Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25595540›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2015

Ovarian stimulation and in-vitro fertilization outcomes of cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation compared to age matched controls: a 17-year experience.

Eden R Cardozo, Alexcis P Thomson, Anatte E Karmon, Kristy A Dickinson, Diane L Wright, Mary E Sabatini

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Counseling young women with early breast cancer on fertility preservation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eden R CardozoVincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Alexcis P Thomson
Anatte E Karmon
Kristy A Dickinson
Diane L Wright
Mary E Sabatini
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes of cancer patients who underwent oocyte retrieval and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation prior to gonadotoxic therapy to those of age and time-matched controls with tubal factor infertility.

methodsAll cancer patients who underwent embryo/oocyte cryopreservation at our institution from 1997 to 2014 were reviewed. Primary outcomes were total dose of gonadotropins used, number of oocytes retrieved, and number of 2pn embryos obtained. Outcomes were compared to age-matched controls with tubal-factor infertility who underwent a fresh embryo transfer within the same relative time period as the IVF cycle of the cancer patient.

resultsSixty-three cancer patients underwent 65 IVF cycles, and 21 returned for frozen embryo transfer. One hundred twenty-two age-matched controls underwent IVF cycles with fresh transfer, and 23 returned for frozen embryo transfer. No difference was seen between cancer patients and controls with respect to total ampules of gonadotropin used (38.0 vs. 35.6 respectively; p = 0.28), number of oocytes retrieved (12.4 vs. 10.9 respectively; p = 0.36) and number of 2pn embryos obtained (6.6 vs. 7.1 respectively; p = 0.11). Cumulative pregnancy rate per transfer for cancer patients compared to controls was 37 vs. 43 % respectively (p = 0.49) and cumulative live birth rate per transfer was 30 vs. 32 % respectively (p = 0.85). Cancer patients had a higher likelihood of live birth resulting in twins (44 vs. 14 %; p = 0.035).

conclusionsMost IVF outcomes appear comparable for cancer patients and age-matched controls. Higher twin pregnancy rates in cancer patients may reflect lack of underlying infertility or need for cancer-specific transfer guidelines.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomeAdultCase-Control StudiesEmbryo TransferFemaleFertility PreservationFertilization in VitroHumansInfertility, FemaleNeoplasmsOvulation InductionPregnancyPregnancy RateTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25595540
PMCPMC4380886
OpenAlexW2025301286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.