Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42064332›Full record

ReviewCurrent breast cancer reports2026

Breast Cancer Surgical Risk Reduction, Fertility and Fertility Preservation for Current Breast Cancer Reports.

Hannah G Peifer, Emily Shippee Rockefeller, Lisa Newman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current breast cancer reports, 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

3 authors.

Hannah G PeiferDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY USA.
Emily Shippee RockefellerDepartment of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY USA.
Lisa NewmanDepartment of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose of Review: Population-based incidence rates of breast cancer are increasing in young/premenopausal women. Genetic testing panels are expanding and identify larger subsets of women with hereditary susceptibility for breast cancer. Options for primary prevention of breast cancer as well as fertility preservation among newly diagnosed patients are therefore becoming more relevant for young women. This review summarizes advances in these strategies. Recent Findings: Primary surgical prevention of breast cancer is feasible via prophylactic mastectomy (at any age) or prophylactic removal of the ovaries (in premenopausal women), with prophylactic mastectomy being the most definitive and effective. Improved breast reconstruction and the nipple-sparing mastectomy approach have increased the acceptability of prophylactic mastectomy. Since microscopic foci of breast tissue remain present in the subcutaneous fat of the mastectomy skin flaps (regardless of whether the nipple has been preserved or not) women choosing prophylactic mastectomy surgery must be informed of their residual lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. A variety of fertility preservation options are available and safe in women that are diagnosed with breast cancer or that have high future risk of breast cancer. Unfortunately, these options often incur substantial out-of-pocket expenses. Completing a pregnancy after a breast cancer diagnosis is also safe. Summary: Young women can choose between several alternatives for reducing breast cancer risk and preserving their fertility/family planning options. Further research is warranted regarding expanded access to these important survivorship options.

Indexed as

Fertility preservationProphylactic mastectomy

Identifiers

PMID42064332
PMCPMC13124912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.