Conception and pregnancy among women with a live birth after breast cancer treatment: A survey study of young breast cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignancy in women of reproductive age. This study sought to explore the postcancer conception and pregnancy experience of young BC survivors to inform counseling. METHODS: In the Young Women's Breast Cancer Study (NCT01468246), a multicenter, prospective cohort, participants diagnosed at age ≤40 years with stage 0-III BC who reported ≥1 postdiagnosis live birth were sent an investigator-developed survey. RESULTS: Of 119 eligible women, 94 (79%) completed the survey. Median age at diagnosis was 32 years (range, 17-40) and at first postdiagnosis delivery was 38 years (range, 29-47). Most had stage I or II (77%) and HR+ (78%) BC; 51% were nulligravida at diagnosis. After BC treatment, most (62%) conceived naturally, though 38% used assisted reproductive technology, 74% of whom first attempted natural conception for a median of 9 months (range, 2-48). Among women with a known inherited pathogenic variant (n = 20), two underwent preimplantation genetic testing. Of 59 women on endocrine therapy before pregnancy, 26% did not resume treatment. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (20%) was the most common obstetrical condition. Nine percent of newborns required neonatal intensive care unit admission and 9% had low birth weight. CONCLUSION: Among women with live births after BC treatment, most conceived naturally and having a history of BC did not appear to negatively impact pregnancy complications, though the high rate of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy warrants further investigation. The prolonged period of attempting natural conception for some survivors suggests the potential need for improved understanding and counseling surrounding family planning goals after BC.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".