ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2018
Specific protocols of controlled ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation in breast cancer patients.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Random start ovarian stimulation before gonadotoxic therapies in women with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Reproductive biomedicine online · 2023Pooled it
- How effective are the non-conventional ovarian stimulation protocols in ART? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020Pooled it
- Female fertility preservation: 25 years of progress, expanding indications and future prospects.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
- TransrectalFrontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Breast cancer Treatment and Fertility Preservation: A Narrative Review of Impacts, Strategies and Ethical Considerations.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- Current status of fertility preservation in a Spanish tertiary public hospital: multidisciplinary approach and experience in over 1500 patients.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Article
- Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Initiated at Different Phases of the Menstrual Cycle for Fertility Preservation in Oncological Patients: a Retrospective Study.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Article
- Long-Term Effects of Breast Cancer Therapy and Care: Calm after the Storm?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Fertility Preservation in Young Women with Breast Cancer: Impact on Treatment and Outcomes.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Case Report: Young Adults With Breast Cancer: A Case Series of Fertility Preservation Management and Literature Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Does Use of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Affect the Decision to Pursue Fertility Preservation Options in Young Women with Breast Cancer?Annals of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- The impact of letrozole administration on oocyte morphology in breast cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2020Article
- Current Position of Oncofertility in Adolescent Female Cancer Patients: A Comparative Review on Society Guidelines.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Fertility preservation is an important concern in breast cancer patients. In the present investigation, we set out to create a specific protocol of controlled ovarian stimulation (cos) for oocyte cryopreservation in breast cancer patients. Methods: From November 2014 to December 2016, 109 patients were studied. The patients were assigned to a specific random-start ovarian stimulation protocol for oocyte cryopreservation. The endpoints were the numbers of oocytes retrieved and of mature oocytes cryopreserved, the total number of days of ovarian stimulation, the total dose of gonadotropin administered, and the estradiol level on the day of the trigger. Results: Mean age in this cohort was 31.27 ± 4.23 years. The average duration of cos was 10.0 ± 1.39 days. The mean number of oocytes collected was 11.62 ± 7.96 and the mean number of vitrified oocytes was 9.60 ± 6.87. The mean estradiol concentration on triggering day was 706.30 ± 450.48 pg/mL, and the mean dose of gonadotropins administered was 2610.00 ± 716.51 IU. When comparing outcomes by phase of the cycle in which cos was commenced, we observed no significant differences in the numbers of oocytes collected and vitrified, the length of ovarian stimulation, and the estradiol level on trigger day. The total dose of follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropin administered was statistically greater in the group starting cos in the luteal phase than in the group starting in the late follicular phase. Conclusions: Our results suggest that using a specific protocol with random-start ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation in breast cancer patients is effective and could be offered to young women undergoing oncologic treatment.
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.