Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38696167›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Medically Assisted Reproduction and Risk of Cancer Among Offspring.

Paula Rios, Philippe Herlemont, Patricia Fauque, Brigitte Lacour, Pierre Jouannet, Alain Weill, Mahmoud Zureik, Jacqueline Clavel, Rosemary Dray-Spira

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
25.5field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Paula RiosEPI-PHARE Scientific Interest Group in Epidemiology of Health Products, French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, French National Health Insurance, Saint-Denis, France.
Philippe HerlemontEPI-PHARE Scientific Interest Group in Epidemiology of Health Products, French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, French National Health Insurance, Saint-Denis, France.
Patricia FauqueINSERM UMR 1231, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
Brigitte LacourEpidemiology of Childhood and Adolescent Cancers, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM) Joint Research Unit (UMR) 1153, Université Paris-Cité, Paris, France.
Pierre JouannetUniversité Paris-Cité, Paris, France.
Alain WeillEPI-PHARE Scientific Interest Group in Epidemiology of Health Products, French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, French National Health Insurance, Saint-Denis, France.
Mahmoud ZureikEPI-PHARE Scientific Interest Group in Epidemiology of Health Products, French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, French National Health Insurance, Saint-Denis, France.
Jacqueline ClavelEpidemiology of Childhood and Adolescent Cancers, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM) Joint Research Unit (UMR) 1153, Université Paris-Cité, Paris, France.
Rosemary Dray-SpiraEPI-PHARE Scientific Interest Group in Epidemiology of Health Products, French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, French National Health Insurance, Saint-Denis, France.
Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail · FRInserm · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cancer is a leading cause of death among children worldwide. Treatments used for medically assisted reproduction (MAR) are suspected risk factors because of their potential for epigenetic disturbance and associated congenital malformations. Objective: To assess the risk of cancer, overall and by cancer type, among children born after MAR compared with children conceived naturally. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cohort study, the French National Mother-Child Register (EPI-MERES) was searched for all live births that occurred in France between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021 (and followed up until June 30, 2022). The EPI-MERES was built from comprehensive data of the French National Health Data System. Data analysis was performed from December 1, 2021, to June 30, 2023. Exposure: Use of assisted reproduction technologies (ART), such as fresh embryo transfer (ET) or frozen ET (FET), and artificial insemination (AI). Main Outcomes and Measures: The risk of cancer was compared, overall and by cancer type, among children born after fresh ET, FET, or AI and children conceived naturally, using Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for maternal and child characteristics at birth. Results: This study included 8 526 306 children with a mean (SD) age of 6.4 (3.4) years; 51.2% were boys, 96.4% were singletons, 12.1% were small for gestational age at birth, and 3.1% had a congenital malformation. There were 260 236 children (3.1%) born after MAR, including 133 965 (1.6%) after fresh ET, 66 165 (0.8%) after FET, and 60 106 (0.7%) after AI. A total of 9256 case patients with cancer were identified over a median follow-up of 6.7 (IQR, 3.7-9.6) years; 165, 57, and 70 were born after fresh ET, FET, and AI, respectively. The overall risk of cancer did not differ between children conceived naturally and those born after fresh ET (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.31]), FET (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.32]), or AI (HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.38]). However, the risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia was higher among children born after FET (20 case patients; HR 1.61 [95% CI, 1.04 to 2.50]; risk difference [RD], 23.2 [95% CI, 1.5 to 57.0] per million person-years) compared with children conceived naturally. Moreover, among children born between 2010 and 2015, the risk of leukemia was higher among children born after fresh ET (45 case patients; HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.06 to 1.92]; adjusted RD, 19.7 [95% CI, 2.8 to 43.2] per million person-years). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that children born after FET or fresh ET had an increased risk of leukemia compared with children conceived naturally. This risk, although resulting in a limited number of cases, needs to be monitored in view of the continuous increase in the use of ART.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsReproductive Techniques, AssistedAdultChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesEmbryo TransferFemaleFranceHumansInfantMalePregnancyProportional Hazards ModelsRegistriesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID38696167
PMCPMC11066701
OpenAlexW4396577248

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.