Skip to main content
Download PDF

Pregnancy after breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice volume 20, Article number: 3 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Often young women affected with BRCA1/2 positive breast cancer have not finished or even not started their childbearing before the onset of the disease. The aim of our mini-review is to summarize state of art knowledge on pregnancy after breast cancer in BRCA1/2 carriers.

Methods

A broad review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed) for relevant articles published.

Main body of the abstract

This review summarizes the impact of different cytotoxic agents on a fertility, fertility preservation, maternal and fetal prognosis after pregnancy in breast cancer survivors with BRCA1/2.

Conclusion

According to the existing literature evidence pregnancy after therapy for breast cancer in BRCA carriers is safe for the mother and offspring, but patients’ needs, oncofertility counseling and fertility-sparing strategy should be carefully planned before starting the cytotoxic treatment.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

According to EUROSTAT data the average age of first-time mothers in European Union are steadily increasing over the last decade and reached the 29,3 years in 2018 [1]. Approximately, 1 in 10 women with breast cancer diagnosed under 40 years are carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation [2]. It means that often young women affected with BRCA1/2 positive breast cancer have not finished or even not started their childbearing before the onset of the disease. Surprisingly, 19% of BRCA1/2 carriers conceive within 10 years after breast cancer diagnosis [3]. However, survey study regarding expertise of specialists involved in breast care showed some gaps of knowledge regarding fertility and pregnancy management in BRCA1/2- related breast cancer survivors [4]. The aim of our mini-review is to summarize state of art knowledge on pregnancy after breast cancer in BRCA1/2 carriers.

Methods

A broad review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed) for relevant articles published from 1997 up to September 2021. The search terms and strategy were developed with the help of a medical librarian specializing in systematic reviews. The search terms involved medical subject headings (MeSH). The used search terms were the following: ((((breast cancer [Text Word]) OR (breast neoplasm [Text Word])) OR (“Breast Neoplasms”[Majr])) AND ((pregnancy [Text Word]) OR (“Pregnancy”[Majr]))) AND ((“Genes, BRCA1”[Mesh]) OR (“Genes, BRCA2”[Mesh])). Ninety seven articles were identified. We included only peer-reviewed articles that considered women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and were published in English with available full-text. We also used additional search techniques, such as checking reference lists and using the Pubmed “similar articles” function of relevant publications. A total of 1540 articles were identified according to the search strategy. The titles and abstracts were screened and the full texts of potentially eligible studies were assessed. The most common reason for exclusion of studies was: 1) study population not tested or negative for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants; 2) grey literature: conference/congress proceedings and abstracts, book chapters, dissertations, letter to editor, opinion, case reports. Priority was given to meta-analyses, systematic reviews and multicentric studies.

Finally, we included 85 articles in the study. Only 2 out of 85 manuscripts reported cohorts on pregnancy after BRCA1/2 positive breast cancer (248 cases in total, see Table 1). Other articles mainly addreses different aspects of cytotoxic therapy and its impact on fertility (44 out of 85) as well fertility preservation strategies 24 out of 85. In 8out of 85 and 7out of 85 articles maternal and fetal prognosis was analysed, respectively. Overlapping of topics among articles exists. All 85 articles are listed in respective chapters and references.

Table 1 Maternal and fetal prognosis in pregnancy after breast cancer treatment in carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants
Full size table

Fertility, cytotoxic therapy and BRCA1/2 mutation

BRCA1/2 play a critical role in the double- strand DNA break repair by homologous recombination [8, 9]. As a result of impaired DNA repair, double-strand breaks accumulate in oocytes of mice heterozygous for a BRCA1 mutation, accelerate oocyte aging and decrease the oocyte reserve by initiating the oocyte apoptosis [10, 11]. Recent studies have shown the earlier onset of natural menopause in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers by median 1.5–4 years compared to unaffected women [6, 12]. However, Collins et al., shows no difference in the age of onset of natural menopause between BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants carriers and non-carriers [13].

According to ASCO and ESMO guidelines, the choice of the systemic neo/adjuvant chemotherapy in BRCA1/2 carriers with breast cancer should be based on the same prognostic parameters as in the case of non-carriers [14, 15]. As 80% of BRCA1/2 positive breast cancers are triple negative, vast majority of cases are undergoing chemotherapy [16, 17]. In the following paragraph we will report on the impact of different cytotoxic agents on a fertility.

