Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38316726›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2025

Pre-treatment fertility preservation and post-treatment reproduction in long-term survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer.

Vicky Lehmann, Carla Vlooswijk, Winette T A van der Graaf, Rhodé Bijlsma, Suzanne E J Kaal, Jan Martijn Kerst, Jacqueline M Tromp, Monique E M M Bos, Tom van der Hulle, Roy I Lalisang and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Counseling and use of surrogacy among cancer survivors (CUSACS).Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026
    Article
  3. Perceived Versus Demonstrated Oncofertility Knowledge Among Oncology Providers.Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology · 2026
    Article
  4. Double jeopardy: howFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

16 authors.

Vicky LehmannDepartment of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. v.lehmann@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-4898-3176
Carla VlooswijkDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8885-6302
Winette T A van der GraafDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7549-3338
Rhodé BijlsmaDepartment of Medical Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0980-6652
Suzanne E J KaalDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jan Martijn KerstDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacqueline M TrompDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique E M M BosDepartment of Medical Oncology, ErasmusMC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Tom van der HulleDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2296-1828
Roy I LalisangDepartment of Internal Medicine, GROW-School of Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht UMC, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Janine NuverDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7966-5301
Mathilde C M KouwenhovenCancer Center Amsterdam (CCA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5252-4365
Christianne A R LokDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Center Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8693-7299
Catharina C M BeerendonkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3179-3763
Marij Dinkelman-SmitDepartment of Urology, ErasmusMC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Olga HussonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1387-8686

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding KUN2015-7527KWF Kankerbestrijding KWF-11788KWF Kankerbestrijding KWF-YIG-12551Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 198.007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo describe recall of fertility-related consultations and cryopreservation and to examine reproductive goals and reproduction post-treatment in long-term survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) (age, 18-39 years) cancer.

methodsThis study included n = 1457 male and n = 2112 female long-term survivors (M

resultsMost male survivors (72.7%) recalled fertility-related consultations and 22.6% completed sperm cryopreservation. Younger age (OR = 2.8; 95%CI [2.2-3.6]), not having children (OR = 5.0; 95%CI [3.2-7.7]), testicular cancer or lymphoma/leukemia (OR = 2.8/2.5 relative to "others"), and more intense treatments (OR = 1.5; 95%CI [1.1-2.0]) were associated with higher cryopreservation rates. Time since diagnosis had no effect. Of men who cryopreserved, 12.1% utilized assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Most men (88.5%) felt their diagnosis did not affect their reproductive goals, but 7.6% wanted no (additional) children due to cancer. Half of female survivors (55.4%; n = 1171) recalled fertility-related consultations. Rates of cryopreservation were very low (3.6%), but increased after 2013 when oocyte cryopreservation became non-experimental. Of women who cryopreserved, 13.2% successfully utilized ART. Most women (74.8%) experienced no effects of cancer on reproductive goals, but 17.8% wanted no (additional) children due to cancer.

conclusionsCryopreservation in men varied by patient/clinical factors and was very low in women, but data of more recently treated females are needed. Utilizing cryopreserved material through ART was rare, which questions its cost-effectiveness, but it may enhance survivors' well-being. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The extent to which cryopreservation positively affects survivors' well-being remains to be tested. Moreover, effects of cancer on reproductive goals require further attention, especially in women who refrain from having children due to cancer.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsFertility PreservationNeoplasmsAdolescentAdultCryopreservationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsReproductive Techniques, AssistedYoung AdultAdolescence and young adulthood (AYA)Assisted reproductive technologies (ART)Fertility preservationOncologyReproductive goals

Identifiers

PMID38316726
PMCPMC12283814

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.