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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics 2020-05, Vol.37 (5), p.1037-1055
Hauptverfasser: Cordeiro Mitchell, Christina N., McGuinness, Bailey, Fine, Eliana, Kearns, William G., Christianson, Mindy S., Segars, James, Pastore, Lisa M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
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