Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26400507›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2015

Outcomes of ovarian stimulation after treatment with chemotherapy.

Jessica L Chan, Lauren N C Johnson, Brenda L Efymow, Mary D Sammel, Clarisa R Gracia

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Oocyte collection and outcome following oncologic treatment: a retrospective multicentre study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2017
    Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessica L ChanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3701 Market Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. jessica.chan@uphs.upenn.edu.
Lauren N C JohnsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3701 Market Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Brenda L EfymowDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3701 Market Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Mary D SammelCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, 605 Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Clarisa R GraciaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, 3701 Market Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

REPRODUCTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY TRAINING GRANTT32HD007440 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BARNHART, KURT T · 1996 to 2020
$7.5M
Ovarian Reserve After Cancer: Longitudinal Effects (The ORACLE Study)R01HD062797 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GRACIA, CLARISA R. · 2010 to 2014
$2.7M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD062797NICHD NIH HHS R01-HD-062797-05NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007440NICHD NIH HHS T32HD007440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeChemotherapeutic agents have a known gonadotoxic effect; however, it is difficult to predict the impact they may have on ovarian stimulation. The objective of this study was to evaluate response to ovarian stimulation in patients exposed to chemotherapy compared with patients who were chemotherapy-naïve.

methodsA retrospective cohort study of 130 patients with cancer or autoimmune disease was performed. Demographics, ovarian reserve, ovarian response and stimulation parameters, and oocyte data were compared between patients who were pre- and post-chemotherapy. Logistic regression modeling was performed to identify risk factors for cancellation and low oocyte yield, adjusting for confounders as appropriate.

resultsAntral follicle count (AFC) was significantly lower in post-chemo patients (9 vs. 17, p < 0.001). Post-chemotherapy patients were more likely to be cancelled during stimulation (23 vs. 4 %, p = 0.003). Among those that went to retrieval, there was no difference in total number of oocytes (10 vs. 10, p = 0.31) or mature oocytes retrieved (8 vs. 8, p = 0.38), despite higher starting (300 vs. 450 IU, p < 0.001) and total gonadotropin (3075 vs. 4612.5 IU, p = 0.008) doses in post-chemotherapy patients. Low AFC (≤6) was associated with cycle cancellation (OR 7.7, 95 % CI 1.8-33.2) and low oocyte yield (<6) (OR 5.4, 95 % CI 1.6-17.7).

conclusionsPatients post-chemotherapy have lower AFC compared with the chemotherapy-naïve and have higher cancellation rates. Among those who underwent oocyte retrieval, oocyte yield was similar in both groups. Low AFC was most strongly associated with cycle cancellation and oocyte yield. Post-chemotherapy patients had higher rates of cycle cancellation but did equally well as pre-chemotherapy patients if they reached retrieval.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCohort StudiesFemaleFertility PreservationGonadotropinsHumansLogistic ModelsNeoplasmsOocyte RetrievalOocytesOvarian FollicleOvarian ReserveOvulation InductionRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeGonadotropinsCancerChemotherapyFertility preservationOvarian stimulation

Identifiers

PMID26400507
PMCPMC4615911
OpenAlexW1707133956

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.