At the moment, addition of platinum salts to anthracycline- taxane chemotherapy backbone in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers with breast cancer remains controversial [18, 19]. According to Byrski et al., 61% of BRCA1 patients, who underwent platinum-based therapy achieved pCR (complete pathological response) [20]. However, in the randomized, multicenter, phase II study a single agent cisplatinum showed a lower pCR rates in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers with HER2 negative breast cancer compared to routine combination of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide [21]. Exposure to doxorubicin carry an intermediate risk of losing fertility by initiating DNA double strand breaks P− 63- dependent apoptosis in primordial follicles as well as microvascular and stromal damage of ovaries [22, 23]. The alkylating agent cyclophosphamide carry a high risk of infertility by accelerating phosphorylation of proteins that cause primordial follicle activation with subsequent apoptosis resulting in “burnout” of ovarian reserve [24]. Cisplatin/ carboplatin cause an intermediate infertility risk by binding to DNA and triggering normal transcription and replication mechanisms [23].

Olaparib (Poly (ADP-ribose)- polymerase (PARP) inhibitor) appears promising in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers with HER2 negative breast cancer in II-III stage. In the last randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study Olaparib significantly increased 3-year invasive disease-free survival [25]. By inhibiting ADP-ribose polymerase Olaparib blocks the repair of single-strand DNA breaks and cause the synthetic lethality in BRCA -deficient cells and also impairs angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) [26,27,28]. In ovarian tissue VEGF stimulates the follicular growth, promotes survival and regulates the development of primordial follicles [29]. Therefore, Olaparib has a direct gonadotoxic effect by causing genomic instability in oocytes, promoting oocyte apoptosis and indirect (antiangiogenic) effect. As result, Olaparib significantly reduces ovarian reserve and lower number of oocytes retrieved after ovarian stimulation for IVF [30]. Additionally, animal models showed an increased rate of apoptosis of BRCA1- deficient oocytes in response to chemotherapy-induced DNA damage compared to control [31]. These findings in the animal studies were directly in line with the clinical findings in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variant. Carriers of BRCA pathogenic variant after breast cancer treatment showed gravely diminished ovarian reserve measured using AMH levels compared to non-carriers [31,32,33]. In contrast, other studies show no significant difference in AMH levels at breast cancer diagnosis between carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants and non-carriers [34,35,36,37,38].

In spite of severe adverse effects of systemic therapy on a potential fertility, about 80% of carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, who became pregnant after therapy, conceived naturally with the median time between breast cancer and pregnancy 4.5 years. There was a longer median time between breast cancer diagnosis and pregnancy in hormone receptor-positive group compared to hormone receptor- negative group (6,3 years versus 4,0 years, respectively) [3]. This may be explained by the need for more extended hormone therapy in patients with hormone receptor positive breast cancers [39]. Carrying BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant is associated with 44 and 17% of risk of developing an ovarian cancer up to the age of 80 [40]. In patients with the previous breast cancer an annual risk of subsequent ovarian cancer is 1.3% for carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variant and 0.8% for carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants with the median age at diagnosis of 51 years in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variant and 54.8 years in carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variant [41]. Therefore, the risk- reducing bilateral salpingoophorectomy should be considered at age 35–40 years in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variant and at age 40–45 years in carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variant, which is another threat to a potential pregnancy [39]. However, there is still the possibility of having a full- term pregnancy in patients without simultaneous hysterectomy, if timely fertility preservation strategy is in place [42].

There are several lines of evidence suggesting the tubal origin of the ovarian cancer in carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant [43, 44]. However, at present, prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy could be conducted in carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant only during ongoing clinical trials [45,46,47,48].

Fertility preservation for breast cancer survivors with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant

In general, there are two main fertility preservation strategies for patients undergoing systemic therapy. First is aimed to collect oocytes/embryo before the onset of cytotoxic therapy for a later use, while second approach is focused to the preservation of oocytes during the chemotherapy by the means of special medication.

Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation with or without previous ovarian stimulation with letrozole and follicle-stimulating hormone (first strategy) are considered to be the first-line fertility preservation approach in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variant before chemotherapy initiation [4, 39, 49]. Previous studies showed, that the random-start controlled ovarian stimulation is as affective as early follicular phase-start controlled ovarian stimulation with similar number of retrieved oocytes [50, 51]. However, random-start controlled ovarian stimulation still may delay the chemotherapy for 2–3 weeks [52]. So, in the cases when an urgent initiation of chemotherapy is needed retrieval of immature eggs with further in vitro maturation could be performed [52]. This procedure requires only day case laparoscopy, which is possible to fit in between disclosure of breast cancer diagnosis and start of therapy, avoiding any considerable delays. Controlled ovarian stimulation with Letrozole supplementation (COSTLES) is considered to be safe in carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants with ER+ and ER- breast cancers, regardless of short increase in estradiol levels [53, 54].

According to the three largest randomized studies and recent meta-analysis temporary ovarian suppression with gonadothropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) during cytotoxic therapy (second strategy) is associated with reduced risk of premature ovarian failure and with possible increase in pregnancy rate with no impact on breast cancer prognosis [55,56,57,58]. 95% of early breast cancer patients aged < 40 years accepted temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy, but only 1 in 3 patients accepted oncofertility counseling and 1 in 5 patients accepted to undergo oocyte/ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Interestingly, that patients with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer accepted ovarian and/or fertility preservation more frequently compared to patients with hormone-receptor negative breast cancer. Reasons for refusal were completion of childbearing and concerns about delaying the chemotherapy [59]. Taking into account the current scientific evidence temporary ovarian suppression with a GnRHa during cytotoxic therapy should be considered as a standard option for ovarian function preservation in premenopausal breast cancer patients with or without BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant [5]. However, in premenopausal breast cancer patients with or without BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant temporary ovarian suppression with a GnRHa during cytotoxic therapy should not be used as the main method for fertility preservation [4, 5, 49, 60]. In patients with or without BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant, who are planning pregnancy after breast cancer treament GnRHa should be offered only after cryopreservation procedures (if accessible) [4, 5, 49, 55, 60].

Mice heterozygous for a BRCA1 pathogenic variants showed lower oocyte yield in response to ovarian stimulation compared to wild-type [10]. Similarly, Oktay et al., showed 38.5 times lower response to controlled ovarian stimulation with co-administration of letrozole with gonadotropins in BRCA1 carriers with smaller numbers of oocytes produced compared to non-carriers [61]. Few more studies also showed premature ovarian insufficiency with decreased ovarian reserve and lower number of oocyte yield [32, 62]. In contrast, other studies showed no difference in response to IVF in BRCA carriers compared to non-carriers [34, 35, 63]. According to the expert meeting a possible impaired reproductive capacity in patients with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants should be taken into account during fertility preservation counseling [64]. The multicenter retrospective study, that included 30 centers worldwide, showed an older age and a higher delivery complication rate in breast cancer survivors harboring BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant after assisted reproductive techniques compared to natural conception (22.7% versus 4.1%) [65]. However, according to population- based studies pregnancies achieved using assisted reproductive techniques and older age at conception were associated with higher maternal morbidity compared to natural pregnancies [66, 67].

Pathogenic mutations in the BRCA1/2 are inherited in the autosomal dominant pattern with 50% chance of transmitting of pathogenic gene variant to each offspring [7]. In vitro fertilization (IVF) with preimplantation genetic testing (PGD) could be used to avoid the passing of copy of the mutated gene to children [68]. The meta-analysis performed by Quinn et al., showed that only 35% of individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes have some knowledge about PGT [69]. 33–90% of carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant accepted the use of PGT [69]. However, carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant with a personal history of cancer considered more likely to accept PGT compared with carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant without personal history of cancer [70, 71].

PGT was showed as a suitable method in carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant with and without personal history of cancer, according to the largest published experience, there 70 couples were included [72]. In addition, observational cohort study showed comparable 5-year old children physical and neurological development milestones born after PGD, IVF and natural conception [73]. However, 3-fold increase in the risk of preeclampsia was observed among pregnancies after IVF and PGT compared with pregnancies after IVF without PGT. No difference in neonatal outcomes was observed among pregnancies after IVF with and without PGT [74].

