SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Reproductive outcomes of pregnancy after breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reproductive outcomes following pregnancy in premenopausal women with breast cancer (BC) remain contentious, and few meta-analyses have adequately addressed these questions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide the most up-to-date and comprehensive evidence on the subject. Methods: Ten electronic databases were searched in September 2024 using the terms "Breast Neoplasms" AND "Pregnancy OR Fertilization OR Parturition OR Fertility OR Obstetrics". Key inclusion criteria focused on reproductive outcomes in premenopausal women with BC compared to healthy populations. Primary outcomes included pregnancy outcomes, obstetrical outcomes, fetal outcomes, and pregnancy complications. The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Meta - analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement. Depending on the study type, dichotomous variables were analyzed using relative risk, odds ratio, hazard ratio, standardized birth ratio, and 95% confidence interval. To preserve the accuracy of findings, original effect measures were used, while other studies were addressed in the systematic review. Results: Out of 35,324 records identified, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis indicated that women with breast cancer had lower pregnancy prevalence, lower completed pregnancy rate, lower childbirth rate, lower birth trauma rate, and higher rates of cesarean delivery and preterm birth compared to healthy controls. Offspring of women with breast cancer had higher risks of very low birth weight, low birth weight, fetal abnormalities, and a lower live birth rate. The systematic review further showed increased risks of intrapartum hemorrhage, induced delivery, spontaneous delivery, failed induction of labor, prolonged labor, fetal stress, and delivery-related complications in this group, along with a lower rate of full-term delivery and reduced incidence of gestational hypertension. Conclusions: Pregnancy outcomes after breast cancer are often unsatisfactory. Patients and clinicians should approach pregnancy planning with care, ensuring thorough assessment and appropriate testing throughout the process. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024499971.
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.