Amant, Frederic

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide guidance on the recommended management of cancer in pregnant patients. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The systematic review identified 450 eligible studies. Much of the evidence consisted of observational data, case series, and case reports. RECOMMENDATIONS Management of cancer during pregnancy should be grounded in a values-based informed-consent process outlining maternal and fetal risks and anticipated benefits. Diagnostic evaluation should follow the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle, with timing of diagnostic studies individualized based on urgency of cancer detection, potential dangers of delay, and the balance of risks to both the pregnant patient and her embryo or fetus. Due to significant risk of harm to the developing embryo and/or fetus, systemic therapy should be deferred until the second trimester. Methotrexate, hormonal therapies, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and all cellular therapies are contraindicated during pregnancy, regardless of gestational age. For patients who wish to continue their pregnancy, delivery should be planned at or after 37 weeks, with the final chemotherapy dose scheduled 2-4 weeks before birth. Referral to psychosocial support services is essential to address emotional and practical challenges, reduce distress, and support shared decision making. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

PURPOSE We investigated time to pregnancy, efficacy and safety of fertility preservation, and assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) in women with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (BC) desiring future pregnancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS POSITIVE is an international, single-arm, prospective trial, in which 518 women temporarily interrupted adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy. We evaluated menstruation recovery and factors associated with time to pregnancy and investigated if ART use was associated with achieving pregnancy. The cumulative incidence of BC-free interval (BCFI) events was estimated according to the use of ovarian stimulation at diagnosis. The median follow-up was 41 months. RESULTS Two hundred seventy-three patients (53%) reported amenorrhea at enrollment, of whom 94% resumed menses within 12 months. Among 497 patients evaluable for pregnancy, 368 (74%) reported at least one pregnancy. Young age was the main factor associated with shorter time to pregnancy with cumulative incidences of pregnancy by 1 year of 63.5%, 54.3%, and 37.7% for patients age <35, 35-39, and 40-42 years, respectively. One hundred and seventy-nine patients (36%) had embryo/oocyte cryopreservation at diagnosis, of whom 68 reported embryo transfer after enrollment. Cryopreserved embryo transfer was the only ART associated with higher chance of pregnancy (odds ratio, 2.41 [95% CI, 1.75 to 4.95]). The cumulative incidence of BCFI events at 3 years was similar for women who underwent ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation at diagnosis, 9.7% (95% CI, 6.0 to 15.4), compared with those who did not, 8.7% (95% CI, 6.0 to 12.5). CONCLUSION In POSITIVE, fertility preservation using ovarian stimulation was not associated with short-term detrimental impact on cancer prognosis. Pregnancy rates were highest among those who underwent embryo/oocyte cryopreservation followed by embryo transfer.

PURPOSE Many patients and physicians remain concerned about the potential detrimental effects of pregnancy after breast cancer (BC) in terms of reproductive outcomes and maternal safety. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at providing updated evidence on these topics. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies including patients with a pregnancy after BC (PROSPERO number CRD42020158324). Likelihood of pregnancy after BC, their reproductive outcomes, and maternal safety were assessed. Pooled relative risks, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using random effects models. RESULTS Of 6,462 identified records, 39 were included involving 8,093,401 women from the general population and 112,840 patients with BC of whom 7,505 had a pregnancy after diagnosis. BC survivors were significantly less likely to have a subsequent pregnancy compared with the general population (relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.49). Risks of caesarean section (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.25), low birth weight (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.73), preterm birth (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.88), and small for gestational age (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33) were significantly higher in BC survivors, particularly in those with previous chemotherapy exposure, compared with the general population. No significantly increased risk of congenital abnormalities or other reproductive complications were observed. Compared to patients with BC without subsequent pregnancy, those with a pregnancy had better disease-free survival (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.89) and overall survival (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68). Similar results were observed after correcting for potential confounders and irrespective of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, pregnancy outcome, and timing of pregnancy. CONCLUSION These results provide reassuring evidence on the safety of conceiving in BC survivors. Patients' pregnancy desire should be considered a crucial component of their survivorship care plan.

Abstract Background: Accumulating evidence suggests a relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer have identified 16 and 27 risk regions, respectively, four of which overlap between the two cancers. We aimed to identify joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci by performing a meta-analysis of GWAS summary statistics from these two cancers. Methods: Using LDScore regression, we explored the genetic correlation between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. To identify loci associated with the risk of both cancers, we implemented a pipeline of statistical genetic analyses (i.e., inverse-variance meta-analysis, colocalization, and M-values) and performed analyses stratified by subtype. Candidate target genes were then prioritized using functional genomic data. Results: Genetic correlation analysis revealed significant genetic correlation between the two cancers (rG = 0.43, P = 2.66 × 10−5). We found seven loci associated with risk for both cancers (PBonferroni &lt; 2.4 × 10−9). In addition, four novel subgenome-wide regions at 7p22.2, 7q22.1, 9p12, and 11q13.3 were identified (P &lt; 5 × 10−7). Promoter-associated HiChIP chromatin loops from immortalized endometrium and ovarian cell lines and expression quantitative trait loci data highlighted candidate target genes for further investigation. Conclusions: Using cross-cancer GWAS meta-analysis, we have identified several joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci and candidate target genes for future functional analysis. Impact: Our research highlights the shared genetic relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Further studies in larger sample sets are required to confirm our findings.