ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Time-to-pregnancy in patients with previous breast cancer and unexposed women: a prospective exposed-unexposed cohort study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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.
- Fertility preservation strategies and long-term reproductive outcomes in women treated for breast cancer.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 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
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Data on fertility after breast cancer (BC) relative to the general population are lacking. This study aimed to compare the time-to-pregnancy between women with and without prior BC seeking to become pregnant. Methods: We conducted a prospective exposed-unexposed cohort study between March 13, 2018 and June 27, 2019, recruiting participants via the collaborative network Seintinelles. Women aged 18-43 years with a history of localized BC without relapse (exposed) were compared to women without BC (unexposed). Follow-up data were collected every six months over three years. The primary endpoint, time-to-pregnancy, was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with inverse probability weighting. Censoring was performed if women stopped trying to conceive for personal reasons, were lost to follow-up before conception, or completed the study without achieving pregnancy or using assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Findings: Among 4351 women enrolled, 642 sought pregnancy during the study period (76 exposed, 566 unexposed). Among them, 50 exposed (65.8%) and 402 weighted unexposed women (weighted percentage 71.0%) became pregnant at least once. Median time-to-pregnancy was 5.0 months, 95% CI [3.0-7.0] for exposed and 3.0 months, 95% CI [2.0-5.0] for unexposed women (difference in median time-to-pregnancy: 2.0 months, 95% CI [-2.5; 5]). Two years after starting to seek pregnancy, 74.9% of weighted unexposed women and 74.1% of exposed women obtained a pregnancy. Overall, 15 exposed women (19.8%) used either ART methods ( Interpretation: In this study from a French collaborative research network, we found no strong evidence of a largely reduced time-to-pregnancy in exposed women seeking to become pregnant compared with unexposed women. Further research on fertility outcomes in the broader population of BC survivors is warranted. Funding: The FEERIC study was funded by
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.