Cancer risk among parous women following assisted reproductive technology.

STUDY QUESTION: Do women who give birth after assisted reproductive technology (ART) have an increased risk of cancer compared with women who give birth without ART? SUMMARY ANSWER: Without correction, the results indicate an increase in overall cancer risk, as well as a 50% increase in risk of CNS cancer for women giving birth after ART, however the results were not significant after correcting for multiple analyses. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Studies regarding the effects of hormonal treatments involved with ART on subsequent cancer risk have provided inconsistent results, and it has also been suggested that infertility itself could be a contributory factor. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population-based cohort consisting of all women registered in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway as having given birth between 1 January 1984 and 31 December 2010 was assembled (n = 812 986). Cancers were identified by linkage to the Cancer Registry of Norway. Study subjects were followed from start of first pregnancy during the observational period until the first cancer, death, emigration, or 31 December 2010. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Of the total study population (n = 806 248), 16 525 gave birth to a child following ART. Cox regression analysis computed hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing cancer risk between ART women and non-ART women; for overall cancer, and for cervical, ovarian, uterine, central nervous system (CNS), colorectal and thyroid cancers, and for malignant melanoma. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 22 282 cohort members were diagnosed with cancer, of which 338 were ART women and 21 944 non-ART women. The results showed an elevated risk in one out of seven sites for ART women. The HR for cancer of the CNS was 1.50 (95% CI 1.03- 2.18), and among those specifically subjected to IVF (without ICSI) the HR was 1.83 (95% CI 1.22-2.73). Analysis of risk of overall cancer gave an HR of 1.16 (95% CI 1.04-1.29). Among those who had delivered only one child by the end of follow-up, the HR for ovarian cancer was 2.00 (95% CI 1.08-3.65), and for those nulliparous at entry the HR was 1.80 (95% CI 1.04-3.11). However, all findings became non-significant after correcting for multiple analyses. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results of elevated risk of overall cancer and CNS cancer lost significance when adjusting for multiple analyses, implying an important limitation of the study. The follow-up time was relatively short, especially for ART women. In addition, as the cohort was relatively young, there were few incident cancers, especially for some rarer cancer forms, such as uterine cancer. Risk assessments according to different causes of infertility could not be done. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In light of the findings in the present study, further studies should be made on risk of CNS and ovarian cancer, and continued monitoring of all those treated with ART is encouraged. Our findings may only be generalizable to women who give birth after ART, and the risk for women who remain nulliparous after ART remains to be assessed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: The study was funded by the Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Women's Health. All authors claim no competing interests.

Artificial insemination by husband in unexplained infertility compared with infertility associated with peritoneal endometriosis.

There have been numerous inconclusive studies examining the differences between unexplained and peritoneal endometriosis-associated infertility. Hence, the choice of artificial reproductive technique may be difficult. This prospective study compares outcome in couples with unexplained infertility and with minimal or mild endometriosis-associated infertility, undergoing treatment with ovarian stimulation combined with artificial insemination by husband. No differences were found between the unexplained infertile and the endometriosis group as to patient characteristics, response to ovarian stimulation and semen qualities. There was a significantly higher total pregnancy rate, with more multiple gestations, in the unexplained infertile compared with the endometriosis group. The difference in outcome could reflect differences in pathogenesis and aetiology for the two groups.

Natural cycle IVF in unexplained, endometriosis-associated and tubal factor infertility.

BACKGROUND: To elucidate possible differences between unexplained and minimal peritoneal endometriosis-associated infertility, we studied their outcome in natural cycle IVF (NIVF). METHODS: A prospective cohort study was carried out on unexplained (33 couples), minimal peritoneal endometriosis-associated (30 couples) and tubal factor (24 couples) infertility in 223 NIVF cycles, using human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) for ovulation induction. RESULTS: During the first NIVF attempt, follicular and luteal phase oestradiol, FSH, LH and progesterone concentrations, as well as endometrial thickness and follicular diameter were similar among the three groups. Periovulatory follicular growth monitored from day of HCG administration to oocyte aspiration was significantly lowered in unexplained infertility compared with minimal endometriosis-associated and tubal factor infertility. The fertilization rate, clinical pregnancy rate per initiated cycle, per successful oocyte retrieval and per embryo transfer, in minimal endometriosis (80.0, 10.4, 16.0 and 23.5% respectively) were similar to that in tubal factor infertility patients (68.6, 5.8, 11.4 and 16.0%) but significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that of the unexplained infertility group (62.2, 2.6, 5.4 and 8.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The significant reduction in follicular periovulatory growth, fertilization and pregnancy rates in unexplained infertility compared with minimal peritoneal endometriosis patients may be explained by sub-optimal follicular development with possibly reduced oocyte quality, intrinsic embryo quality factors or by impaired implantation. From a clinical point of view, NIVF is less suited to unexplained infertility treatment, but might represent an interesting treatment option for minimal peritoneal endometriosis-associated infertility.