One of the reasons I was reluctant to start fertility
treatment—aside from the astronomical costs—was I was afraid what it would
mean to start putting all those chemicals in my body: the hormones to increase
my egg production, to make me ovulate, to regulate my cycle. It seemed like a
bit much. Especially since fertility is such a burgeoning field in early stages
and no one quite knows what the effects will be.
That's why I put off starting treatment. (That and the fact
that I'd gotten pregnant naturally before.) I started with some IUI's (they
never work, do they?), then moved to minimal stimulation IVF, which used a much
lower dose of drugs and produced fewer eggs (which were ostensibly the best
quality ones.) Only after it all didn't work did I move onto full-stimulation
treatment. But I worried about the effects of such a treatment on myself and my future baby.
One day people say one thing about IVF babies—they're not as
smart, are developmentally delayed, have increased incidence of autism, yada yada yada—and
the next day someone else is disproving it.
It was the same with effects of IVF drugs on mothers.
A recent study on every IVF procedure at the Human
Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) implied that women who had undergone fertility treatments were 37% more likely to develop ovarian cancer. Of course, buried in the stories was
the less sexy information: most analysis suggested the increased risk of
ovarian cancer were linked to the type of women
that needed fertility treatments in the first place, not the actual IVF treatment itself.
In other words, correlation does not mean causality.
That's why I was glad to read about this newer study, "Cancer
in Women After Assisted Reproductive Technology," in November's issue of
Fertility and Sterility. They monitored 53,859 women from New York, Texas and Illinois without prior treatment, who had IVF between 2004 and 2009.
These women had a "statistically significantly lower
risk" for all cancers, breast cancer, and all female genital cancers; a "non-statistically-significant
lower risk" for endocrine and uterine cancer; and a "non-statistically-significant
higher risk" for melanoma and ovarian cancer.
According to the conclusion, "Women initiating ART treatment
have no greater risk for developing cancer after nearly 5 years of
follow-up compared with the general population and with other women treated