ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2022
Risk of recurrence and pregnancy outcomes in young women with breast cancer who do and do not undergo fertility preservation.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2022. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assisted Reproductive Technology in Breast and Gynecologic Malignancies: Cancer Risk, Fertility Preservation, and Post-Treatment Reproductive Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Fertility and ovarian function preservation in young women with breast cancer: A joint analysis of the Joven & Fuerte and PREFER prospective studies.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Balancing Fertility Preservation and Treatment Efficacy in (Neo)adjuvant Therapy for Adolescent and Young Adult Breast Cancer Patients: a Narrative Review.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- Impact of Systemic Therapy on Fertility in Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.Current breast cancer reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the impact of fertility preservation (FP) requiring ovarian stimulation on breast cancer outcomes and pregnancy after breast cancer.
methodsWomen aged ≤ 40 years diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2007 and 2018 and referred for FP consultation prior to systemic therapy were identified from a British Columbia fertility center database. The primary endpoint was invasive breast cancer-free survival (iBCFS) and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and achievement of pregnancy. Survival and pregnancy endpoints were compared using Cox and logistic regression analyses, respectively, for patients who did and did not undergo FP.
resultsThe study included 153 patients, with 71 (46%) in the FP group and 82 (54%) in the non-FP group. Patients who underwent FP were more likely to be ECOG 0 (99% vs. 88%, p = 0.011) and receive chemotherapy (93% vs. 67%, p < 0.001), but had similar ER positivity status to non-FP patients (70% vs. 79%, p = 0.21). Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years, there were no differences in iBCFS (HR 1.006, 95% CI 0.416-2.438, p = 0.988) or OS (HR 0.789, 95% CI 0.210-2.956, p = 0.725) between FP and non-FP groups. Patients who underwent FP had higher odds of conceiving at least once (OR 3.024, 95% CI 1.312-6.970, p = 0.008).
conclusionAt a median follow-up of 4.1 years, FP did not impact iBCFS or OS, supporting its safety in young women with breast cancer. In addition, patients who underwent FP were more likely to become pregnant after breast cancer, highlighting the value of pre-oncologic treatment FP in survivorship family planning.
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.