Survival outcomes following pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies after breast cancer: A population-based study.
assisted reproductive technologies
breast cancer
pregnancy
risk-set matching
survival
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2022
01 09 2022
Historique:
revised:
16
05
2022
received:
24
02
2022
accepted:
27
05
2022
pubmed:
30
6
2022
medline:
17
8
2022
entrez:
29
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study sought to determine the impact of pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) on breast-cancer-specific survival among breast cancer survivors. The authors performed a cohort study using a novel data linkage from the California Cancer Registry, the California birth cohort, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System data sets. They performed risk-set matching in women with stages I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. For each pregnant woman, comparable women who were not pregnant at that point but were otherwise similar based on observed characteristics were matched at the time of pregnancy. After matching, Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of pregnancy with breast-cancer-specific survival. We repeated these analyses for women who received ART. Among 30,021 women with breast cancer, 553 had a pregnancy and 189 attempted at least one cycle of ART. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, the pregnancy group had a higher 5-year disease-specific survival rate; 95.6% in the pregnancy group and 90.6% in the nonpregnant group (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77). In women with hormone receptor-positive cancer, we found similar results (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.2-0.91). In the ART analysis, there was no difference in survival between groups; the 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 96.9% in the ART group and 94.1% in the non-ART group (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17-1.13). Pregnancy and ART are not associated with worse survival in women with breast cancer. We sought to determine the impact of pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) among breast cancer survivors. We performed a study of 30,021 women by linking available data from California and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System. For each pregnant woman, we matched at the time of pregnancy comparable women who were not pregnant at that point but were otherwise similar based on observed characteristics. We repeated these analyses for women who received ART. We found that pregnancy and ART were not associated with worse survival.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This study sought to determine the impact of pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) on breast-cancer-specific survival among breast cancer survivors.
METHODS
The authors performed a cohort study using a novel data linkage from the California Cancer Registry, the California birth cohort, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System data sets. They performed risk-set matching in women with stages I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. For each pregnant woman, comparable women who were not pregnant at that point but were otherwise similar based on observed characteristics were matched at the time of pregnancy. After matching, Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of pregnancy with breast-cancer-specific survival. We repeated these analyses for women who received ART.
RESULTS
Among 30,021 women with breast cancer, 553 had a pregnancy and 189 attempted at least one cycle of ART. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, the pregnancy group had a higher 5-year disease-specific survival rate; 95.6% in the pregnancy group and 90.6% in the nonpregnant group (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77). In women with hormone receptor-positive cancer, we found similar results (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.2-0.91). In the ART analysis, there was no difference in survival between groups; the 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 96.9% in the ART group and 94.1% in the non-ART group (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17-1.13).
CONCLUSION
Pregnancy and ART are not associated with worse survival in women with breast cancer.
LAY SUMMARY
We sought to determine the impact of pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) among breast cancer survivors. We performed a study of 30,021 women by linking available data from California and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System. For each pregnant woman, we matched at the time of pregnancy comparable women who were not pregnant at that point but were otherwise similar based on observed characteristics. We repeated these analyses for women who received ART. We found that pregnancy and ART were not associated with worse survival.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35767282
doi: 10.1002/cncr.34371
pmc: PMC9378486
mid: NIHMS1817682
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3243-3253Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K08 CA234333
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : KL2 TR001874
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA101642
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022 American Cancer Society.
Références
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Mar;170(3):818-23
pubmed: 8141209
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Apr 01;110(4):426-429
pubmed: 29087485
Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Jun 1;153(11):1079-84
pubmed: 11390326
JAMA. 1984 Nov 16;252(19):2722-5
pubmed: 6387202
Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019 Nov;68(13):1-47
pubmed: 32501202
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Aug 15;167(4):268-274
pubmed: 28693043
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Sep 10;38(26):3012-3023
pubmed: 32673153
Cancer Causes Control. 2001 Oct;12(8):703-11
pubmed: 11562110
Am J Public Health. 2017 Jan;107(1):113-119
pubmed: 27854529
Stat Med. 2007 Jan 15;26(1):20-36
pubmed: 17072897
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Oct 10;39(29):3293-3305
pubmed: 34197218
Eur J Cancer. 2011 Jan;47(1):74-83
pubmed: 20943370
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011 Feb;11(2):287-98
pubmed: 21342046
J Cancer Surviv. 2017 Feb;11(1):58-63
pubmed: 27480882
Acta Oncol. 2008;47(4):545-9
pubmed: 18465320
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):899-908
pubmed: 29630020
Cancer. 2012 Mar 15;118(6):1710-7
pubmed: 21887678
Hum Reprod. 2016 Jan;31(1):183-9
pubmed: 26577302
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Oct;22(10):2805-12
pubmed: 24817617
JAMA Oncol. 2017 May 01;3(5):659-665
pubmed: 28278319
Am J Epidemiol. 2016 Apr 15;183(8):758-64
pubmed: 26994063
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014 Oct;24(8):1366-72
pubmed: 25188887
J Clin Oncol. 2011 May 1;29(13):1670-7
pubmed: 21444865
Oncologist. 2019 Dec;24(12):e1268-e1276
pubmed: 31266853
Cancer. 2015 Nov 15;121(22):3938-47
pubmed: 26264701
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 1;36(19):1994-2001
pubmed: 29620997
Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2010 Dec;65(12):786-93
pubmed: 21411023
Fertil Steril. 2018 Aug;110(3):380-386
pubmed: 30098684
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Nov;160(2):347-360
pubmed: 27683280
Hum Reprod Open. 2019 Dec 18;2019(4):hoz039
pubmed: 31872070
BMJ. 2010 Mar 12;340:b5087
pubmed: 20228141
Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Feb 1;167(3):271-9
pubmed: 18000019
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Jul;116(2):215-23
pubmed: 19390962
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jan 1;31(1):73-9
pubmed: 23169515
Cancer Res Treat. 2020 Apr;52(2):426-437
pubmed: 31476846
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Nov 14;2020(4):hoaa052
pubmed: 33225079
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2015 Oct;24(10):812-8
pubmed: 26075731
Ann Oncol. 2020 Dec;31(12):1664-1678
pubmed: 32976936
JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jun 1;173(6):e190392
pubmed: 30933244
Cancer. 2004 Feb 1;100(3):465-9
pubmed: 14745861