Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26271227›Full record

ArticleFertility and sterility2015

Cancer in women after assisted reproductive technology.

Barbara Luke, Morton B Brown, Logan G Spector, Stacey A Missmer, Richard E Leach, Melanie Williams, Lori Koch, Yolanda Smith, Judy E Stern, G David Ball and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Fertility and sterility, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. History of Infertility and Risk of Endometrial Cancer in the Women's Health Initiative.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Fertility preservation in female cancer patients in Brazil: perceptions and attitudes of infertility specialists.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Fertility preservation in women with early-stage gynecologic cancer: optimizing oncologic and reproductive outcomes.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2021
    Review
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Barbara LukeDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Electronic address: lukeb@msu.edu.
Morton B BrownDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Logan G SpectorDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Stacey A MissmerDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Richard E LeachDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Melanie WilliamsTexas Cancer Registry, Cancer Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas.
Lori KochIllinois State Cancer Registry, Illinois Department of Public Health, Springfield, Illinois.
Yolanda SmithDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Judy E SternDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
G David BallSeattle Reproductive Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Maria J SchymuraBureau of Cancer Epidemiology, New York State Cancer Registry, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York.
Michigan State University · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USDartmouth College · USHarvard University · USIllinois Department of Public Health · USNew York State Department of Health · USSeattle Reproductive Medicine · USTexas Department of State Health Services · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

Assisted Reproductive Technology & Risk of Childhood CancerR01CA151973 · NCI · MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LUKE, BARBARA JOAN, SPECTOR, LOGAN G. · 2011 to 2015
$3.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA151973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the risk of cancer after assisted reproductive technology (ART) therapy.

designLongitudinal cohort study.

settingNot applicable. PATIENT(S): New York, Texas, and Illinois residents between 2004 and 2009, treated with ART, comprising cycles of 113,226 women, including 53,859 women without prior ART treatment, who were linked to their respective state cancer registries and whose cycles were reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System (SART CORS). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Diagnosis of cancer, as reported to the state cancer registry; standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and their 95% confidence intervals, comparing the observed to expected cancer cases based on age-specific cancer rates in the general population of each state. RESULT(S): Among the cohort of women without prior ART therapy, hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for treatment parameters and reproductive history factors. The mean follow-up period was 4.87 years; among women without prior ART, 450 women developed 460 cancers. Women treated with ART had a statistically significantly lower risk for all cancers (for all women: SIR 0.78; CI, 0.73-0.83; women without prior ART: SIR 0.75; CI, 0.68-0.82), 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. Among women without prior ART, we found no statistically significant increased HR by parity, number of cycles, cumulative follicle-stimulating hormone dosage, or cycle outcome. CONCLUSION(S): 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 with ART.

Indexed as

AdultAge DistributionAge FactorsFemaleHumansIncidenceLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPregnancyProtective FactorsRegistriesReproductive Techniques, AssistedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSex FactorsAssisted reproductive technologycancer riskfertilitypregnancy outcome

Identifiers

PMID26271227
PMCPMC4630138
OpenAlexW2101522440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.