ReviewBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) and breast cancer risk: hormonal treatments under the spotlight.
Review in Breast cancer research and treatment, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) have become nowadays a cornerstone in the management of infertility. While these treatments are generally considered safe, concerns have been raised regarding their potential influence on breast cancer (BC) risk, particularly in specific subgroups of women.
objectiveThis narrative review aims to evaluate the most relevant past and current literature on the association between ART-related hormonal treatments and breast cancer risk, highlighting potential biological mechanisms, epidemiological evidence, and clinical implications.
methodsA literature search was conducted through PubMed, focusing on medium-to-large cohort and case-control studies, meta-analyses, and guidelines published to date. Evidence was synthesized by distinguishing overall ART/IVF risk estimates from drug-specific findings and subgroup-specific risk modifiers. Particular attention was given to the most recent or most comprehensive reports when multiple publications were derived from the same cohort.
resultsTo date, current evidence does not support a real and consistent overall increase in breast cancer risk following ART-related hormonal treatments. Large population-based studies and recent meta-analyses are generally reassuring, particularly when ART-treated women are compared with infertile untreated women rather than with the general population. Some studies report modest risk elevations in selected subgroups, including nulliparous or nulligravid women, women undergoing repeated or high-dose stimulation cycles, and women with hereditary BC predisposition; however, these findings are inconsistent and often limited by residual confounding, small subgroup numbers, and incomplete dose information. Progesterone supplementation appears safe in the context of ART, with no consistent evidence of increased BC risk. Gonadotropins, including hMG, may transiently increase estrogen exposure, but large-scale studies and meta-analyses generally do not confirm a long-term increase in breast cancer incidence.
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.