Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38524280›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2024

Pregnancy-Associated Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ben Walters, India Midwinter, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Kelvin P Jordan, Garima Sharma, Lucy C Chappell, Emma J Crosbie, Purvi Parwani, Mamas A Mamas, Pensée Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Cancer in pregnancy: FIGO Best practice advice and narrative review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

10 authors.

Ben WaltersAcademic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Stoke Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.
India MidwinterAcademic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Stoke Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.
Carolyn A Chew-GrahamSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Kelvin P JordanSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Garima SharmaDivision of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Lucy C ChappellSchool of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Emma J CrosbieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Purvi ParwaniDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA.
Mamas A MamasSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Pensée WuAcademic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Stoke Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to systematically evaluate and quantify the risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients with pregnancy-associated cancer (PAC). This study was conducted from February 13, 2021, through July 24, 2023. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes for patients with PAC. The study was registered on PROSPERO. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. The associations were quantified using random-effects meta-analysis. The initial search produced 29,401 titles and abstracts, after which 147 unique full-text articles were screened, of which 22 articles with 59,190 pregnancies with PAC from 70,097,167 births were included in the meta-analysis. Women with PAC were at significantly increased risk of cesarean deliveries (risk ratio [RR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.31-1.89), preterm birth (RR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.37-3.98), venous thromboembolism (RR, 6.76; 95% CI, 5.08-8.99), and maternal death (RR, 41.58; 95% CI, 20.38-84.83). The only outcome with reduced risk was instrumental mode of delivery (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87). Pregnancy-associated cancer increases risk of adverse outcomes, including a 7-fold risk of venous thromboembolism and a 42-fold risk of maternal death. Further research is required to better understand the mechanisms leading to these adverse outcomes, especially for women who are not diagnosed until the postpartum period. Affected women should have counseling regarding their increased risk of adverse outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID38524280
PMCPMC10957385

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.