ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2024
Current status of fertility preservation in a Spanish tertiary public hospital: multidisciplinary approach and experience in over 1500 patients.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of grafting site on reproductive outcomes following cryopreserved ovarian tissue transplantation: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Pooled it
- Return rates for the use of ovarian tissue cryopreserved prior to gonadotoxic treatment as fertility preservation: a systematic review.Human reproduction open · 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
16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrently, 15% of gynaecological and 9% of haematological malignancies are diagnosed before the age of 40. The increased survival rates of cancer patients who are candidates for gonadotoxic treatments, the delay in childbearing to older ages, and the optimization of in vitro fertilisation techniques have all contributed to an increased interest in fertility preservation (FP) treatments. This study reviews the experience of the Fertility Preservation Programme (FPP) of a tertiary public hospital with a multidisciplinary approach.
methodsThis retrospective study included all the available (FP) treatments, performed in patients of childbearing age between 2006 and 2022.
results1556 patients were referred to the FPP: 332 oocyte vitrification cycles, 115 ovarian cortex cryopreservation with 11 orthotopic autotransplantations, 175 gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist treatments, 109 fertility-sparing treatments for gynaecological cancer, and 576 sperm cryopreservation were performed. Malignancy was the main indication for FP (the main indications being breast cancer in women and haematological malignancies in men), although non-oncological pathologies, such as endometriosis and autoimmune diseases, have increased in recent years. Currently, the most widely used FP technique is oocyte vitrification, the increase of which has been associated with a decrease in the use of cortex CP and GnRH agonists.
conclusionsThe increase in FP treatment reflects the implementation of reproductive counselling in oncology programmes. A multidisciplinary approach in a tertiary public hospital allows individualised FP treatment for each patient. In recent years, there has been a change in trend with the introduction of new indications for FP and a change in techniques due to their optimisation.
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.