Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36048761›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2022

Cancer in children born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A cohort study.

Nona Sargisian, Birgitta Lannering, Max Petzold, Signe Opdahl, Mika Gissler, Anja Pinborg, Anna-Karina Aaris Henningsen, Aila Tiitinen, Liv Bente Romundstad, Anne Lærke Spangmose and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

12 authors.

Nona SargisianDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Birgitta LanneringDepartment of Pediatrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9958-7520
Max PetzoldSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4908-2169
Signe OpdahlDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6593-8433
Mika GisslerTHL Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Information Services Department, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8254-7525
Anja PinborgThe Fertility Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8340-104X
Anna-Karina Aaris HenningsenThe Fertility Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7172-6288
Aila TiitinenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3088-5594
Liv Bente RomundstadCenter for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3259-3915
Anne Lærke SpangmoseThe Fertility Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7541-5858
Christina BerghDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6049-7731
Ulla-Britt WennerholmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2475-2226

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim was to investigate whether children born after assisted reproduction technology (ART), particularly after frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), are at higher risk of childhood cancer than children born after fresh embryo transfer and spontaneous conception. METHODS AND

findingsWe performed a registry-based cohort study using data from the 4 Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The study included 7,944,248 children, out of whom 171,774 children were born after use of ART (2.2%) and 7,772,474 children were born after spontaneous conception, representing all children born between the years 1994 to 2014 in Denmark, 1990 to 2014 in Finland, 1984 to 2015 in Norway, and 1985 to 2015 in Sweden. Rates for any cancer and specific cancer groups in children born after each conception method were determined by cross-linking national ART registry data with national cancer and health data registries and population registries. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the risk of any cancer, with age as the time scale. After a mean follow-up of 9.9 and 12.5 years, the incidence rate (IR) of cancer before age 18 years was 19.3/100,000 person-years for children born after ART (329 cases) and 16.7/100,000 person-years for children born after spontaneous conception (16,184 cases). Adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.21, p = 0.18. Adjustment was performed for sex, plurality, year of birth, country of birth, maternal age at birth, and parity. Children born after FET had a higher risk of cancer (48 cases; IR 30.1/100,000 person-years) compared to both fresh embryo transfer (IR 18.8/100,000 person-years), aHR 1.59, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.20, p = 0.005, and spontaneous conception, aHR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.19, p = 0.001. Adjustment either for macrosomia, birth weight, or major birth defects attenuated the association marginally. Higher risks of epithelial tumors and melanoma after any assisted reproductive method and of leukemia after FET were observed. The main limitation of this study is the small number of children with cancer in the FET group.

conclusionsChildren born after FET had a higher risk of childhood cancer than children born after fresh embryo transfer and spontaneous conception. The results should be interpreted cautiously based on the small number of children with cancer, but the findings raise concerns considering the increasing use of FET, in particular freeze-all strategies without clear medical indications.

trial registrationTrial registration number: ISRCTN 11780826.

Indexed as

Embryo TransferNeoplasmsAdolescentBirth WeightChildCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyReproductive Techniques, AssistedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36048761
PMCPMC9436139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.