ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2022
The Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology by European Childhood Cancer Survivors.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assisted Reproductive Technology and Risk of Childhood Cancer Among the Offspring of Parents With Infertility: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Infertility, the outcomes of assisted reproductive technologies use in childhood cancer survivors: a scoping review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Review
- Fertility preservation in males with cancer of trends, region development, and efficacy in mainland China from 16 regions Chinese sperm banks.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
- Oocyte collection and outcome following oncologic treatment: a retrospective multicentre study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Parenthood for childhood cancer survivors: unfounded fear of cancer development in offspring and related health behaviors.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Update and new advances in fertility preservation and cancer.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CCS often wish to have biological children yet harbour concerns about fertility impairment, pregnancy risks and the general health risks of prospective offspring. To clarify these concerns, health outcomes in survivor offspring born following ART (n = 74, 4.5%) or after spontaneous conception (n = 1585) were assessed in our European offspring study by descriptive and bivariate analysis. Outcomes were compared to a sibling offspring cohort (n = 387) in a 4:1 matched-pair analysis (n = 1681). (i) Survivors were more likely to employ ART than their siblings (4.5% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.501). Successful pregnancies were achieved after a median of one cycle with, most commonly, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using non-cryopreserved oocytes/sperm. (ii) Multiple-sibling births (p < 0.001, 29.7% vs. 2.5%), low birth weight (p < 0.001; OR = 3.035, 95%-CI = 1.615−5.706), and preterm birth (p < 0.001; OR = 2.499, 95%-CI = 1.401−4.459) occurred significantly more often in survivor offspring following ART utilisation than in spontaneously conceived children. ART did not increase the prevalence of childhood cancer, congenital malformations or heart defects. (iii) These outcomes had similar prevalences in the sibling population. In our explorative study, we could not detect an influence on health outcomes when known confounders, such as multiple births, were taken into account.
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.