ArticleJournal of ovarian research2024
Controlled ovarian stimulation in cancer patients under 18 years old; a case series.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Women's reproductive autonomy and attitudes toward social egg freezing in a low-fertility context: evidence from Shiraz, Iran.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Experiencing fertility preservation in adolescence - a qualitative interview study indicating gender disparities in AYAs diagnosed with cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Fertility Preservation in Female Patients with Cancer. Part I: Challenges and Future Prospects in Developing Countries; A Narrative Review Study.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFertility preservation for adolescent pubescent girls is a concern of the healthcare system and parents. Oocyte cryopreservation is regarded as a standard medical intervention for patients with a minimum age of 18 years. Evidence suggests that mature oocyte cryopreservation is possible for adolescent pubescent girls, although, ovarian stimulation for these patients remains a challenge. CASES PRESENTATION: This case series is the first report regarding ovarian stimulation with oocyte cryopreservation in younger than 18 years cancerous girls, who refer to ROYAN institute, Tehran, Iran, prior to the start of the treatment of cancer (November 2015 to February 2021). The oocyte cryopreservation was carried out in the 7 patients (five patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, one patient with Ewing sarcoma, and one patient with osteogenic tumor), the embryo cryopreservation in one patient with dysgerminoma, and the oocyte and embryo cryopreservation in one patient with germ cell tumor. No oocytes were retrieved after ovarian stimulation in the patient with medulloblastoma. For one of the patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, half of the tissues of one ovary were cryopreserved prior to ovarian stimulation.
conclusionsOocyte cryopreservation is a feasible option of fertility preservation in the adolescent's patients with cancer. However, only if reported acceptable fertilization rates, as well as the successful cases of live birth from oocyte cryopreservation at the ages under 18, this option of preserving fertility can be applied to this age range.
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.