ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2022
Clinical outcome of embryo cryopreservation in Japanese breast cancer patients: pregnancy rates after transfer of thawed embryos.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utilization and Fertility Preservation Outcomes in Women Undergoing Embryo Cryopreservation Before Breast Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis.Clinical breast cancer · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine pregnancy outcomes after cryopreserved embryo transfer (ET) in breast cancer patients and to investigate the effect of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) as well as that of aromatase inhibitor (AI) administration and of the random start (RS) ovarian stimulation method.
methodsThis retrospective study covered 126 patients who underwent embryo cryopreservation between 2010 and 2019. Thirty-one patients underwent frozen embryo transfer (FET), and we examined resulting pregnancy rates (PRs) and live birth rates (LBRs) in those who did and did not undergo COH and in relation to the AI and RS methods.
resultsPR and LBR per patient were higher among patients who underwent COH than among those who did not. PR per ET did not differ from that documented for non-cancer infertility patients, after adjustment for age. The PR and LBR did not differ between use and non-use of AI (27.8% vs 35.2%). In addition, there was no significant difference in the PR or LBR between RS and conventional start ovarian stimulation (33.3% vs 30.8%). No prenatal fetal abnormalities were observed in 8 cases (including 5 AI cases and 2 RS cases).
conclusionsThis study showed that the outcome of FET after FP was equivalent to that seen in non-cancer patients. Further, neither use of AI nor the RS method influenced LBR. COH including use of AI and the RS method are useful in FP for collecting and freezing many embryos within a short period and for increasing the per patient LBR after cancer treatment.
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.