ArticleJAMA2019
Association Between Fertility Treatment and Cancer Risk in Children.
Article in JAMA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prenatal exposure to medication and risk of childhood cancer - a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Assisted Reproductive Technology and Risk of Childhood Cancer Among the Offspring of Parents With Infertility: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Cumulative temporal association between assisted reproductive technology and childhood cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Maternal Medication Use and Childhood Cancer in Offspring-Systematic Review and Considerations for Researchers.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Epitranscriptomic modifications in embryonic development: insights into natural and ART-induced mechanisms and implications.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
- Atopic Disease Development in Offspring Conceived via Assisted Reproductive Technology.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The rationale, design of the Assisted reproductive technology cohort nested in a pre-pregnancy family cohort (APP-Cohort).Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Sex differences in childhood cancer risk following ART conception: a registry-based study.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Impact of embryo transfer strategies on children health outcomes: a retrospective national cohort study in Taiwan.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Safety of embryo cryopreservation: insights from mid-term placental transcriptional changes.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Article
- Medically Assisted Reproduction and Risk of Cancer Among Offspring.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A New Player in the Foetal Programming of Childhood and Adult Diseases?Pediatric reports · 2024Review
- Long-term health risk of offspring born from assisted reproductive technologies.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- Frequency, morbidity and equity - the case for increased research on male fertility.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024Review
- Reproductive outcomes in fresh transfer cycles and antagonists with premature luteinizing and/or progesterone surge: a single center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Immune profiling of ART-conceived children in Kazakhstan: a case-control study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Long-Term Effects of ART on the Health of the Offspring.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Article
- Comparison of Genetic Profiles of Neonates in Intensive Care Units Conceived With or Without Assisted Reproductive Technology.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: An increasing number of children worldwide are born after the use of fertility treatment, although it remains unclear whether the treatment affects the risk of childhood cancer and whether any associations observed are due to the use of specific drugs, the use of specific procedures, or the underlying infertility. Objective: To examine the association between different types of fertility treatments and cancer risk in children. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study based on Danish population-based registry data and the Danish Infertility Cohort (individual record linkage) that included 1 085 172 children born in Denmark between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2012, linked with parental information. There were a total of 2217 children diagnosed with cancer (follow-up occurred during 1996-2015). Exposures: Maternal fertility treatment during the index pregnancy, including the use of fertility drugs (clomiphene [n = 33 835], gonadotropins [n = 57 136], gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs [n = 38 653], human chorionic gonadotropin [n = 68 181], progesterone [n = 41 628], and estrogen [n = 16 948]) and assisted reproductive technology (in vitro fertilization [n = 19 448], intracytoplasmic sperm injection [n = 13 417], and frozen embryo transfer [n = 3356]). Each exposure was examined separately and compared with children born to fertile women. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios and incidence rate differences for childhood cancer. Results: After 12.2 million person-years of follow-up (mean, 11.3 years), the incidence rate of childhood cancer was 17.5 per 100 000 for children born to fertile women (n = 910 291) and 44.4 per 100 000 for children born after the use of frozen embryo transfer (n = 3356). Compared with children born to fertile women, the use of frozen embryo transfer was associated with an elevated risk of childhood cancer (14 cancer cases; hazard ratio, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.44 to 4.11]; incidence rate difference, 26.9 [95% CI, 2.8 to 51.0] per 100 000), mainly due to an increased risk of leukemia (5 cancer cases; incidence rate, 14.4 per 100 000; hazard ratio, 2.87 [95% CI, 1.19 to 6.93]; incidence rate difference, 10.1 [95% CI, -4.0 to 24.2] per 100 000) and sympathetic nervous system tumors (<5 cancer cases; hazard ratio, 7.82 [95% CI, 2.47 to 24.70]). There were no statistically significant associations with the use of the other types of fertility treatment examined. Conclusions and Relevance: Among children born in Denmark, the use of frozen embryo transfer, compared with children born to fertile women, was associated with a small but statistically significant increased risk of childhood cancer; this association was not found for the use of other types of fertility treatment examined.
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.