ArticleClinical breast cancer2025
Trends and Regional Differences for Fertility Preservation Procedures in Women With Breast Cancer.
Article in Clinical breast cancer, 2025. 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.
- Access to Fertility Preservation Counselling for Young Women with Haematological Malignancies: Incidence-Adjusted Trends from the Italian PreFerIta Network (2015-2023).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBreast cancer is the most common malignancy in women of reproductive age and chemotherapy protocols impair fertility, frequently necessitating fertility preservation (FP) referral. Embryo, oocyte, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation are established FP modalities in women with breast cancer but there are few data on their uptake over time. In this study our aim was to determine the regional time trends and utility differences for fertility preservation methods of reproductive tissue cryopreservation.
methodsThis multicenter study included 1623 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 7 tertiary centers in 6 countries (Brazil, Italy, Scotland, South Korea, Turkey, USA). Participant centers provided the details of FP cryopreservation approaches broken down annually from 2012 to 2021. Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, aged 18-45 years who were referred for FP at participating centers and had normal ovarian function at the time were included.
resultsWe found a mean increase of 7% per year (P = .002, adjusting for centers) in the number of women referred for FP. Of those who were referred (n = 1623), a mean 38.7% underwent FP (n = 629), with a range of 12% in South Korea) to 95% in Brazil. The number of women undergoing ovarian stimulation for FP continually increased until 2021, with oocyte cryopreservation being the most common procedure throughout the study period (P = .014 for time trend). The proportion of random start ovarian stimulation cycles increased each year from 58.3% in 2012 to 86.8% in 2021, (P = .005 for time trend, and P = .04 for 2012 vs. 2021).
conclusionsThe utility of FP has steadily increased for young women with breast cancer over the last decade, although regional differences significantly influence FP practices. The findings of our study could have value for policy making in FP care for young women with breast cancer at the local, regional, or global level.
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.