Observational studyJBRA assisted reproduction2019
Oocyte cryopreservation for future fertility: comparison of ovarian response between cancer and non-cancer patients.
Observational study in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in women with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation before gonadotoxic treatments: Principles of safe ovarian stimulation, a systematic review.Women's health (London, England)Pooled it
- Ovarian reserve and stimulation response before chemotherapy treatment in breast cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation: a historical cohort study.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation versus Other Fertility Techniques for Chemoradiation-Induced Premature Ovarian Insufficiency in Women: A Systematic Review and Future Directions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Patients undergoing elective and oncofertility preservation respond similarly to controlled ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2022Observational
- Oocyte cryopreservation review: outcomes of medical oocyte cryopreservation and planned oocyte cryopreservation.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2022Review
- Fertility preservation in an oncology patient who presented with positive human chorionic gonadotropin.F&S reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess whether a diagnosis of cancer interferes with ovarian function prior to the treatment of the disease.
methodsThis observational retrospective study used data from medical records of ovarian stimulation cycles performed for purposes of oocyte cryopreservation.
resultsThe included patients had a mean age of 35.13±3.72 years and 51.6% of them were aged between 36 and 40 years. More than half of the patients (57.6%) were single and 82.1% had a normal body mass index (BMI). Most women had not become pregnant (85.5%) or had babies (95.1%) or miscarriages (89.6%) prior to cryopreservation. The mean number of oocytes obtained from non-cancer patients was 11.4±8, while for cancer patients the number was 13.8±9. The mean number of frozen mature oocytes was 9.7±7 for the non-cancer group and 11.2±7.2 for the cancer group. The majority (63.1%) of the patients had up to 10 oocytes frozen per cycle. Breast cancer had the highest incidence among the included patients. There was no significant difference in ovarian response between patients with different types of cancer.
conclusionThe number of harvested and frozen oocytes from cancer and non-cancer patients indicated that in the two groups response to ovarian stimulation was similar.
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.