Oxytocin is a key hormone in breastfeeding. No recent review on plasma levels of oxytocin in response to breastfeeding is available. Systematic literature searches on breastfeeding induced oxytocin levels were conducted 2017 and 2019 in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Data on oxytocin linked effects and effects of medical interventions were included if available. We found 29 articles that met the inclusion criteria. All studies had an exploratory design and included 601 women. Data were extracted from the articles and summarised in tables. Breastfeeding induced an immediate and short lasting (20 minutes) release of oxytocin. The release was pulsatile early postpartum (5 pulses/10 minutes) and coalesced into a more protracted rise as lactation proceeded. Oxytocin levels were higher in multiparous versus primiparous women. The number of oxytocin pulses during early breastfeeding was associated with greater milk yield and longer duration of lactation and was reduced by stress. Breastfeeding-induced oxytocin release was associated with elevated prolactin levels; lowered ACTH and cortisol (stress hormones) and somatostatin (a gastrointestinal hormone) levels; enhanced sociability; and reduced anxiety, suggesting that oxytocin induces physiological and psychological adaptations in the mother. Mechanical breast pumping, but not bottle-feeding was associated with oxytocin and prolactin release and decreased stress levels. Emergency caesarean section reduced oxytocin and prolactin release in response to breastfeeding and also maternal mental adaptations. Epidural analgesia reduced prolactin and mental adaptation, whereas infusions of synthetic oxytocin increased prolactin and mental adaptation. Oxytocin infusion also restored negative effects induced by caesarean section and epidural analgesia. Oxytocin is released in response to breastfeeding to cause milk ejection, and to induce physiological changes to promote milk production and psychological adaptations to facilitate motherhood. Stress and medical interventions during birth may influence these effects and thereby adversely affect the initiation of breastfeeding.

This study aims to evaluate levels of anxiety and depression in women, correlated with infertility per se and with infertility treatments, highlighting predictors of higher levels of distress. Two validated standardized questionnaires, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL), were administered to 89 women both before their first cycle of infertility treatment and again at the end of the ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF). Women's levels of anxiety were significantly higher before the treatment than during the treatment itself. Stratifying the women in three groups based on principal cause of infertility (male infertility, female infertility, or both male and female), we found significantly higher levels of anxiety and general distress in patients under treatment for female infertility. Higher anxiety levels in our sample before the treatment are probably an effect of not knowing what they are expected to do to solve their problem. Moreover, when the cause of infertility is exclusively female, women experience higher levels of anxiety and general distress both before and during the treatment, probably correlated to a sense of guilt. These data help the treating physician to better counsel patients and to provide a more focused psychological support.

STUDY QUESTION: Is it safe to perform controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation before starting anticancer therapies or ART after treatments in young breast cancer patients? SUMMARY ANSWER: Performing COS before, or ART following anticancer treatment in young women with breast cancer does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in terms of breast cancer recurrence, mortality or event-free survival (EFS). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: COS for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before starting chemotherapy is standard of care for young women with breast cancer wishing to preserve fertility. However, some oncologists remain concerned on the safety of COS, particularly in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors, even when associated with aromatase inhibitors. Moreover, limited evidence exists on the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors for achieving pregnancy after the completion of anticancer treatments. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The present systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by three blinded investigators using the keywords ‘breast cancer’ and ‘fertility preservation’; keywords were combined with Boolean operators. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 30 June 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: To be included in this meta-analysis, eligible studies had to be case-control or cohort studies comparing survival outcomes of women who underwent COS or ART before or after breast cancer treatments compared to breast cancer patients not exposed to these strategies. Survival outcomes of interest were cancer recurrence rate, relapse rate, overall survival and number of deaths. Adjusted relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI were extracted. When the number of events for each group were available but the above measures were not reported, HRs were estimated using the Watkins and Bennett method. We excluded case reports or case series with <10 patients and studies without a control group of breast cancer patients who did not pursue COS or ART. Quality of data and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 1835 records were retrieved. After excluding ineligible publications, 15 studies were finally included in the present meta-analysis (n = 4643). Among them, 11 reported the outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent COS for fertility preservation before starting chemotherapy, and 4 the safety of ART following anticancer treatment completion. Compared to women who did not receive fertility preservation at diagnosis (n = 2386), those who underwent COS (n = 1594) had reduced risk of recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46–0.73) and mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38–0.76). No detrimental effect of COS on EFS was observed (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55–1.06). A similar trend of better outcomes in terms of EFS was observed in women with hormone-receptor-positive disease who underwent COS (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20–0.65). A reduced risk of recurrence was also observed in patients undergoing COS before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06–0.80). Compared to women not exposed to ART following completion of anticancer treatments (n = 540), those exposed to ART (n = 123) showed a tendency for better outcomes in terms of recurrence ratio (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17–0.70) and EFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17–1.11). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This meta-analysis is based on abstracted data and most of the studies included are retrospective cohort studies. Not all studies had matching criteria between the study population and the controls, and these criteria often differed between the studies. Moreover, rate of recurrence is reported as a punctual event and it is not possible to establish when recurrences occurred and whether follow-up, which was shorter than 5 years in some of the included studies, is adequate to capture late recurrences. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results demonstrate that performing COS at diagnosis or ART following treatment completion does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in young women with breast cancer, including among patients with hormone receptor-positive disease and those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Partially supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; grant number MFAG 2020 ID 24698) and the Italian Ministry of Health—5 × 1000 funds 2017 (no grant number). M.L. acted as consultant for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Ipsen, Takeda, Libbs, Knight, Sandoz outside the submitted work. F.S. acted as consultant for Novartis, MSD, Sun Pharma, Philogen and Pierre Fabre and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. I.D. has acted as a consultant for Roche, has received research grants from Roche and Ferring, has received reagents for academic clinical trial from Roche diagnostics, speaker’s fees from Novartis, and support for congresses from Theramex and Ferring outside the submitted work. L.D.M. reported honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis and had an advisory role for Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript and decision to submit the manuscript for...

