Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41827761›Full record

ReviewCancers2026

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Fertility Preservation for Women with Cancer in the United States-Identifying Systemic Barriers and Proposing Solutions Through the DART Hypothesis.

Jasmin Mahabamunuge, David B Seifer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jasmin MahabamunugeDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital and Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02903, USA.
David B SeiferDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continuing advances in cancer diagnosis and treatment, particularly in reproductive-aged patients, has led to numerous national medical organizations, including the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), and the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), recommending prompt discussion of the potential gonadotoxic effects of chemotherapy and referral to a fertility specialist for counseling regarding possible fertility preservation. Despite overall increased utilization of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in the United States (US), racial and ethnic disparities persist on a multisystem level, ranging from decreased access and utilization of ART to inconsistent and delayed counseling to worse outcomes. While innovations in ART and cancer treatment continue to evolve in parallel, the beneficial impacts have been disparate and more limited in minority populations. This review specifically highlights racial and ethnic disparities in fertility preservation for women with cancer in the United States, highlights the underdeveloped state of this literature, and identifies possible pathways for improvement using the Disparities in Assisted Reproductive Technology (DART) hypothesis as a template. We address three main bottlenecks resulting in delay from time of cancer diagnosis to utilization of fertility preservation services.

Indexed as

accessassisted reproductive technologybiascancers in women of reproductive agechemotherapyDART hypothesisdisparitiesethnicityfertility preservationin vitro fertilizationpublic healthracetreatment outcomes

Identifiers

PMID41827761
PMCPMC12984841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.