Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32952399›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer : basic and clinical research2020

Burning Questions in the Oncofertility Counseling of Young Breast Cancer Patients.

Luca Arecco, Marta Perachino, Alessandra Damassi, Maria Maddalena Latocca, Davide Soldato, Giacomo Vallome, Francesca Parisi, Maria Grazia Razeti, Cinzia Solinas, Marco Tagliamento and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer : basic and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. BRCA, infertility, and fertility preservation: a review for counseling.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Pregnancy after breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Luca AreccoDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3818-0364
Marta PerachinoDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Alessandra DamassiDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Maria Maddalena LatoccaDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Davide SoldatoDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Giacomo VallomeDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6687-4232
Francesca ParisiDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Maria Grazia RazetiDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Cinzia SolinasDepartment of Medical Oncology, Azienda Tutela della Salute Sardegna, Hospital A.Segni Ozieri, Sassari, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6782-8708
Marco TagliamentoDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7461-023X
Stefano SpinaciDivision of Breast Surgery, Ospedale Villa Scassi e ASL3, Genova, Italy.
Claudia MassarottiPhysiopathology of Human Reproduction Unit, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Matteo LambertiniDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1797-5296

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The improved prognosis of breast cancer patients makes survivorship issues an area of crucial importance. In this regard, an increased attention is needed toward the development of potential anticancer treatment-related long-term side-effects, including gonadal failure and infertility in young women. Therefore, fertility preservation and family planning are crucial issues to be addressed in all young women of reproductive age with newly diagnosed cancer. Despite a growing availability of data on the efficacy and safety of fertility preservation options and the fact that conceiving after prior history of breast cancer has become more accepted over time, there are still several gray zones in this field so that many physicians remain uncomfortable to deal with these topics. The purpose of this review is to answer some of the most controversial questions frequently asked by patients during their oncofertility counseling, in order to provide a detailed and up-to-date overview on the evidence available in this field to physicians involved in the care of young women with breast cancer.

Indexed as

BRCABreast cancerfertility preservationpregnancyyoung patients

Identifiers

PMID32952399
PMCPMC7476336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.