprod Open 2020:hoaa052, 2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Anazodo A, Laws P, Logan S, et al. : How can we improve oncofertility care for patients? A systematic scoping review of current international practice and models of care. Hum Reprod Update 25:159-179, 2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Perachino M, Massarotti C, Razeti MG, et al. : Gender-specific aspects related to type of fertility preservation strategies and access to fertility care. ESMO Open 5:e000771, 2020. (suppl 4) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Lambertini M, Di Maio M, Pagani O, 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 42:41-49, 2018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Tfayli A, Temraz S, Abou Mrad R, et al. : Breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: An emerging and challenging epidemic. J Oncol 2010:490631, 2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Lambertini M, Goldrat O, Barragan-Carrillo R, et al. : Viable options for fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: A focus on Latin America. Rev Invest Clin 69:103-113, 2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Brandão M, Guisseve A, Bata G, et al. : Breast cancer subtypes: Implications for the treatment and survival of patients in Africa-a prospective cohort study from Mozambique. ESMO Open 5:e000829, 2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Salama M, Ataman L, Taha T, et al. : Building oncofertility core competency in developing countries: Experience from Egypt, Tunisia, Brazil, Peru, and Panama. JCO Glob Oncol 6:360-368, 2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Salama M, Ataman-Millhouse L, Sobral F, et al. : Barriers and opportunities of oncofertility practice in nine developing countries and the emerging oncofertility professional engagement network. JCO Glob Oncol 6:369-374, 2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Trapani D, Yves Douillard J, Winer EP, et al. : The global landscape of treatment standards for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 113:1143-1155, 2021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.https://www.worldbank.org
- 28.Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, Lee J-H, et al. : Physician referral for fertility preservation in oncology patients: A national study of practice behaviors. J Clin Oncol 27:5952-5957, 2009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Forman EJ, Anders CK, Behera MA: A nationwide survey of oncologists regarding treatment-related infertility and fertility preservation in female cancer patients. Fertil Steril 94:1652-1656, 2010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Adams E, Hill E, Watson E: Fertility preservation in cancer survivors: A national survey of oncologists’ current knowledge, practice and attitudes. Br J Cancer 108:1602-1615, 2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Rosenberg SM, Gelber S, Gelber RD, et al. : Oncology physicians’ perspectives on practices and barriers to fertility preservation and the feasibility of a prospective study of pregnancy after breast cancer. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol 6:429-434, 2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lambertini M, Horicks F, Del Mastro L, et al. : Ovarian protection with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy in cancer patients: From biological evidence to clinical application. Cancer Treat Rev 72:65-77, 2019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Razeti MG, Spinaci S, Spagnolo F, et al. : How I perform fertility preservation in breast cancer patients. ESMO Open 6:100112, 2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Bourlon MT, Anazodo A, Woodruff TK, et al. : Oncofertility as a universal right and a global oncology priority. JCO Glob Oncol 6:314-316, 2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Razeti MG, Spinaci S, Lambertini M: Implementing the hub and spoke model for the oncofertility units. Breast 48:100, 2019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Schulz PJ, Nakamoto K: Health literacy and patient empowerment in health communication: The importance of separating conjoined twins. Patient Educ Couns 90:4-11, 2013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Fleetwood A, Campo-Engelstein L: The impact of infertility: Why ART should be a higher priority for women in the global south. Cancer Treat Res 156:237-248, 2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kim J, Turan V, Oktay K: Long-term safety of letrozole and gonadotropin stimulation for fertility preservation in women with breast cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 101:1364-1371, 2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Marklund A, Eloranta S, Wikander I, et al. : Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian stimulation using GnRH antagonist protocols for emergency fertility preservation in young women with breast cancer-a prospective nationwide Swedish multicenter study. Hum Reprod 35:929-938, 2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Bonardi B, Massarotti C, Bruzzone M, et al. : Efficacy and safety of controlled ovarian stimulation with or without letrozole co-administration for fertility preservation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 10:574669, 2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Lambertini M, Ceppi M, Poggio F, 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 26:2408-2419, 2015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Moore HCF, Unger JM, Phillips K-A, et al. : Final analysis of the prevention of early menopause study (POEMS)/SWOG Intergroup S0230. J Natl Cancer Inst 111:210-213, 2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Lambertini M, Boni L, Michelotti A, 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 314:2632-2640, 2015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Leonard RCF, Adamson DJA, Bertelli G, et al. : GnRH agonist for protection against ovarian toxicity during chemotherapy for early breast cancer: The Anglo Celtic Group OPTION trial. Ann Oncol 28:1811-1816, 2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Lambertini M, 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 36:1981-1990, 2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Regan MM, Walley BA, Francis PA, 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 28:2225-2232, 2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Burstein HJ, Lacchetti C, Anderson H, 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 34:1689-1701, 2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Perrone F, et al. : Improving adjuvant endocrine treatment tailoring in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 38:1258-1267, 2020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Poorvu PD, Gelber SI, Zheng Y, et al. : Pregnancy after breast cancer: Results from a prospective cohort of young women with breast cancer. Cancer 127:1021-1028, 2021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 39:3293-3305, 2021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Lambertini M, Ameye L, Hamy A-S, et al. : Pregnancy after breast cancer in patients with germline BRCA mutations. J Clin Oncol 38:3012-3023, 2020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Lambertini M, Kroman N, Ameye L, et al. : Long-term safety of pregnancy following breast cancer according to estrogen receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst 110:426-429, 2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Pagani O, Ruggeri M, Manunta S, et al. : Pregnancy after breast cancer: Are young patients willing to participate in clinical studies? Breast 24:201-207, 2015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Sun Z, Niman SM, Pagani O, et al. : Estimation of historical control rate for a single arm de-escalation study—Application to the POSITIVE trial. Breast 53:1-7, 2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Condorelli M, De Vos M, Lie Fong S, et al. : Impact of ARTs on oncological outcomes in young breast cancer survivors. Hum Reprod 36:381-389, 2021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]