Maternal prognosis after pregnancy and the role of carrying the BRCA1/2 mutation

Current evidence suggests that pregnancy after BRCA1/2 positive breast cancer treatment is safe and do not negatively influence the maternal prognosis. In the largest, multicenter retrospective study pregnancy showed no impact on distant recurrence and overall survival, regardless of hormone receptor status, in BRCA1/2 positive breast cancer patients with the median follow-up of 8,3 years [3]. Interestingly, that in the subgroup analysis pregnancy after breast cancer treatment was associated with the improved disease-free survival in BRCA1 carriers (144 cases) and with the possible negative impact on disease-free survival in BRCA2 carriers. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of BRCA2 carriers (only 49 patients) included in the analysis. Additionally, Valentini A et al., showed better 15-years overall survival in BRCA1/2 carriers (128 cases) with pregnancy-associated breasst cancer and pregnancy after breast cancer treatment compared to BRCA1/2 carriers without pregnancy (191 cases) after breast cancer treatment (93.6 and 88.6%, respectively) [7]. In the study published by Lambertini et al., BRCA1/2 carriers who got pregnant following breast cancer diagnosis were younger at diagnosis, more likely with T1 tumors, without lymphnode involvement [3]. This could be explained by the “healthy mother effect”- patients with better breast cancer prognosis decide to become pregnant more frequently [75]. It is traditionally recommended to postpone pregnancy at least 2 years after treatment of breast cancer to allow to finish adjuvant therapies and identify patients with early relapse [76, 77]. However, according to large, population- based study, 54% of breast cancer patients (62 BRCA1/2 carriers), who became pregnant, conceived less than 2 years after diagnosis [78]. Based on oocyte maturation time it is safe for the fetus to conceive at least 3–6 months after maternal exposure to endocrine and at least 6–7 months after maternal exposure to chemotherapy or/and trastuzumab [79–81]. The most significant articles are listed in Table 1. 

Fetal prognosis in BRCA1/2 carriers after breast cancer treatment

Pregnancy after breast cancer treatment in BRCA1/2 carriers does not seem to worsen fetal outcomes. Delivery complications was detected in 11,6% and was similar to observed in the general population [3]. According to Kwiatkowski et al., BRCA1/2 carriers has for 36% fewer miscarriages compared to non-carriers [82]. Several other studies also have reported that prior exposure to anticancer therapy did not increase the risk of congenital anomalies and miscarriages in BRCA1/2 positive breast cancer survivors compared to the general population (1.8 and 10.3% versus 2.3–3 and 13.5%, respectively) [83,84,85]. However, there is an increased risk of congenital multimalformations in offsprings from families known to carry the BRCA mutation [86]. BRCA- deficient embryos have defective double-strand DNA breaks repair by homologous recombination as a result early mutations accumulates causing malformations [86, 87]. The most significant articles are listed in Table 1.

Conclusion

Only two studies with limited number of cases have been published on the subject. According to the existing literature evidence pregnancy after therapy for breast cancer in BRCA carriers is safe for the mother and offspring, but patients’ needs, oncofertility counseling and fertility-sparing strategy should be carefully planned before starting the cytotoxic treatment. Further studies are necessary to strengthen the body of evidence.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. Eurostat- Home – Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20200515-2. Accessed 2 Nov 2021.

