ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Fertility preserving techniques in neuro-oncology patients: A systematic review.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advancements in cancer treatments have enhanced survival rates and quality of life for patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors. There is growing recognition of the significance of fertility preservation methods. Currently, techniques, including oocyte cryopreservation and sperm cryopreservation are established. Nevertheless, oncologists may exhibit reluctance when referring patients to reproductive specialists. This review aimed to assess the best evidence for fertility preservation techniques used in patients with CNS cancers and evaluate outcomes relating to their success and complications. Methods: Two reviewers performed a search of Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Papers were included if they reported at least 1 fertility preservation technique in a neuro-oncology patient. Non-English studies, editorials, animal studies, and guidelines were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model. Results: Sixteen studies containing data from 237 participants (78.8% female) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, of whom 110 (46.4%) underwent fertility preservation techniques. All patients (100%) successfully underwent fertility preservation with 1 participant (2.9%) returning to rewarm their oocytes, embryos or sperm. On average, 17.8 oocytes were retrieved with 78%, ultimately being cryopreserved. Five (6.0%) patients successfully conceived 9 healthy-term children after utilizing their cryopreserved sperm, embryos, or oocytes. Moreover, 6 patients successfully conceived naturally or using intrauterine insemination, resulting in 7 healthy-term children. Conclusions: Fertility preservation techniques could offer a safe and effective way for neuro-oncology patients to deliver healthy-term babies following treatment. However, further studies concerning risks, long-term pregnancy outcomes, and cost-effectiveness are needed.
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.