ArticleCancer2023
Time to cancer treatment and reproductive outcomes after fertility preservation among adolescent and young adult women with cancer.
Article in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Application of assisted reproductive technology in fertility enhancement and preservation for women with malignant tumors].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2025Article
- Treatment Access and Caregiver Experience in Pediatric Rhabdomyosarcoma: Results of an Online Survey.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFertility preservation (FP) may be underused after cancer diagnosis because of uncertainty around delays to cancer treatment and subsequent reproductive success.
methodsWomen aged 15 to 39 years diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2015 were identified from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) after cancer diagnosis between 2004 and 2018 (including FP) was assessed through linkage to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Linear regression was used to examine time to cancer treatment among women who did (n = 95) or did not (n = 469) use FP. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for pregnancy and birth based on timing of ART initiation relative to cancer treatment (n = 18 initiated before treatment for FP vs n = 26 initiated after treatment without FP).
resultsThe median time to cancer treatment was 9 to 33 days longer among women who used FP compared with women who did not, matched on clinical factors. Women who initiated ART before cancer treatment may be more likely to have a live birth given pregnancy compared with women who initiated ART after cancer treatment (age-adjusted RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.98-2.23), though this may be affected by the more frequent use of gestational carriers in the former group (47% vs 20% of transfer cycles, respectively).
conclusionsFP delayed gonadotoxic cancer treatment by up to 4.5 weeks, a delay that would not be expected to alter prognosis for many women. Further study of the use of gestational carriers in cancer populations is warranted to better understand its effect on reproductive outcomes.
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.