  2. Copson ER, Maishman TC, Tapper WL, Cutress RI, Greville-Heygate S, Altman DG, et al. Germline BRCA mutation and outcome in young-onset breast cancer (POSH): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(2):169–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30891-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lambertini M, Ameye L, Hamy A-S, Zingarello A, Poorvu PD, Carraso E, et al. Pregnancy After Breast Cancer in Patients With Germline BRCA Mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(26):3012–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lambertini M, Di Maio M, Poggio F, Pagani O, Curigliano G, Del Mastro L, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practice of physicians towards fertility and pregnancy-related issues in young BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Reprod BioMed Online. 2019;38(5):835–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.11.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lambertini M, Peccatori FA, Demeestere I, Amant F, Wyns C, Stukenborg J-B, et al. ESMO guidelines committee: fertility preservation and post-treatment pregnancies in post-pubertal cancer patients: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(12):1664–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.09.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Finch A, Valentini A, Greenblatt E, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P, Armel S, et al. Frequency of premature menopause in women who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(6):1724–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Valentini A, Lubinski J, Byrski T, Ghadirian P, Moller P, Lynch HT, et al. Hereditary breast Cancer clinical study group: the impact of pregnancy on breast cancer survival in women who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142(1):177–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2729-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gudmundsdottir K, Ashworth A. The roles of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and associated proteins in the maintenance of genomic stability. Oncogene. 2006;25(43):5864–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1209874.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Venkitaraman AR. Cancer susceptibility and the functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cell. 2002;108(2):171–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00615-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Titus S, Fang L, Stobezki R, Akula K, Unsal E, Jeong K, et al. Impairment of BRCA1-related DNA Double Strand Break Repair Leads to Ovarian Aging in Mice and Humans. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(172):172ra21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Oktay K, Turan V, Titus S, Stobezki R, Liu L. BRCA mutations, DNA repair deficiency, and ovarian aging. Biol Reprod. 2015;93(3):67. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.115.132290.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lin WT, Beattie M, Chen L-M, Oktay K, Crawford SL, Gold EB, et al. Comparison of age at natural menopause in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a non-clinic-based sample of women in northern California. Cancer. 2013;119(9):1652–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27952.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Collins IM, Milne RL, McLachlan SA, Friedlander M, Hickey M, Weideman PC, et al. Do BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have earlier natural menopause than their noncarrier relatives?: results from the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation consortium for research into familial breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(31):3920–5. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.49.3007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tung NM, Boughey JC, Pierce LJ, Robson ME, Bedrosian I, Dietz JR, et al. Management of Hereditary Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(18):2080–106. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.00299.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Balmana J, Diez O, Rubio IT, Cardoso F. Esmo Guidelines Working Group: BRCA in breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(Suppl 6):vi31–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bayraktar S, Glück S. Systemic therapy options in BRCA mutation-associated breast cancer. Rev Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135(2):355–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2158-6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines). Breast cancer Version 5. 2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf/. Accessed July 28, 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hahnen E, Lederer B, Hauke J, Loibl S, Krober S, Scheeweiss A, et al. Germline Mutation Status, Pathological Complete Response, and Disease-Free Survival in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the GeparSixto Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1378–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Loibl S, O’Shaughnessy J, Untch M, Sikov WM, Rugo HS, MD MK, et al. Addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (BrighTNess): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):497–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30111-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R, Marczyk E, Jasiowka M, Gronwald J, et al. Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Clin Trial Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147(2):401–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3100-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tung N, Arun B, Hacker MR, Hofstatter E, Toppmeyer DL, Isakoff SJ, et al. TBCRC 031: randomized phase II study of neoadjuvant cisplatin versus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in germline BRCA carriers with HER2-negative breast Cancer (the INFORM trial). J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(14):1539–48. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.03292.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Soleimani R, Heytens E, Darzynkiewicz Z, Oktay K. Mechanisms of chemotherapy-induced human ovarian aging: double strand DNA breaks and microvascular compromise. Aging. 2011;3(8):782–93. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.100363.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bedischi G, Navaroo PA, Oktay K. Chemotherapy-induced damage to ovary: mechanisms and clinical impact. Future Oncol. 2016;12(20):2333–44. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2016-0176.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kalich-Philosoph L, Roness H, Carmely A, Fishel-Bartal M, Ligunsky H, Paglin S, et al. Cyclophosphamide triggers follicle activation and “burnout”; AS101 prevents follicle loss and preserves fertility. