Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34934988›Full record

ArticleF&S reports2021

Cancer treatment is associated with a measurable decrease in live births in a large, population-based study.

Deepika Garg, Huong Dieu Meeks, Erica Johnstone, Sarah L Berga, Ken R Smith, Jim Hotaling, Joseph M Letourneau

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F&S reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pregnancy after cancer: FIGO Best practice advice.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Deepika GargUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Huong Dieu MeeksUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Erica JohnstoneUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Sarah L BergaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Ken R SmithUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Jim HotalingUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Joseph M LetourneauUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
University of Utah · USUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo define the live birth rates in a large, population-based study of the most common reproductive-age cancers in women.

designRetrospective cohort study.

settingPopulation-based study. PATIENTS: Female cancer patients diagnosed with cancer at age 18 years old or older between 1952-2014 (n = 17,952) were compared to fertility of non-cancer controls (n = 89,436).

interventionsLive births in cancer survivors were compared with those in healthy, age-matched controls. Cases and controls were matched in the ratio of 5:1 for birth year, birthplace (Utah, yes/no), and follow-up time in Utah.

main outcome measureRate of at least one live birth, reported as an incidence rate ratio (IRR).

resultsOf all cancer survivors, 3,127 (17.4%) had at least 1 live birth after treatment in comparison to 19,405 healthy, age-matched controls (21.7%) with the same amount of time exposure for attempting pregnancy. Breast cancer was the most common cancer type (23.1% of patients in cohort). Compared with age-matched, healthy controls, IRR of live birth was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.70) for all cancer types, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.20-0.33) for leukemia, 0.40 (95% CI, 0.28-0.59) for gastrointestinal cancers, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.41-0.48) for breast cancer, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.47-0.59) for central nervous system cancers, and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.44-0.73) for soft tissue cancers. With all cancer types stratified by age at diagnosis, IRR for live births in cancer survivors aged >41 years at diagnosis was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.44-0.52); IRR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.67) in the group aged 31-40 years and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.74) in the group aged 18-30 years after their cancer treatment.

conclusionsCancer and its treatment were associated with lower live birth rates when comparing women with cancer vs. age-matched, healthy controls.

Indexed as

cancercancer survivorsfertilityFertility preservationlive births

Identifiers

PMID34934988
PMCPMC8655402
OpenAlexW4226360379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.