Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29912328›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2018

The impact of cancer on subsequent chance of pregnancy: a population-based analysis.

Richard A Anderson, David H Brewster, Rachael Wood, Sian Nowell, Colin Fischbacher, Tom W Kelsey, W Hamish B Wallace

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
9.6field-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

119 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 251 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cancer and fertility management: FIGO best practice advice.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pregnancy after cancer: FIGO Best practice advice.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Reproductive outcomes following a stem cell transplant for a haematological malignancy in female cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Subsequent pregnancies after a diagnosis of pregnancy-associated cancer.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Richard A AndersonMRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, 47 Little france Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
David H BrewsterScottish Cancer Registry, Information Services Division, NHS National Services Scotland, 1 South Gyle Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Rachael WoodInformation Services Division, NHS National Services Scotland, 1 South Gyle Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Sian NowelleData Research & Innovation Service (eDRIS), Information Services Division, NHS National Services Scotland, Edinburgh, 1 South Gyle Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Colin FischbacherInformation Services Division, NHS National Services Scotland, 1 South Gyle Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Tom W KelseySchool of Computer Science, University of St. Andrews, North Haugh, St. Andrews, UK.
W Hamish B WallaceDepartment of Oncology and Haematology, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Sciennes Road, Edinburgh, UK.
National Health Service Scotland · GBMRC Centre for Reproductive Health · GBRoyal Hospital for Children · GBUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G1100357Medical Research Council MR/N022556/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat is the impact of cancer in females aged ≤39 years on subsequent chance of pregnancy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Cancer survivors achieved fewer pregnancies across all cancer types, and the chance of achieving a first pregnancy was also lower. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The diagnosis and treatment of cancer in young females may be associated with reduced fertility but the true pregnancy deficit in a population is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a retrospective cohort study relating first incident cancer diagnosed between 1981 and 2012 to subsequent pregnancy in all female patients in Scotland aged 39 years or less at cancer diagnosis (n = 23 201). Pregnancies were included up to end of 2014. Females from the exposed group not pregnant before cancer diagnosis (n = 10 271) were compared with general population controls matched for age, deprivation quintile and year of diagnosis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsScottish Cancer Registry records were linked to hospital discharge records to calculate standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for pregnancy, standardized for age and year of diagnosis. Linkage to death records was also performed. We also selected women from the exposed group who had not been pregnant prior to their cancer diagnosis who were compared with a matched control group from the general population. Additional analyses were performed for breast cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma, leukaemia, cervical cancer and brain/CNS cancers. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Cancer survivors achieved fewer pregnancies: SIR 0.62 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.63). Reduced SIR was observed for all cancer types. The chance of achieving a first pregnancy was also lower, adjusted hazard ratio = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.61) for women >5 years after diagnosis, with marked reductions in women with breast, cervical and brain/CNS tumours, and leukaemia. The effect was reduced with more recent treatment period overall and in cervical cancer, breast cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma, but was unchanged for leukaemia or brain/CNS cancers. The proportion of pregnancies that ended in termination was lower after a cancer diagnosis, and the proportion ending in live birth was higher (78.7 vs 75.6%, CI of difference: 1.1, 5.0). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Details of treatments received were not available, so the impact of specific treatment regimens on fertility could not be assessed. Limited duration of follow-up was available for women diagnosed in the most recent time period. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThis analysis provides population-based quantification by cancer type of the effect of cancer and its treatment on subsequent pregnancy across the reproductive age range, and how this has changed in recent decades. The demonstration of a reduced chance of pregnancy across all cancer types and the changing impact in some but not other common cancers highlights the need for appropriate fertility counselling of all females of reproductive age at diagnosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by NHS Lothian Cancer and Leukaemia Endowments Fund. Part of this work was undertaken in the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health which is funded by the MRC Centre grant MR/N022556/1. RAA has participated in Advisory Boards and/or received speaker's fees from Beckman Coulter, IBSA, Merck and Roche Diagnostics. He has received research support from Roche Diagnostics, Ansh labs and Ferring. The other authors have no conflicts to declare.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsPregnancy RateAdultBirth RateFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansInfertility, FemaleLive BirthNeoplasmsPregnancyRegistriesRetrospective StudiesScotland

Identifiers

PMID29912328
PMCPMC6012597
OpenAlexW2808953783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.