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(185):185ra62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tutt NJA, Garber JE, Kaufman B, Viale G, Fumagalli D, Rastogi P, et al. Olymoi A Clincial Trial Steering Committee and Investigators: Adjuvant Olaparib for Patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-Mutated Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(25):2394–405.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Goulooze SA, Cohen AF, Rissmann R. Olaparib. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;81(1):171–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12761.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tentori L, Lacal PM, Muzi A, Dorio AS, Leonetti C, Scarsella C, et al. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition or PARP-1 gene deletion reduces angiogenesis. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(14):2124–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rajesh M, Mukhopadway P, Godlewski G, Batkai S, Hasko G, Liaudet L, et al. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition decreases angiogenesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006;350(4):1056–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2006.09.160.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Bruno JB, Matos MHT, Chaves RN, Chelestino JJH, Saraiva MVA, Verde-Lima IB, et al. Angiogenic factors and ovarian follicle development. Anim Reprod. 2009;6(2):371–9.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nakamura K, Takae S, Shiraishi E, Shinya K, Igualda AJ, Suzuki N. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor exposure reduces ovarian reserve followed by dysfunction in granulosa cells. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):17058. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74087-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Oktay KH, Bedoschi G, Goldfarb SB, Taylan E, Titus S, Palomaki GE, et al. Increased chemotherapy-induced ovarian reserve loss in women with germline BRCA mutations due to oocyte deoxyribonucleic acid double strand break repair deficiency. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(6):1251–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.01.033.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Porcu E, Cillo GM, Cipriani L, Sacilotto F, Notarangelo L, Damiano G, et al. Impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on ovarian reserve and fertility preservation outcomes in young women with breast cancer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(3):709–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01658-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Son KA, Lee DY, Choi D. Association of BRCA mutations and anti-müllerian hormone level in young breast Cancer patients. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lambertini M, Goldrat O, Ferreira AR, Dechene J, Azim HA Jr, Desir J, et al. Reproductive potential and performance of fertility preservation strategies in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(1):237–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx639.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gunnala V, Fields J, Irani M, D’Angelo D, Xu K, Schattman G. BRCA carriers have similar reproductive potential at baseline to noncarriers: comparisons in cancer and cancer-free cohorts undergoing fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(2):363–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.10.014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lambertini M, Olympios N, Lequesne J, Calbrix C, Fontanilles M, Loeb A, et al. Impact of Taxanes, endocrine therapy, and deleterious germline BRCA mutations on anti-müllerian hormone levels in early breast Cancer patients. Front Oncol. 2019;9:575. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00575.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Grynberg M, Dagher Hayeck B, Papanikolaou EG, Sifer C, Sermondade N, Sonigo C. BRCA1/2 gene mutations do not affect the capacity of oocytes from breast cancer candidates for fertility preservation to mature in vitro. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(2):374–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey358.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Denis-Laroque L, Drouet Y, Plotton Y, Chopin N, Bonadona V, Lornage J, et al. Anti-müllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant: a retrospective cohort study. Breast. 2021;59:239–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.07.010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Paluch-Shimon CF, Sessa C, Balmana J, Cardoso MJ, Gilbert F, Senkus E. Prevention and screening in BRCA mutation carriers and other breast/ovarian hereditary cancer syndromes: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for cancer prevention and screening. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 5):v103–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips K-A, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom M-J, et al. Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Metcalfe KA, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P, Tung N, Olivotto IA, Foulkes WD, et al. The risk of ovarian cancer after breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;96(1):222–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.09.039.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Oktay K. Fertility preservation in women with breast cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53(4):753–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181f96e00.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Kyo S, Ishikawa N, Nakamura K, Nakayama K. The fallopian tube as origin of ovarian cancer: change of diagnostic and preventive strategies. Cancer Med. 2020;9(2):421–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2725.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Holman LL, Friedman S, Daniels MS, Sun CC, Lu KH. Acceptability of prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy as risk-reducing surgery among BRCA mutation carriers. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133(2):283–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.030.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Harmsen MG, Arts-de Jong M, Hoogerbrugge N, Maas AHEM, Prins JB, Bulten J, et al. Early salpingectomy (TUbectomy) with delayed oophorectomy to improve quality of life as alternative for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (TUBA study): a prospective non-randomised multicentre study. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Center MAC. WISP: women choosing surgical prevention. 2017. https://wisp.mdanderson.org/. Accessed July 28, 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Medicine USNLO. NCT019077. 2017. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01907789?term=NCT01907789&rank=1. Accessed July 28, 2021.

  48. Medicine USNLO. NCT01608074. 2017. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01608074?term=NCT01608074&rank=1. Accessed July 28, 2021.

  49. Arecco L, Perachino M, Danassi A, Massalena L, Soldato D, Vaoolme G, et al. Burning questions in the Oncofertility counseling of young breast Cancer patients. Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2020;14:1178223420954179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178223420954179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Cakmak H, Katz A, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. Effective method for emergencyfertility preservation: random-start controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(6):1673–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.1992.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nakasuji T, Kawai K, Ishikawa T, Teraoka K, Takeuchi S, Miyagawa T, et al. Random-start ovarian stimulation with aromatase inhibitor for fertility preservation in women with Japanese breast cancer. Reprod Med Biol. 2019;18(2):167–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12263.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang X, Niu J, Che T, Zhu Y, Zhang H, Qu J. Fertility preservation in BRCA mutation carriers-efficacy and safety issues: a review. Rev Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-019-0561-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kim J, Turan V, Oktay K. Long-term safety of Letrozole and gonadotropin stimulation for fertility preservation in women with breast Cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(4):1364–71. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-3878.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Mitwally FMM, Bhakoo HS, Crickard K, Sullivan MW, Batt RE, Yeh J, et al. Estradiol production during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation correlates with treatment outcome in women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(3):588–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.086.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lambertini M, Ceppi M, Poggio F, Peccatori FA, Azim HA, Ugolini D, et al. Ovarian suppression using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy to preserve ovarian function and fertility of breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(12):2408–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv374.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lambertini M, Boni L, Michelotti A, Gamucci T, Scotto T, Gori S, et al. Ovarian suppression with Triptorelin during adjuvant breast Cancer chemotherapy and long-term ovarian function, pregnancies, and disease-free survival: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(24):2632–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.17291.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Leonard RCF, Adamson DJA, Bertelli G, Mansi J, Yellowlees A, Dunlop J, et al. Anglo Celtic collaborative oncology group and National Cancer Research Institute Trialists: GnRH agonist for protection against ovarian toxicity during chemotherapy for early breast cancer: the Anglo Celtic group OPTION trial. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(8):1811–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx184.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Moore HCF, Unger JM, Phillips K-A, Boyle F, Hitre E, Moseley A, et al. Final analysis of the prevention of early menopause study (POEMS)/SWOG intergroup S0230. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(2):210–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Blondeaux E, Massarotti C, Fontana V, Poggio F, Arecco L, Fregatti P, et al. The PREgnancy and FERtility (PREFER) Study Investigating the Need for Ovarian Function and/or Fertility Preservation Strategies in Premenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer. Front Oncol. 2021;11:690320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.690320.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Lambertini M, Cinquini M, Moschetti I, Peccatori FA, Anserini P, Menada MV, et al. Temporary ovarian suppression during chemotherapy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in breast cancer patients: a GRADE approach for evidence evaluation and recommendations by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2017;71:25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.10.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Oktay K, Kim JY, Barad D, Babayev SN. Association of BRCA1 mutations with occult primary ovarian insufficiency: a possible explanation for the link between infertility and breast/ovarian Cancer risks. Sci Transl Med, J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(2):240–4. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2057.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Turan V, Bedoschi G, Emirdar V, Moy F, Oktay K. Ovarian: ovarian stimulation in patients with Cancer: impact of Letrozole and BRCA mutations on fertility preservation cycle outcomes. Reprod Sci. 2018;25(1):26–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719117728800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Shapira M, Raanani H, Feldman B, Srebnik N, Dereck-Haim S, Manela D, et al. BRCA mutation carriers show normal ovarian response in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(5):1162–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1162.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Buonomo B, Massarotti C, Dellino M, Anserini P, Ferrari A, Campanella M, et al. Reproductive issues in carriers of germline pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/2 genes: an expert meeting. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02081-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Condorelli M, Bruzzone M, Ceppi M, Ferrari A, Grinshpun A, Hamy AS, et al. Safety of assisted reproductive techniques in young women harboring germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 with a pregnancy after prior history of breast cancer. ESMO Open. 2021;6(6):100300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Dayan N, Joseph KS, Fell DB, Laskin CA, Basso O, Park AL, et al. Infertility treatment and risk of severe maternal morbidity: a propensity score-matched cohort study. CMAJ. 2019;191(5):E118–27. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.181124.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Aoyama K, Pinto R, Ray JG, Hill AD, Scales DC, Lapinsky SE, et al. Association of Maternal age with Severe Maternal Morbidity and Mortality in Canada. JAMA. 2019;2(8):e199875. