In the last years, thanks to the improvement in the prognosis of cancer patients, a growing attention has been given to the fertility issues. International guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients recommend that physicians discuss, as early as possible, with all patients of reproductive age their risk of infertility from the disease and/or treatment and their interest in having children after cancer, and help with informed fertility preservation decisions. As recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, sperm cryopreservation and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservations in male and female patients, respectively; other strategies (e.g. pharmacological protection of the gonads and gonadal tissue cryopreservation) are considered experimental techniques. However, since then, new data have become available, and several issues in this field are still controversial and should be addressed by both patients and their treating physicians. In April 2015, physicians with expertise in the field of fertility preservation in cancer patients from several European countries were invited in Genova (Italy) to participate in a workshop on the topic of “cancer and fertility preservation”. A total of ten controversial issues were discussed at the conference. Experts were asked to present an up-to-date review of the literature published on these topics and the presentation of own unpublished data was encouraged. On the basis of the data presented, as well as the expertise of the invited speakers, a total of ten recommendations were discussed and prepared with the aim to help physicians in counseling their young patients interested in fertility preservation. Although there is a great interest in this field, due to the lack of large prospective cohort studies and randomized trials on these topics, the level of evidence is not higher than 3 for most of the recommendations highlighting the need of further research efforts in many areas of this field. The participation to the ongoing registries and prospective studies is crucial to acquire more robust information in order to provide evidence-based recommendations.

The role of platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients is highly controversial and it is not endorsed by current guidelines. Our meta-analysis aimed to better elucidate its activity, efficacy and safety. A systematic search of Medline, Web of Science and conferences proceedings up to 30 October 2017 was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating platinum-based versus platinum-free neoadjuvant chemotherapy in TNBC patients. Using the fixed and random effects models, pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pathological complete response (pCR, defined as ypT0/is pN0), event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs: neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and neuropathy). Nine RCTs (N = 2109) were included. Overall, platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly increased pCR rate from 37.0% to 52.1% (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.46–2.62, P < 0.001). Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy remained significantly associated with increased pCR rate also after restricting the analysis to the three RCTs (N = 611) that used the same standard regimen in both groups of weekly paclitaxel (with or without carboplatin) followed by anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.37–4.66, P = 0.003). Conversely, among the 96 BRCA-mutated patients included in two RCTs, the addition of carboplatin was not associated with significantly increased pCR rate (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.51–2.67, P = 0.711). Two RCTs (N = 748) reported survival outcomes: no significant difference in EFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49–1.06, P = 0.094) and OS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46–1.63, P = 0.651) was observed. A significant higher risk of grade 3 and 4 hematological AEs, with no increased risk of grade 3 and 4 neuropathy was observed with platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In TNBC patients, platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with significantly increased pCR rates at the cost of worse hematological toxicities. Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be considered an option in TNBC patients. CRD42018080042.

Purpose: The role of temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in premenopausal women remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis using individual patient–level data was conducted to better assess the efficacy and safety of this strategy in patients with early breast cancer. Methods: The trials in which premenopausal women with early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy alone or with concurrent GnRHa were eligible for inclusion. Primary end points were premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) rate and post-treatment pregnancy rate. Disease-free survival and overall survival were secondary end points. Because each study represents a cluster, statistical analyses were performed using a random effects model. Results: A total of 873 patients from five trials were included. POI rate was 14.1% in the GnRHa group and 30.9% in the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.57; P < .001). A total of 37 (10.3%) patients had at least one post-treatment pregnancy in the GnRHa group and 20 (5.5%) in the control group (incidence rate ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.15; P = .030). No significant differences in disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.42; P = .999) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.06; P = .083) were observed between groups. Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy as an available option to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced POI and potentially improve future fertility in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer.

We aimed to provide comprehensive protocols and promote effective management of pregnant women with gynecological cancers. New insights and more experience have been gained since the previous guidelines were published in 2014. Members of the International Network on Cancer, Infertility and Pregnancy (INCIP), in collaboration with other international experts, reviewed existing literature on their respective areas of expertise. Summaries were subsequently merged into a manuscript that served as a basis for discussion during the consensus meeting. Treatment of gynecological cancers during pregnancy is attainable if management is achieved by collaboration of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers. This allows further optimization of maternal treatment, while considering fetal development and providing psychological support and long-term follow-up of the infants. Nonionizing imaging procedures are preferred diagnostic procedures, but limited ionizing imaging methods can be allowed if indispensable for treatment plans. In contrast to other cancers, standard surgery for gynecological cancers often needs to be adapted according to cancer type and gestational age. Most standard regimens of chemotherapy can be administered after 14 weeks gestational age but are not recommended beyond 35 weeks. C-section is recommended for most cervical and vulvar cancers, whereas vaginal delivery is allowed in most ovarian cancers. Breast-feeding should be avoided with ongoing chemotherapeutic, endocrine or targeted treatment. More studies that focus on the long-term toxic effects of gynecologic cancer treatments are needed to provide a full understanding of their fetal impact. In particular, data on targeted therapies that are becoming standard of care in certain gynecological malignancies is still limited. Furthermore, more studies aimed at the definition of the exact prognosis of patients after antenatal cancer treatment are warranted. Participation in existing registries (www.cancerinpregnancy.org) and the creation of national tumor boards with multidisciplinary teams of care providers ( supplementary Box S1, available at Annals of Oncology online) is encouraged.