Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36421038›Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2023

Live birth rate after female fertility preservation for cancer or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the three main techniques; embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation.

E Fraison, S Huberlant, E Labrune, M Cavalieri, M Montagut, F Brugnon, B Courbiere

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
19.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

E FraisonService de Médecine de la Reproduction, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Mère Enfant, Bron, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8083-1346
S HuberlantService de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Médecine de la Reproduction, CHU Carémeau, Nîmes, France.
E LabruneService de Médecine de la Reproduction, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Mère Enfant, Bron, France.
M CavalieriService de Gynécologie-Obstétrique et Médecine de la Reproduction, CHU François Mitterrand, Dijon, France.
M MontagutService de Médecine de la Reproduction, Clinique Croix du Sud, Quint-Fonsegrives, France.
F BrugnonAssistance Médicale à la Procréation, CECOS, CHU Clermont Ferrand, CHU Estaing, Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID 0000-0002-8402-8734
B CourbiereService d'Assistance Médicale à la Procréation, Plateforme Cancer & Fertilité OncoPACA-Corse, AP-HM, Hôpital La Conception, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1847-4509
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInserm · FRUniversité de Montpellier · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat are the chances of achieving a live birth after embryo, oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) in female cancer survivors? SUMMARY ANSWER: The live birth rates (LBRs) following embryo and oocyte cryopreservation are 41% and 32%, respectively, while for IVF and spontaneous LBR after tissue cryopreservation and transplantation, these rates are 21% and 33%, respectively. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Currently, fertility preservation (FP) has become a major public health issue as diagnostic and therapeutic progress has made it possible to achieve an 80% survival rate in children, adolescents and young adults with cancer. In the latest ESHRE guidelines, only oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are considered as established options for FP. OTC is still considered to be an innovative method, while it is an acceptable FP technique in the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines. However, given the lack of studies on long-term outcomes after FP, it is still unclear which technique offers the best chance to achieve a live birth. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published controlled studies. Searches were conducted from January 2004 to May 2021 in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library using the following search terms: cancer, stem cell transplantation, FP, embryo cryopreservation, oocyte vitrification, OTC and reproductive outcome. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsA total of 126 full-text articles were preselected from 1436 references based on the title and abstract and assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The studies were selected, and their data were extracted by two independent reviewers according to the Cochrane methods. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with high heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Data from 34 studies were used for this meta-analysis. Regarding cryopreserved embryos, the LBR after IVF was 41% (95% CI: 34-48, I2: 0%, fixed effect). Concerning vitrified oocytes, the LBR was 32% (95% CI: 26-39, I2: 0%, fixed effect). Finally, the LBR after IVF and the spontaneous LBR after ovarian tissue transplantation were 21% (95% CI: 15-26, I2: 0%, fixed-effect) and 33% (95% CI: 25-42, I2: 46.1%, random-effect), respectively. For all outcomes, in the sensitivity analyses, the maximum variation in the estimated percentage was 1%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The heterogeneity of the literature prevents us from comparing these three techniques. This meta-analysis provides limited data which may help clinicians when counselling patients. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThis study highlights the need for long-term follow-up registries to assess return rates, as well as spontaneous pregnancy rates and birth rates after FP. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from GEDEON RICHTER France. The authors have no competing interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264042.

Indexed as

Fertility PreservationHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationNeoplasmsBirth RateCryopreservationFemaleHumansLive BirthOocytesPregnancyPregnancy RateRetrospective Studiescancerembryo cryopreservationfertility preservationhaematopoietic stem cell transplantationlive birth ratemeta-analysisoocyte vitrificationovarian tissue cryopreservation

Identifiers

PMID36421038
PMCPMC9977128
OpenAlexW4309999684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.