ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020
Oncologic oocyte cryopreservation: national comparison of fertility preservation between women with and without cancer.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in women with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Pooled it
- International attitudes towards medical and planned oocyte cryopreservation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
- Stem Cells and Infertility: A Review of Clinical Applications and Legal Frameworks.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Germline stem cells in human.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2022Review
- Fertility preservation practices for female oncofertility differ significantly across the USA: results of a survey of SREI members.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
- Oocyte cryopreservation review: outcomes of medical oocyte cryopreservation and planned oocyte cryopreservation.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2022Review
- Oocyte Biobanks: Old Assumptions and New Challenges.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe majority of data regarding oocyte cryopreservation (OC) outcomes focuses on healthy women. We compare trends, cycle characteristics, and outcomes between women freezing oocytes for fertility preservation due to cancer versus elective and other medical or fertility-related diagnoses.
methodsRetrospective cohort using national surveillance data includes all autologous OC cycles between 2012 and 2016. Cycles were divided into 4 distinct groups: cancer, elective, infertility, and medically indicated. We calculated trends and compared cycle and outcome characteristics between the 4 groups. We used multivariable log-binomial models to estimate associations between indication and gonadotropin dose, hyperstimulation, and cancelation and used Poisson regression models to estimate associations between indication and oocyte yield and maturity.
resultsThe study included 29,631 autologous OC cycles. Annual total (2925 to 8828) and cancer-related (177 to 504) cycles increased over the study period; the proportions remained constant. Compared to elective, cancer-related cycles were more likely to be performed among women < 35 years old, with higher BMI, living in the South, using an antagonist protocol. Compared to elective OC cycles, gonadotropin dose (aRR 0.89, 95%CI 0.80-0.99), cancelation (aRR 0.90, 95%CI 0.70-1.14), and hyperstimulation (aRR 1.46, 95%CI 0.77-2.29) were not different for cancer-related cycles. Oocyte yield and percent maturity were comparable in both groups.
conclusionThe number of OC cycles among women with cancer has increased; however, the percentage OC cycles for cancer have remained stable. While patient demographic characteristics were different among those undergoing OC for cancer indication, cycle outcomes were comparable to elective OC. The outcomes of the subsequent oocyte thaw, fertilization, and embryo transfer cycles remain unknown.
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.