ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
Fertility preservation using controlled ovarian stimulation in breast cancer: a comparative study of neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the time to initiation of first therapeutic treatment and the outcomes of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in breast cancer patients undergoing fertility preservation (FP) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) versus adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) treatment settings.
methodsA retrospective cohort study involving patients with stage 1-3 breast cancer treated with NAC/AC, who underwent FP with random-start COS, between 2015-2023. Baseline, oncologic and COS characteristics and outcomes were collected. Time points related to cancer diagnosis, FP, and first oncologic intervention (surgery or chemotherapy) were calculated.
results70 NAC-treated patients were compared to 42 AC-treated patients. Groups were similar in terms of age, marital status, parity and BMI. NAC-treated patients had more advanced disease, more often with lymph node involvement. Median time from diagnosis to FP consult (17 vs 30 days) and to stimulation start (22 vs 59 days) was significantly shorter for NAC-treated patients. Median time from diagnosis to first therapeutic intervention was slightly longer for NAC-treated patients (45 vs 41 days, p < 0.05). Stimulation characteristics were comparable apart from a less frequent use of hCG trigger among NAC-treated patients (4% vs 16%, p < 0.05). First stimulation cycle outcomes such as peak E2 levels, number of retrieved oocytes and fertilization rate were similar, though median number of M2 oocytes was higher in NAC- treated patients (11 vs 8, p < 0.05).
conclusionExpedited patient care at the neoadjuvant setting led to a statistically significant, yet clinically minimal, delay of cancer therapy. Neither oncologic treatment timelines nor FP outcomes were compromised in the NAC setting.
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.