Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38927920›Full record

ReviewCancers2024

Navigating Fertility Preservation Options in Gynecological Cancers: A Comprehensive Review.

Elena Chitoran, Vlad Rotaru, Madalina-Nicoleta Mitroiu, Cristiana-Elena Durdu, Roxana-Elena Bohiltea, Sinziana-Octavia Ionescu, Aisa Gelal, Ciprian Cirimbei, Mihnea Alecu, Laurentiu Simion

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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.

Elena ChitoranSchool of Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0001-9225-8030
Vlad RotaruSchool of Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-6161-1951
Madalina-Nicoleta MitroiuObstetrics and Gynecology Department, "Filantropia" Clinical Hospital, 011132 Bucharest, Romania.
Cristiana-Elena DurduObstetrics and Gynecology Department, "Filantropia" Clinical Hospital, 011132 Bucharest, Romania.
Roxana-Elena BohilteaSchool of Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-6381-7419
Sinziana-Octavia IonescuSchool of Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-0839-0651
Aisa GelalGeneral Surgery and Surgical Oncology Department I, Bucharest Institute of Oncology "Al. Trestioreanu", 022328 Bucharest, Romania.
Ciprian CirimbeiSchool of Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Mihnea AlecuSchool of Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Laurentiu SimionSchool of Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Currently, an increasing number of women postpone pregnancy beyond the age of 35. Gynecological cancers affect a significant proportion of women of reproductive age, necessitating the development of fertility preservation methods to fulfill family planning. Consequently, providing treatment options that preserve fertility in women diagnosed with gynecological cancers has become a crucial component of care for survivors. (2) Methods: We conducted an extensive search of relevant scientific publications in PubMed and Embase databases and performed a narrative review, including high-quality peer-reviewed research on fertility after being treated for gynecologic cancers, reporting pregnancy rates, birth rates, and pregnancy outcomes in cancer survivors as well as therapeutic options which partially preserve fertility and methods for obtaining a pregnancy in survivors. (3) Discussion: The medicine practiced today is focused on both treating the neoplasm and preserving the quality of life of the patients, with fertility preservation being an important element of this quality. This leads to an improved quality of life, allowing these women to become mothers even in the seemingly adverse circumstances posed by such a pathology. However, although there are guidelines on female fertility preservation in the context of neoplasms, an analysis shows that physicians do not routinely consider it and do not discuss these options with their patients. (4) Conclusions: Advancements in medicine have led to a better understanding and management of gynecological neoplasms, resulting in increased survival rates. Once the battle against these neoplasms is won, the issue of preserving the quality of life for these women arises, with fertility preservation being an important aspect for women who have not yet fulfilled their family planning desires at the time of diagnosis. It is important for patients to be informed about the available options for fertility preservation and to be encouraged to make informed decisions in collaboration with their medical team. Standardized recommendations for onco-fertility into guidelines should be taken into consideration in the future.

Indexed as

assisted reproductive technologiescancer survivorshipconservative surgeryfertility preservationgynecological cancersonco-fertilityquality of life

Identifiers

PMID38927920
PMCPMC11201795

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.