Pregnancy, fertility concerns, and fertility preservation procedures in French breast cancer survivors in the FEERIC national study (on behalf of the Seintinelles research network)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To study fertility concerns and oncofertility practices at time of breast cancer (BC) diagnosis. Design The FEERIC study (Fertility, Pregnancy, Contraception after BC in France) is a prospective, multicenter study. Setting Web-based collaborative research platform Seintinelles . Patients 517 patients with prior BC diagnosis free from relapse and aged 18 to 43 years at inclusion (from 12 th March 2018 to 27 th June 2019). Intervention Baseline online self-administered questionnaires. Main Outcome Measure Fertility preservation procedures at BC diagnosis. Results Median age at BC diagnosis was 33.6 years and 424 patients (82.0%) received chemotherapy. Overall, 236 (45.6%) patients were offered specialized oncofertility counseling, 124 (24.0%) underwent one or more FP procedures with material preservation (oocytes n=108, 20.9%; embryos n=31, 6.0%; both oocytes and embryos n=13, 2.5%; ovarian cryopreservation n=6, 1.2%) and 78 patients received gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (15.1%). With a median follow-up of 26.7 months after the end of treatments,133 pregnancies (25.7%) had occurred in 85 patients (16.4%), including 20 unplanned pregnancies (15.0%). Most of the pregnancies were spontaneous (n=113, 87.6%), while 16 (12.4%) required medical interventions. Patients who had an unplanned pregnancy were less likely to have received fertility counseling (p=0.02) and contraceptive counseling (p=0.08) at BC diagnosis. Conclusion Most of the patients were not offered proper specialized oncofertility counseling at the time of BC diagnosis. Spontaneous pregnancies after BC were very much more frequent than pregnancies resulting from the use of cryopreserved gametes. Adequate contraceptive counseling seems as important as information about fertility and might prevent unplanned pregnancies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".