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Vukovic P, Peccatori FA, Massarott C, Miralles MS, Beketic-Oreškovic L, Lambertini M. Preimplantation genetic testing for carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2021;157:103201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.103201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Quinn GP, Pal T, Murphy D, Vadaparampil ST, Kumar A. High-risk consumers' perceptions of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Genet Med. 2012;14(2):191–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.0b013e31822ddc7e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Fortuny D, Balmaña J, Graña B, Torres A, Cajal TR, Darder E, et al. Opinion about reproductive decision making among individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a multicentre Spanish cohort. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(4):1000–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Sagi M, Weinberg N, Eilat A, Aizenman E, Werner M, Girsh E, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for BRCA1/2-a novel clinical experience. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29(5):508–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.2232.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Derks-Smeets IAP, de Die-Smulders CEM, Mackens S, van Golde R, Paulussen AD, Dreesen J, et al. Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and reproduction: an observational study on the suitability of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for both asymptomatic carriers and breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat Vol. 2014;145(3):673–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-2951-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Heijligers M, Peeters A, van Montfoort A, Nijsten J, Janssen E, Gunnewiek FK, et al. Growth, health, and motor development of 5-year-old children born after preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(6):1151–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Zhang WY, von Versen-Höynck F, Kapphahn KI, Fleischmann RR, Zhao Q, Baker VL. Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with trophectoderm biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(2):283–90.e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Sankila R, Heinavaara S, Hakulinen T. Survival of breast cancer patients after subsequent term pregnancy: “healthy mother effect”. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170(3):818–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(94)70290-X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Petrek JA. Pregnancy safety after breast cancer. Cancer. 1994;74(1 Suppl):528–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.2820741342.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Azim HA Jr, Santoro L, Pavlidis N, Gelber S, Kroman N, Azim H, et al. Safety of pregnancy following breast cancer diagnosis: a meta-analysis of 14 studies. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(1):74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Ives A, Saunders C. Pregnancy after breast cancer: population- based study. BMJ. 2007;334(7586):194. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39035.667176.55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Pagani O, Azin H Jr. Pregnancy after breast Cancer: myths and facts. Breast Care (Basel). 2012;7(3):210–4. https://doi.org/10.1159/000339885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Azim HA, Peccatori FA, de Azambuja E. Motherhood after breast cancer: searching for la dolce vita. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011 Feb;11(2):287–98. https://doi.org/10.1586/era.10.208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Lambertini M, Martel S, Campbell C, Guillaume S, Hilbers FS, Schuehly U, et al. Pregnancies during and after trastuzumab and/or lapatinib in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer: analysis from the NeoALTTO (BIG 1-06) and ALTTO (BIG 2-06) trials. Cancer. 2019;125(2):307–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31784.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kwiatkowski F, Arbre M, Bidet Y, Laquet C, Uhrhammer N, Bignon Y-J. BRCA mutations increase fertility in families at hereditary breast/ovarian Cancer risk. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0127363. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127363.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Dolk H, Loane M, Garne E. The prevalence of congenital anomalies in Europe. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:349–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9485-8_20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Andersen AMN, Wohlfahrt J, Christens P, Olsen J, Melbye M. Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ. 2000;320(7251):1708–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7251.1708.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Feldkamp ML, Carey JC, Byrne JLB, Krikov S, Botto LD. Etiology and clinical presentation of birth defects: population based study. BMJ. 2017;357:j2249. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j2249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Kwiatkowski F, Perthus I, Uhrhammer N, Francannet C, Arbre M, Bidet Y, et al. Association between hereditary predisposition to common cancers and congenital multimalformations. Congenit Anom (Kyoto). 2020;60(1):22–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/cga.12329.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Moslehi R, Signore C, Tamura D, Mills JL, Digiovanna JJ, Tucker MA, et al. Adverse effects of trichothiodystrophy DNA repair and transcription gene disorder on human fetal development. Clin Genet. 2010;77(4):365–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01336.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is supported (not financially) by the European Reference Network on Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS)—Project ID No 739547. ERN GENTURIS is partly co-funded by the European Union within the framework of the Third Health Programme “ERN-2016—Framework Partnership Agreement 2017–2021.

Funding

No funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Oncology, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia

    Jelena Maksimenko, Arvīds Irmejs & Jānis Gardovskis

  2. Department of Surgery, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia

    Jelena Maksimenko, Arvīds Irmejs & Jānis Gardovskis

  3. Breast Unit, Department of Surgery, Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia

    Jelena Maksimenko, Arvīds Irmejs & Jānis Gardovskis

Authors
  1. Jelena Maksimenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arvīds Irmejs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jānis Gardovskis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors have reviewed the literature and contribute to the review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jelena Maksimenko.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maksimenko, J., Irmejs, A. & Gardovskis, J. Pregnancy after breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 20, 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-022-00209-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-022-00209-1

Keywords

Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice

ISSN: 1897-4287