Patients with gynecological malignancies are similar to other IVF patients without cancer for clinical and molecular reproductive parameters and DNA damage response pattern.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 06 2024
13 06 2024
Historique:
received:
23
03
2024
accepted:
07
06
2024
medline:
14
6
2024
pubmed:
14
6
2024
entrez:
13
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study intended to investigate if gynecological cancers compromise ovarian function and reduce the success of assisted reproduction techniques (ART). No clinical and molecular data together is available on this issue for gynecological or other organ cancers. Steroidogenic pathways and DNA damage response characteristics of the granulosa cells retrieved from the 39 gynecological cancer patients were analyzed together with their clinical ART characteristics in comparison to 31 control ART patients. Patients with gynecological malignancies were similar to the control IVF patients for the number of mature oocytes retrieved, fertilization rates and embryo development competency. Molecular analyses of the granulosa cells retrieved from these cancer patients did not detect any perturbations in gonadotropin receptor expression and response, sex steroid production, cholesterol utilization/storage and, DNA damage response pattern in comparison to control IVF patients without cancer. This study provides the first reassuring clinical and molecular combined data set that the presence of gynecological malignancy does not appear to have any detrimental effect on clinical IVF cycle characteristics and ovarian functioning at molecular level.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38871783
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-64403-y
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-64403-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
13628Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Oktem, O. & Oktay, K. A novel ovarian xenografting model to characterize the impact of chemotherapy agents on human primordial follicle reserve. Cancer Res. 67, 10159–10162. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2042 (2007).
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2042
pubmed: 17974956
Oktem, O., Kim, S. S., Selek, U., Schatmann, G. & Urman, B. Ovarian and uterine functions in female survivors of childhood cancers. Oncologist 23, 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0201 (2018).
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0201
pubmed: 29158370
ESHRE Guideline Group on Female Fertility Preservation Group et al. ESHRE guideline: Female fertility preservation. Hum. Reprod. Open 2020, hoaa052. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa052 (2020).
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa052
Maidarti, M., Anderson, R. A. & Telfer, E. E. Crosstalk between PTEN/PI3K/Akt signalling and DNA damage in the oocyte: Implications for primordial follicle activation, oocyte quality and ageing. Cells https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9010200 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/cells9010200
pubmed: 31947601
pmcid: 7016612
Spears, N. et al. Ovarian damage from chemotherapy and current approaches to its protection. Hum. Reprod. Update 25, 673–693. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz027 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmz027
pubmed: 31600388
pmcid: 6847836
Wu, M. et al. Ovarian reserve in reproductive-aged patients with cancer before gonadotoxic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. Open 2023, hoad024. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoad024 (2023).
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoad024
pubmed: 37325546
pmcid: 10266964
Turan, V. et al. Association of germline BRCA pathogenic variants with diminished ovarian reserve: A meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. J. Clin. Oncol. 39, 2016–2024. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02880 (2021).
doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.02880
pubmed: 33891474
pmcid: 8260903
Turan, V., Quinn, M. M., Dayioglu, N., Rosen, M. P. & Oktay, K. The impact of malignancy on response to ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation: A meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 110, 1347–1355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.013 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.013
pubmed: 30503134
Volodarsky-Perel, A. et al. Effects of cancer stage and grade on fertility preservation outcome and ovarian stimulation response. Hum. Reprod. 34, 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey382 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey382
pubmed: 30689898
Cobo, A., Garcia-Velasco, J. A., Remohi, J. & Pellicer, A. Oocyte vitrification for fertility preservation for both medical and nonmedical reasons. Fertil. Steril. 115, 1091–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.02.006 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.02.006
pubmed: 33933172
Cardozo, E. R. et al. Ovarian stimulation and in-vitro fertilization outcomes of cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation compared to age matched controls: A 17-year experience. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 32, 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0428-z (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s10815-015-0428-z
pubmed: 25595540
pmcid: 4380886
Meernik, C. et al. Outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in women with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. 38, 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac235 (2023).
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac235
pubmed: 36342891
Esmaeilian, Y. et al. IVF characteristics and the molecular luteal features of random start IVF cycles are not different from conventional cycles in cancer patients. Hum. Reprod. 38, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac242 (2023).
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac242
pubmed: 36367834
Bildik, G. et al. hCG improves luteal function and promotes progesterone output through the activation of JNK pathway in the luteal granulosa cells of the stimulated IVF cycles. Biol. Reprod. 102, 1270–1280. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolre/ioaa034 (2020).
doi: 10.1093/biolre/ioaa034
pubmed: 32163131
Bildik, G. et al. Luteal granulosa cells from natural cycles are more capable of maintaining their viability, steroidogenic activity and LH receptor expression than those of stimulated IVF cycles. Hum. Reprod. 34, 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey353 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey353
pubmed: 30520979
Bildik, G. et al. GnRH agonist leuprolide acetate does not confer any protection against ovarian damage induced by chemotherapy and radiation in vitro. Hum. Reprod. 30, 2912–2925. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev257 (2015).
