ArticleFertility and sterility2018
Long-term outcomes in cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fertility-sparing surgery upon reproductive and oncologic results in ovarian cancer patients stage I (FIGO): a systematic review.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Pooled it
- Live birth rate after female fertility preservation for cancer or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the three main techniques; embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Safety of fertility preservation techniques before and after anticancer treatments in young women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Pooled it
- The progestin anchor: salvaging mature oocyte yield after an unplanned six-day gonadotropin pause in oncofertility-a case report.F&S reports · 2026Article
- In vitro fertilization with cryopreserved oocytes or embryos after cancer: The role of gestational carriers.Cancer · 2025Article
- Oncofertility Barriers in Nurses Caring for Women with Breast Cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The complexity and challenges of fertility preservation in women with cervix cancer-A prospective cohort study reporting on reproductive outcome and overall survival.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Observational
- An opportunity for fertility preservation in neurosurgical spinal ependymoma patients: a single center review.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Article
- Clinical practice guideline for female fertility preservation.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Characterizing attitudes related to future child-bearing in young women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Knowledge and intentions to use fertility preservation among urban Chinese cancer patients: A study from Hong Kong.PloS one · 2024Article
- Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone agonist (GnRHa) during chemotherapy and post-cancer childbirths - a Nationwide population-based cohort study of 24,922 women diagnosed with cancer in Sweden.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- The Usage of Cryopreserved Reproductive Material in Cancer Patients Undergoing Fertility Preservation Procedures.Cancers · 2023Review
- Outcomes of Fertility Preservation for Female Cancer Patients in a Single Tertiary Center.Yonsei medical journal · 2023Article
- Management of testosterone around ovarian stimulation in transmasculine patients: challenging common practices to meet patient needs-2 case reports.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Article
- [Fertility preservation in breast cancer-A risk?]Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023Article
- Fertility Preservation in Young Women with Breast Cancer: Impact on Treatment and Outcomes.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Fertility preservation in patients of childbearing age treated for breast cancer: A nationwide cohort study.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2022Article
- Disposition preferences in oocyte preservation patients.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare long-term outcomes of cancer patients who pursued fertility preservation (FP) with those who did not and compare random-start (RS) and menstrual cycle-specific (CS) protocols for FP.
designRetrospective cohort.
settingSingle urban academic institution. PATIENT(S): Oncology patients who contacted the FP patient navigator, 2005-2015. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Time to cancer treatment, disease-free survival, and reproductive outcomes in FP versus no-FP patients and cycle outcomes for RS versus CS protocols. Data were analyzed by χ RESULT(S): Of 497 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 41% elected FP. The median number of days to cancer treatment was 33 and 19 days in the FP and no-FP groups, respectively. There was no difference in cancer recurrence or mortality. There were no differences in stimulation parameters, outcomes, or days to next cancer treatment in RS versus CS protocols. Twenty-one patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, resulting in 16 live births. Eight of 21 returning patients used a gestational carrier. Thirteen FP (6.4%) and 16 no-FP (5.5%) patients experienced a spontaneous pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): FP is both safe and efficacious for eligible cancer patients. Only 10% of patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, and almost half used a gestational carrier, suggesting the need for further research into reproductive decision-making in cancer survivors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.