ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
Fertility preservation strategies and long-term reproductive outcomes in women treated for breast cancer.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhat are the fertility preservation(FP) strategies and long-term reproductive outcomes in women with breast cancer?
methodsCohort study including women aged 18-40 years referred for FP counseling between 2015 and 2019 at a tertiary care centre. FP strategies comprised controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) or in vitro maturation (IVM) with oocyte and/or embryo vitrification, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC), used alone or in combination. Long-term follow-up (≥ 5 years) assessed ovarian function, pregnancy intention, conception modalities, and reproductive outcomes.
resultsA total of 165 patients were included (mean age 33.2 ± 3.9 years). Chemotherapy was administered as adjuvant setting in 47.3% (n = 78) and as neoadjuvant in 41.2% (n = 68) of patients, while 11.5% (n = 19) did not receive chemotherapy. A FP strategy was proposed to 151 patients (91.5%) and performed in 123(74.5%). COS was the most frequently used technique (40,6%), followed by IVM (33,3%) and OTC (5,4%). Forty-two patients (25.5%) did not undergo FP. Long-term follow-up was available for 94 patients (57.0%). Among them, 45(47.9%) reported an attempt to conceive. 60.0% (27/45) achieved a live birth (LB). 18(66.7%) conceived spontaneously, whereas 9(33.3%) achieved a LB using assisted reproductive technologies. Cryopreserved material was used by 9 women (9/45, 20.0%) resulting in 2 LB. Compared with women without a pregnancy intention, women who reported an attempt to conceive more frequently had hormone receptor negative disease, received less adjuvant chemotherapy, and more often reported regular cycles; embryo cryopreservation was also more frequent.
conclusionFP is feasible in young women with breast cancer. Despite exposure to potentially gonadotoxic treatments, pregnancy and LB remain achievable, most often spontaneously.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42730949What 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.