MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fertility among young breast cancer survivors attempting pregnancy: A prospective, multicentre cohort study.

2024· article· en· W4399347814 on OpenAlexaff
Kimia Sorouri, Yue Zheng, Samuel M. Niman, Kate E. Dibble, Shoshana M. Rosenberg, Gregory J. Kirkner, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Shari Gelber, Rulla M. Tamimi, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Lidia Schapira, Virginia F. Borges, Steven E. Come, Ellen Warner, Matteo Lambertini, Elizabeth S. Ginsburg, Ann H. Partridge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerFertilityProspective cohort studyPregnancyGynecologyObstetricsCohortCancerCohort studyFertility preservationPopulationInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1518 Background: Despite high interest among young women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) in future fertility, prior research has been hampered by short follow-up and lack of prospective assessment of pregnancy attempts. We sought to describe fertility outcomes among young women participating in a prospective cohort who reported pregnancy attempt post-BC diagnosis. Methods: Women with stage 0-III BC in the Young Women's Breast Cancer Study (YWS, NCT01468246), a multicenter, prospective cohort of women diagnosed at age ≤40 from 2006-2016 who reported attempting pregnancy post-diagnosis were included. Those with prior hysterectomy, bilateral oophorectomy, or metastatic disease at diagnosis were excluded. Data on attempting pregnancy and fertility outcomes were obtained from serial surveys. Multivariable logistic regression with stepwise model selection was used to identify factors associated with pregnancy and live birth. Results: Among 1213 eligible participants, 197 reported any attempt of pregnancy (16%) over a median follow-up of 11 years (range: 3-17). Among attempters, median age at diagnosis was 32 years (range: 17-40); 74% were non-Hispanic White; 41% had stage I, 35% stage II, 10% stage III, and 14% stage 0 BC; 76% had HR+ disease; 68% received chemotherapy; 57% received endocrine therapy within one year post-diagnosis; 13% were BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers; 51% reported financial comfort at baseline; 51% were nulligravida and 72% nulliparous at diagnosis; 28% had undergone fertility preservation consisting of egg/embryo freezing at diagnosis; 15% reported a history of infertility before BC diagnosis. Most (73%) reported ≥1 pregnancy after diagnosis and 65% reported ≥1 live birth. Median time from diagnosis to first pregnancy was 48 months (range: 6-125). In the multivariable model, greater age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 0.82 per year increase, 95% CI 0.74-0.90, P<0.0001) was negatively associated with pregnancy, while financial comfort at baseline (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.01-4.12, P=0.047) was predictive of pregnancy. For live births, greater age at diagnosis was negatively associated (OR 0.82 per year increase, CI 95% 0.76-0.90, P<0.0001) while having undergone fertility preservation at diagnosis was predictive (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.29-6.00, P=0.009). History of infertility, nulliparity at diagnosis, tumor characteristics, cancer treatment, race, ethnicity, and BRCA1/2 PV status were not associated with either outcome. Conclusions: This is the first prospective study with greater than 10 years of follow-up to report fertility outcomes in young BC survivors accounting for attempting pregnancy. The majority achieved a pregnancy and most reported a live birth. Our findings can be incorporated into the counseling of young BC patients and survivors, and highlight the need for accessibility of fertility preservation services for this population. Clinical trial information: NCT01468246 .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.393 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207