Navigating the body of literature assessing BRCA1/2 mutations and markers of ovarian function: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Purpose Twelve percent of women in the USA will develop invasive breast cancer in their lifetime, and that risk increases to 80% if they carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. BRCA1/2 mutations are thought to potentially affect ovarian reserve and/or fertility. Methods PubMed and PubMed Central were searc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics 2020-05, Vol.37 (5), p.1037-1055 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose
Twelve percent of women in the USA will develop invasive breast cancer in their lifetime, and that risk increases to 80% if they carry a
BRCA1
or
BRCA2
mutation.
BRCA1/2
mutations are thought to potentially affect ovarian reserve and/or fertility.
Methods
PubMed and PubMed Central were searched for publications on ovarian reserve–related outcomes (i.e., AMH and response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols) that were reported in relation to
BRCA1
and/or
BRCA2
mutations from 1950 through May 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted to create forest plots and summary effect measures using Review Manager 5.3.
Results
This article reviews the 16 qualifying publications. There were several fundamental methodological differences in the study designs and outcome details reported in AMH studies. Summary statistics found no difference in AMH levels between
BRCA1/2+
women as compared with controls (
Z
overall test effects
p
≥ 0.45). Regarding responses to COH, there were overall non-significantly fewer total and mature numbers of oocytes retrieved in
BRCA1/2+
cases as compared with controls (meta-analysis
Z
overall test effects
p
≥ 0.40).
Conclusions
While the summary measures indicate no significant differences in AMH levels between
BRCA1/2+
cases and controls, readers should be aware that there are significant methodological differences in the AMH reports. Additionally, the response to COH protocols does not seem to be significantly lower in
BRCA1/2
mutation carriers in the existing literature. Continued research on both of these clinical parameters would be beneficial for patient counseling. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1058-0468 1573-7330 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s10815-020-01745-2 |