ArticleO&G open2025
Effect of Geospatial and Sociodemographic Factors on Live Birth After Fertility-Sparing Treatment for Breast and Gynecologic Cancers.
Article in O&G open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether geospatial or sociodemographic characteristics are associated with live birth after fertility-sparing treatment for early-stage gynecologic cancer and stages I-III breast cancer. STUDY
designRetrospective matched case-control study using linked data from the California Cancer Registry, the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (now known as the California Department of Health Care Access and Information), and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. We included patients aged 18-45 years who were diagnosed with stages I-III of breast cancer or stage I cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer between 2000 and 2012 and underwent fertility-sparing treatment. Patients in the case group had live births after treatment; patients in the control group did not. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:2 ratio. Generalized linear mixed models were used to estimate associations between odds of live birth and geospatial and sociodemographic exposures such as the California Healthy Places Index, clinic proximity, race and ethnicity, marital status, insurance, and socioeconomic status.
resultsOur study included 254 individuals in the case group and 455 individuals in the matched control group. On multivariable analysis, no significant associations were observed between geospatial factors and live birth. Compared with individuals living in ZIP codes within the lowest California Healthy Places Index quartile (Q, 0-25%), those in higher quartiles had similar odds of live birth (Q2: odds ratio [OR] 1.16; 95% CI, 0.45-2.96,
conclusionAmong patients who accessed fertility-sparing treatment, geospatial and sociodemographic factors were not associated with live-birth outcomes. These findings provide reassurance that once patients access fertility-sparing care, birth outcomes are not influenced by sociodemographic or geographic disadvantage.
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.