Background: The co-administration of letrozole during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with gonadotropins is used to limit the potentially harmful effects of a supra-physiological rise in estrogen levels on hormone-sensitive cancers. However, the efficacy and safety of adding letrozole to COS remain debated. Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that compared the efficacy and safety of COS with co-administration of letrozole vs. COS without letrozole in all patient populations. A secondary analysis was done including only the studies in breast cancer patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of retrieved mature Metaphase II (MII) oocytes. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were total number of oocytes, maturation rate, fertilization rate, number of cryopreserved embryos, peak estradiol levels, progesterone levels, and total gonadotropin dose. Data for each endpoint were reported and analyzed thorough mean ratio (MR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 11 records were selected including 2,121 patients (990 patients underwent COS with letrozole and 1,131 COS without letrozole). The addition of letrozole to COS did not have any negative effect on the number of mature oocytes collected (MR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.87–1.16; P = 0.967) and the other efficacy endpoints. COS with letrozole was associated with significantly decreased peak estradiol levels (MR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.24–0.32; P < 0.001). Similar results were observed in the secondary analysis including only breast cancer patients. Conclusions: These findings are reassuring on the efficacy and safety of COS with gonadotropins and letrozole and are particularly important for fertility preservation in women with hormone-sensitive cancers.

A network of endometriosis experts from 16 Italian academic departments and teaching hospitals distributed all over the country made a critical appraisal of the available evidence and definition of 10 suggestions regarding measures to be de-implemented. Strong suggestions were made only when high-quality evidence was available. The aim was to select 10 low-value medical interventions, characterized by an unfavorable balance between potential benefits, potential harms, and costs, which should be discouraged in women with endometriosis. The following suggestions were agreed by all experts: do not suggest laparoscopy to detect and treat superficial peritoneal endometriosis in infertile women without pelvic pain symptoms; do not recommend controlled ovarian stimulation and IUI in infertile women with endometriosis at any stage; do not remove small ovarian endometriomas (diameter <4 cm) with the sole objective of improving the likelihood of conception in infertile patients scheduled for IVF; do not remove uncomplicated deep endometriotic lesions in asymptomatic women, and also in symptomatic women not seeking conception when medical treatment is effective and well tolerated; do not systematically request second-level diagnostic investigations in women with known or suspected non-subocclusive colorectal endometriosis or with symptoms responding to medical treatment; do not recommend repeated follow-up serum CA-125 (or other currently available biomarkers) measurements in women successfully using medical treatments for uncomplicated endometriosis in the absence of suspicious ovarian cysts; do not leave women undergoing surgery for ovarian endometriomas and not seeking immediate conception without post-operative long-term treatment with estrogen–progestins or progestins; do not perform laparoscopy in adolescent women (<20 years) with moderate–severe dysmenorrhea and clinically suspected early endometriosis without prior attempting to relieve symptoms with estrogen–progestins or progestins; do not prescribe drugs that cannot be used for prolonged periods of time because of safety or cost issues as first-line medical treatment, unless estrogen–progestins or progestins have been proven ineffective, not tolerated, or contraindicated; do not use robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis outside research settings.Our proposal is to better address medical and surgical approaches to endometriosis de-implementing low-value interventions, with the aim to prevent unnecessary morbidity, limit psychological distress, and reduce the burden of treatment avoiding medical overuse and allowing a more equitable distribution of healthcare resources.