Systematic review demonstrates increased risks of preeclampsia and gestational diabetes in cancer survivors, suggesting need for enhanced antenatal care.
Background: With advances in cancer diagnosis and therapy, survival after childhood and young-adult cancers has improved markedly. As survivorship extends, understanding long-term health sequelae, including obstetric outcomes, has become increasingly important. However, the reproductive safety of pregnancy following cancer remains insufficiently characterized. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of obstetric outcomes following pregnancy in survivors of childhood and young-adult cancers. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42024573707) of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify controlled studies assessing obstetric complications among female cancer survivors, published between 1 January 2000 and 31 June 2024. Random effects meta-analyses were used to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity, subgroup analyses, and meta-regression were performed to identify sources of variation. Results: Of 6032 records screened, 16 studies involving 89,123 survivors and 21,569,191 controls were included. Cancer survivorship was associated with higher risks of preeclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17–1.62), gestational diabetes (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05–1.59), and miscarriage (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01–1.35), but not with anemia in pregnancy (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98–1.39) or hypertensive disorders (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.99–1.49). Cancer type emerged as a potential prognostic factor for preeclampsia. Conclusions: Female cancer survivors are at significantly increased risk of major obstetric complications, underscoring the need for anticipatory preconception counselling and enhanced antenatal surveillance. Future research should delineate cancer- and treatment-specific risks to inform precision reproductive care in this growing survivorship population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sim et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: