Luca Arecco

In recent years, advances in melanoma treatment have renewed patient hope. This comprehensive review emphasizes the evolving treatment landscape, particularly highlighting first-line strategies and the interplay between immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab has achieved the best median overall survival, exceeding 70 months. However, the introduction of new ICIs, like relatlimab, has added complexity to first-line therapy decisions. Our aim is to guide clinicians in making personalized treatment decisions. Various features, including brain metastases, PD-L1 expression, BRAF mutation, performance status, and prior adjuvant therapy, significantly impact the direction of advanced melanoma treatment. We also provide the latest insights into the treatment of rare melanoma subtypes, such as uveal melanoma, where tebentafusp has shown promising improvements in overall survival for metastatic uveal melanoma patients. This review provides invaluable insights for clinicians, enabling informed treatment choices and deepening our understanding of the multifaceted challenges associated with advanced melanoma management. • Ipilimumab/nivolumab is the regimen of choice, achieving a mOS of over 70 months. • New ICIs, like relatlimab, add complexity to first-line therapy decisions. • Brain metastases, PD-L1, BRAF, PS, prior adjuvant, guide advanced melanoma treatment • Tebentafusp improved OS for metastatic uveal melanoma patients

STUDY QUESTION: Is it safe to perform controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation before starting anticancer therapies or ART after treatments in young breast cancer patients? SUMMARY ANSWER: Performing COS before, or ART following anticancer treatment in young women with breast cancer does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in terms of breast cancer recurrence, mortality or event-free survival (EFS). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: COS for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before starting chemotherapy is standard of care for young women with breast cancer wishing to preserve fertility. However, some oncologists remain concerned on the safety of COS, particularly in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors, even when associated with aromatase inhibitors. Moreover, limited evidence exists on the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors for achieving pregnancy after the completion of anticancer treatments. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The present systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by three blinded investigators using the keywords 'breast cancer' and 'fertility preservation'; keywords were combined with Boolean operators. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 30 June 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: To be included in this meta-analysis, eligible studies had to be case-control or cohort studies comparing survival outcomes of women who underwent COS or ART before or after breast cancer treatments compared to breast cancer patients not exposed to these strategies. Survival outcomes of interest were cancer recurrence rate, relapse rate, overall survival and number of deaths. Adjusted relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI were extracted. When the number of events for each group were available but the above measures were not reported, HRs were estimated using the Watkins and Bennett method. We excluded case reports or case series with <10 patients and studies without a control group of breast cancer patients who did not pursue COS or ART. Quality of data and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 1835 records were retrieved. After excluding ineligible publications, 15 studies were finally included in the present meta-analysis (n = 4643). Among them, 11 reported the outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent COS for fertility preservation before starting chemotherapy, and 4 the safety of ART following anticancer treatment completion. Compared to women who did not receive fertility preservation at diagnosis (n = 2386), those who underwent COS (n = 1594) had reduced risk of recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73) and mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76). No detrimental effect of COS on EFS was observed (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.06). A similar trend of better outcomes in terms of EFS was observed in women with hormone-receptor-positive disease who underwent COS (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20-0.65). A reduced risk of recurrence was also observed in patients undergoing COS before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.80). Compared to women not exposed to ART following completion of anticancer treatments (n = 540), those exposed to ART (n = 123) showed a tendency for better outcomes in terms of recurrence ratio (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70) and EFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17-1.11). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This meta-analysis is based on abstracted data and most of the studies included are retrospective cohort studies. Not all studies had matching criteria between the study population and the controls, and these criteria often differed between the studies. Moreover, rate of recurrence is reported as a punctual event and it is not possible to establish when recurrences occurred and whether follow-up, which was shorter than 5 years in some of the included studies, is adequate to capture late recurrences. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results demonstrate that performing COS at diagnosis or ART following treatment completion does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in young women with breast cancer, including among patients with hormone receptor-positive disease and those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Partially supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; grant number MFAG 2020 ID 24698) and the Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds 2017 (no grant number). M.L. acted as consultant for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Ipsen, Takeda, Libbs, Knight, Sandoz outside the submitted work. F.S. acted as consultant for Novartis, MSD, Sun Pharma, Philogen and Pierre Fabre and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. I.D. has acted as a consultant for Roche, has received research grants from Roche and Ferring, has received reagents for academic clinical trial from Roche diagnostics, speaker's fees from Novartis, and support for congresses from Theramex and Ferring outside the submitted work. L.D.M. reported honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis and had an advisory role for Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Background The co-administration of letrozole during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with gonadotropins is used to limit the potentially harmful effects of a supra-physiological rise in estrogen levels on hormone-sensitive cancers. However, the efficacy and safety of adding letrozole to COS remains debated. Methods This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that compared the efficacy and safety of COS with co-administration of letrozole versus COS without letrozole in all patient populations. A secondary analysis was done including only the studies in breast cancer patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of retrieved mature Metaphase II (MII) oocytes. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were total number of oocytes, maturation rate, fertilization rate, number of cryopreserved embryos, peak estradiol levels, progesterone levels, total gonadotropin dose. Data for each endpoint were reported and analyzed thorough mean ratio (MR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A total of 11 records were selected including 2,121 patients (990 patients underwent COS with letrozole and 1,131 COS without letrozole). The addition of letrozole to COS did not have any negative effect on the number of mature oocytes collected (MR=1.00, 95% CI=0.87-1.16; P=0.967) and the other efficacy endpoints. COS with letrozole was associated with significantly decreased peak estradiol levels (MR=0.28, 95% CI=0.24-0.32, P&lt;0.001). Similar results were observed in the secondary analysis including only breast cancer patients. Conclusions These findings are reassuring on the efficacy and safety of COS with gonadotropins and letrozole and are particularly important for fertility preservation in women with hormone-sensitive cancers.

Importance: Young women with breast cancer who have germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 face unique challenges regarding fertility. Previous studies demonstrating the feasibility and safety of pregnancy in breast cancer survivors included limited data regarding BRCA carriers. Objective: To investigate cumulative incidence of pregnancy and disease-free survival in young women who are BRCA carriers. Design, Setting, and Participants: International, multicenter, hospital-based, retrospective cohort study conducted at 78 participating centers worldwide. The study included female participants diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 40 years or younger between January 2000 and December 2020 carrying germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2. Last delivery was October 7, 2022; last follow-up was February 20, 2023. Exposure: Pregnancy after breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were cumulative incidence of pregnancy after breast cancer and disease-free survival. Secondary end points were breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, pregnancy, and fetal and obstetric outcomes. Results: Of 4732 BRCA carriers included, 659 had at least 1 pregnancy after breast cancer and 4073 did not. Median age at diagnosis in the overall cohort was 35 years (IQR, 31-38 years). Cumulative incidence of pregnancy at 10 years was 22% (95% CI, 21%-24%), with a median time from breast cancer diagnosis to conception of 3.5 years (IQR, 2.2-5.3 years). Among the 659 patients who had a pregnancy, 45 (6.9%) and 63 (9.7%) had an induced abortion or a miscarriage, respectively. Of the 517 patients (79.7%) with a completed pregnancy, 406 (91.0%) delivered at term (≥37 weeks) and 54 (10.4%) had twins. Among the 470 infants born with known information on pregnancy complications, 4 (0.9%) had documented congenital anomalies. Median follow-up was 7.8 years (IQR, 4.5-12.6 years). No significant difference in disease-free survival was observed between patients with or without a pregnancy after breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81-1.20). Patients who had a pregnancy had significantly better breast cancer-specific survival and overall survival. Conclusions and Relevance: In this global study, 1 in 5 young BRCA carriers conceived within 10 years after breast cancer diagnosis. Pregnancy following breast cancer in BRCA carriers was not associated with decreased disease-free survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03673306.

BACKGROUND: Offering ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies in premenopausal women with newly diagnosed breast cancer candidates to undergo chemotherapy is standard of care. However, few data are available on uptake and main reasons for refusing these options. METHODS: The PREFER study (NCT02895165) is an observational, prospective study enrolling premenopausal women with early breast cancer, aged between 18 and 45 years, candidates to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Primary objective is to collect information on acceptance rates and reasons for refusal of the proposed strategies for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation available in Italy. RESULTS: At the study coordinating center, 223 patients were recruited between November 2012 and December 2020. Median age was 38 years (range 24 - 45 years) with 159 patients (71.3%) diagnosed at ≤40 years. Temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) was accepted by 58 out of 64 (90.6%) patients aged 41-45 years and by 151 out of 159 (95.0%) of those aged ≤40 years. Among patients aged ≤40 years, 57 (35.8%) accepted to access the fertility unit to receive a complete oncofertility counseling and 29 (18.2%) accepted to undergo a cryopreservation technique. Main reasons for refusal were fear of delaying the initiation of antineoplastic treatments and contraindications to the procedure or lack of interest in future childbearing. Patients with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer had a tendency for a higher acceptance rates of ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies than those with hormone-receptor negative disease. CONCLUSIONS: More than 90% of premenopausal women with early breast cancer, and particularly those with hormone receptor-positive disease, were concerned about the potential risk of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency and/or infertility and accepted GnRHa administration. Less than 1 out of 5 women aged ≤40 years accepted to undergo cryopreservation strategies.