4.7 Article

Fertility treatment and childhood cancer risk: a systematic meta-analysis

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 100, Issue 1, Pages 150-161

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.03.017

Keywords

Childhood cancer; meta-analysis; fertility treatment

Funding

  1. Savvaerksejer Jeppe Juhl og Hustru Ovita Juhls Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To clarify the association between fertility treatment and the risk for cancer in children. Design: Meta-analysis. Setting: None. Patient(s): Twenty-five cohort and case-control studies involving children born after fertility treatment as the exposure of interest and cancer as the outcome. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Medline was searched through September 2012 to identify relevant studies. The study-specific estimates for each cancer outcome were combined into a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) by a meta-analytic approach. Result(s): We found that children born after fertility treatment were at increased risk for all cancers (RR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.63) and for hematological cancers (RR = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.32-1.91), central nervous system/neural cancers (RR = 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02-3.46), and other solid cancers (RR = 2.19; 95% CI, 1.26-3.80). For specific cancer types, we found increased risks for leukemias (RR = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.35-2.01), neuroblastomas (RR = 4.04; 95% CI, 1.24-13.18), and retinoblastomas (RR = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.12-2.35) associated with fertility treatment. Conclusion(s): The results of the largest meta-analysis on this topic to date indicate an association between fertility treatment and cancer in offspring. However, our results do not rule out that factors related to underlying subfertility, rather than the procedure itself, are the most important predisposing factors for childhood cancer. (C) 2013 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available