ArticleF&S reports2026
Reproductive outcomes after fertility preservation using tamoxifen or letrozole in women with breast cancer: a long-term follow-up.
Article in F&S reports, 2026. 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.
- Preserving possibilities: fertility after breast cancer treatment.F&S reports · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate long-term pregnancy outcomes in young women with breast cancer after ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation, with the addition of tamoxifen or letrozole to standard stimulation vs. no addition. Design: Follow-up study of the STIM-RCT, which was a multicentre randomized open-label trial (NTR4108), and the STIM-cohort study. Subjects: Women, aged 18-43 years, previously diagnosed with breast cancer who opted for fertility preservation through ovarian stimulation. All surviving women were eligible for follow-up (N = 216) and received an online questionnaire; 141 women from the STIM-RCT and 75 from the STIM-cohort. Exposure: Women receiving ovarian stimulation with the addition of tamoxifen, letrozole, or no addition. Main outcome measures: Natural conception, conception through assisted reproductive technology (ART), pregnancy rates, and live birth rates. Results: Out of 95 STIM-RCT responders, 36 (38%) received the addition of tamoxifen, 32 (34%) received letrozole, and 27 (28%) no addition (mean follow-up 7 years). Forty-four women became pregnant at least once after cancer treatment, and overall 7 women (7%) used their cryopreserved oocytes or embryos. In total, 63 pregnancies followed, of which 48 (76%) were conceived naturally, i.e., unassisted. Compared with standard ovarian stimulation, adding tamoxifen or letrozole resulted in comparable pregnancy rates in women who had at least one pregnancy after cancer treatment (tamoxifen vs. standard relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.58; letrozole vs. standard RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.48-1.50), and live birth rates thereafter (tamoxifen vs. standard RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.54-1.22; letrozole vs. standard RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.53-1.26). In the STIM-cohort, 20 women became pregnant at least once, leading to a total of 30 pregnancies, of which 90% were conceived naturally. One woman used her cryopreserved embryos. Conclusion: After 7 years of follow-up, most women conceived naturally after cancer treatment, and 8 women used their cryopreserved oocytes or embryos. We found no evidence for a difference in pregnancy rates when adding tamoxifen or letrozole to standard ovarian stimulation compared with no addition.
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.