Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26113657›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2015

Cancer risk among parous women following assisted reproductive technology.

M M Reigstad, I K Larsen, T Å Myklebust, T E Robsahm, N B Oldereid, A K Omland, S Vangen, L A Brinton, R Storeng

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Epidemiological trends and risk factors of gynecological cancers: an update.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Use of fertility medications and cancer risk: a review and update.Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology · 2017
    Review
  19. Cancer Risk in Women Treated with Fertility Drugs According to Parity Status-A Registry-based Cohort Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2017
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

M M ReigstadNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Women's Health, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway Institute of Population-based Cancer Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway martereigstad@gmail.com.
I K LarsenInstitute of Population-based Cancer Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
T Å MyklebustInstitute of Population-based Cancer Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
T E RobsahmInstitute of Population-based Cancer Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
N B OldereidSection of Reproductive Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
A K OmlandSection of Reproductive Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
S VangenNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Women's Health, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
L A BrintonDivision of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, Hormonal and Reproductive Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
R StorengNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Women's Health, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NOCancer Registry of Norway · NODivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics

Funding

Therapeutic and Diagnostic Factors as Related to Cancer RiskZIACP010128 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI GIERACH, GRETCHEN · 2009 to 2025
$8.1M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionDo women who give birth after assisted reproductive technology (ART) have an increased risk of cancer compared with women who give birth without ART? SUMMARY ANSWER: Without correction, the results indicate an increase in overall cancer risk, as well as a 50% increase in risk of CNS cancer for women giving birth after ART, however the results were not significant after correcting for multiple analyses. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Studies regarding the effects of hormonal treatments involved with ART on subsequent cancer risk have provided inconsistent results, and it has also been suggested that infertility itself could be a contributory factor. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population-based cohort consisting of all women registered in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway as having given birth between 1 January 1984 and 31 December 2010 was assembled (n = 812 986). Cancers were identified by linkage to the Cancer Registry of Norway. Study subjects were followed from start of first pregnancy during the observational period until the first cancer, death, emigration, or 31 December 2010. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsOf the total study population (n = 806 248), 16 525 gave birth to a child following ART. Cox regression analysis computed hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing cancer risk between ART women and non-ART women; for overall cancer, and for cervical, ovarian, uterine, central nervous system (CNS), colorectal and thyroid cancers, and for malignant melanoma. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 22 282 cohort members were diagnosed with cancer, of which 338 were ART women and 21 944 non-ART women. The results showed an elevated risk in one out of seven sites for ART women. The HR for cancer of the CNS was 1.50 (95% CI 1.03- 2.18), and among those specifically subjected to IVF (without ICSI) the HR was 1.83 (95% CI 1.22-2.73). Analysis of risk of overall cancer gave an HR of 1.16 (95% CI 1.04-1.29). Among those who had delivered only one child by the end of follow-up, the HR for ovarian cancer was 2.00 (95% CI 1.08-3.65), and for those nulliparous at entry the HR was 1.80 (95% CI 1.04-3.11). However, all findings became non-significant after correcting for multiple analyses. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results of elevated risk of overall cancer and CNS cancer lost significance when adjusting for multiple analyses, implying an important limitation of the study. The follow-up time was relatively short, especially for ART women. In addition, as the cohort was relatively young, there were few incident cancers, especially for some rarer cancer forms, such as uterine cancer. Risk assessments according to different causes of infertility could not be done. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsIn light of the findings in the present study, further studies should be made on risk of CNS and ovarian cancer, and continued monitoring of all those treated with ART is encouraged. Our findings may only be generalizable to women who give birth after ART, and the risk for women who remain nulliparous after ART remains to be assessed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: The study was funded by the Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Women's Health. All authors claim no competing interests.

Indexed as

RiskAdultFemaleHumansInfertilityMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNorwayParityPregnancyRegistriesReproductive Techniques, AssistedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentYoung Adultassisted reproductive technologybrain tumorcancerIVFneoplasm of the central nervous system

Identifiers

PMID26113657
PMCPMC4507330
OpenAlexW2148937722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.