ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Assisted Reproductive Technology in Breast and Gynecologic Malignancies: Cancer Risk, Fertility Preservation, and Post-Treatment Reproductive Outcomes.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is increasingly utilized worldwide, yet concerns remain regarding its potential association with breast and gynecological malignancies and the safety of fertility-preservation strategies in cancer survivors. Ovarian stimulation exposes women to supraphysiologic hormone levels, raising questions about cancer risk, particularly for hormone-sensitive tumors. Current evidence, however, is largely reassuring. Registry-based studies and meta-analyses demonstrate no consistent increase in breast or endometrial cancer following ART, although endometrial cancer risk remains inconclusive despite large new cohorts. Cervical cancer has not been linked to ART exposure. For ovarian cancer, risk appears primarily driven by underlying infertility, parity, and endometriosis rather than ART itself, and no excess risk is observed among BRCA mutation carriers. In parallel, fertility preservation (FP) has become an integral component of gynecologic oncology care for reproductive-aged women. Strategies including cryopreservation of oocytes, embryos, or ovarian tissue, as well as fertility-sparing surgery or hormonal therapy, can be safely pursued in carefully selected early-stage cancers. Pregnancy and livebirth rates vary by diagnosis: outcomes are favorable after breast and cervical cancers, more limited in endometrial cancer due to endometrial receptivity challenges, and possible but less predictable in ovarian cancer, where stage and histology guide feasibility. Available observational evidence does not suggest a clear increase in recurrence risk among carefully selected patients, although evidence remains limited and long-term follow-up is needed. Overall, current data suggest ART is safe when individualized to patient and tumor characteristics, highlighting the importance of proactive fertility counseling, modified stimulation protocols, and multidisciplinary care to optimize oncologic and reproductive outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.