ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2021
Fertility preservation in breast cancer with oral progestin: is it an option? A pilot study.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of euploidy rates between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and GnRH antagonist protocols: a single-center study in a mixed-ethnicity population.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Meeting proceedings: International Society for Fertility Preservation Tokyo, 15-17 November, 2024.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Previous Use of Combined Oral Contraception in High Complexity Assisted Reproduction Treatments in Protocol with Oral Progestin - Previous use of COC and ART.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2024Article
- Risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women with malignancies undergoing treatment with long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for fertility preservation: a systematic review.Therapeutic advances in reproductive healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of oral progestins and injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist medication in cancer fertility preservation in patients with breast cancer.
methodsA cross-sectional study with 40 breast cancer patients submitted to cancer fertility preservation, who were divided into two groups according to histochemical analysis of progesterone receptors to define luteinizing hormone block: if positive, use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, if negative, use of oral progestins. The mean age, medication days, antral follicle count, number of oocytes in metaphase II and the occurrence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were compared.
resultsA total of 20 patients both in the group using gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, and in the group with oral progestins, respectively, had a mean age of 33.9 (32-35.8) and 33.8 (32-35.6) years; days of medications of 11 (9.7-12.3) and 12.8 (11.6-13.9), p=0.037; antral follicle count of 9 (7.11-12) and 8.5 (6-11.9), p=0.370; metaphase II oocyte number of 4 (2.1-9.8) and 7.5 (3.1-10), p=0.348; and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome of 2 (10%) and 5 (25%) cases, p=0.212.
conclusionThe use of oral progestins, in spite of requiring longer treatment time, is effective in relation to the protocol with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, and offers greater comfort at a lower cost in breast cancer patients with negative progesterone receptors, submitted to cancer fertility preservation.
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.