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev257
pubmed: 26466909
Bildik, G., Acilan, C., Sahin, G. N., Karahuseyinoglu, S. & Oktem, O. C-Abl is not activated in DNA damage-induced and Tap63-mediated oocyte apoptosis in human ovary. Cell Death Dis. 9, 943. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-018-1026-7 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-1026-7
pubmed: 30237472
pmcid: 6148240
Oktem, O. et al. FSH stimulation promotes progesterone synthesis and output from human granulosa cells without luteinization. Hum. Reprod. 32, 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex010 (2017).
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex010
pubmed: 28158500
Livak, K. J. & Schmittgen, T. D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(−Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods 25, 402–408. https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.2001.1262 (2001).
doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262
pubmed: 11846609
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Wagle, N. S. & Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J. Clin. 73, 17–48. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21763 (2023).
doi: 10.3322/caac.21763
pubmed: 36633525
Cakmak, H. & Rosen, M. P. Random-start ovarian stimulation in patients with cancer. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 27, 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000180 (2015).
doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000180
pubmed: 25919235
Sonmezer, M., Turkcuoglu, I., Coskun, U. & Oktay, K. Random-start controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for emergency fertility preservation in letrozole cycles. Fertil. Steril. 95, 2125.e9–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.030 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.030
pubmed: 21292255
Danis, R. B., Pereira, N. & Elias, R. T. Random start ovarian stimulation for oocyte or embryo cryopreservation in women desiring fertility preservation prior to gonadotoxic cancer therapy. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 18, 609–613. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389201018666170808122531 (2017).
doi: 10.2174/1389201018666170808122531
pubmed: 28786354
Cimadomo, D. et al. Luteal phase anovulatory follicles result in the production of competent oocytes: Intra-patient paired case-control study comparing follicular versus luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle. Hum. Reprod. 33, 1442–1448. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey217 (2018).
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey217
pubmed: 29912374
pmcid: 6070116
Vaiarelli, A. et al. The euploid blastocysts obtained after luteal phase stimulation show the same clinical, obstetric and perinatal outcomes as follicular phase stimulation-derived ones: A multicenter study. Hum. Reprod. 35, 2598–2608. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa203 (2020).
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa203
pubmed: 32951051
Ubaldi, F. M. et al. Follicular versus luteal phase ovarian stimulation during the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim) in a reduced ovarian reserve population results in a similar euploid blastocyst formation rate: New insight in ovarian reserve exploitation. Fertil. Steril. 105, 1488-1495 e1481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.002 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.002
pubmed: 27020168
Alexander, V. M. et al. Ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in women with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing random and conventional starts. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 50, 102080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102080 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102080
pubmed: 33545413
Boots, C. E., Meister, M., Cooper, A. R., Hardi, A. & Jungheim, E. S. Ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 33, 971–980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0721-5 (2016).
doi: 10.1007/s10815-016-0721-5
pubmed: 27146151
pmcid: 4974222
Dasari, S. & Tchounwou, P. B. Cisplatin in cancer therapy: Molecular mechanisms of action. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 740, 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2014.07.025 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2014.07.025
pubmed: 25058905
pmcid: 4146684
Olive, P. L. & Banath, J. P. Kinetics of H2AX phosphorylation after exposure to cisplatin. Cytom. B Clin. Cytom. 76, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.b.20450 (2009).
doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.20450
Oktem, O. & Oktay, K. Quantitative assessment of the impact of chemotherapy on ovarian follicle reserve and stromal function. Cancer 110, 2222–2229. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23071 (2007).
doi: 10.1002/cncr.23071
pubmed: 17932880
Tuppi, M. et al. Oocyte DNA damage quality control requires consecutive interplay of CHK2 and CK1 to activate p63. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 25, 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-018-0035-7 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41594-018-0035-7
pubmed: 29483652
Kim, S. Y. et al. Transient inhibition of p53 homologs protects ovarian function from two distinct apoptotic pathways triggered by anticancer therapies. Cell Death Differ. 26, 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41418-018-0151-2 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41418-018-0151-2
pubmed: 29988075
Akel, R. A. et al. Ovarian stimulation is safe and effective for patients with gynecologic cancer. J. Adolesc. Young Adult Oncol. 9, 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1089/jayao.2019.0124 (2020).
doi: 10.1089/jayao.2019.0124
pubmed: 31923372
pmcid: 7307696
Kawahara, T. et al. Aromatase inhibitor use during ovarian stimulation suppresses growth of uterine endometrial cancer in xenograft mouse model. Hum. Reprod. 33, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex368 (2018).
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex368
pubmed: 29300901
Guo, Y., Zong, X., Li, H. & Qiao, J. Analysis of factors associated with recurrence of early-stage endometrial carcinoma and atypical endometrial hyperplasia in infertile women after in vitro fertilization treatment. Front. Oncol. 12, 892995. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.892995 (2022).
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.892995
pubmed: 35832548
pmcid: 9272564