Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Fertility treatments are associated with a modestly elevated risk of melanoma in womenFertility Treatments Linked to Slightly Higher Melanoma Risk

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that while fertility treatments show a modest association with melanoma, evidence does not justify practice changes.

This meta-analysis of observational studies evaluates the association between fertility treatments, including drug-only ovulation induction and ART/IVF, and the risk of incident melanoma in a large cohort of 3,733,499 women. The study reports a modestly elevated melanoma risk for overall fertility treatment (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02-1.50).

Specific pathways showed varying results. Drug-only ovulation induction showed a stronger association (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.01-1.92), while ART/IVF showed a near-null result (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81-1.48). An SIR-based analysis was non-significant and highly heterogeneous (SIR 1.25, 95% CI 0.66-2.38, I=80%).

The authors note limitations including incomplete ultraviolet-exposure adjustment and incomplete risk-factor adjustment. The certainty of evidence is very low for overall fertility treatment and drug-only treatment, and low for ART/IVF. Due to the small absolute risk increases and the observational nature of the data, causality cannot be established. Current evidence does not justify changes in fertility-treatment practice.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis addresses a gap in understanding the long-term risks of fertility treatments. While previous coverage has identified genetic risk factors and polygenic risk scores for melanoma, this study explores environmental and treatment-related associations. It does not relate to the clinical management of melanoma using immune checkpoint inhibitors or mRNA vaccines, but rather addresses the incidence of melanoma in women undergoing fertility treatments.

Researchers analyzed data from over 3.7 million women to see if fertility treatments, such as drug-only ovulation induction and IVF, were linked to melanoma. The study found a modest increase in melanoma cases for women undergoing any fertility treatment. However, the actual number of cases was small, ranging from 3 to 8 per 10,000 women.

When looking at specific methods, drug-only ovulation induction showed a stronger link to melanoma than IVF or ART. For those using IVF, the risk was nearly the same as those not receiving treatment. Because the study was observational and the absolute number of cases was small, it is not possible to say that these treatments cause melanoma.

There are some limitations to this data, including incomplete information on sun exposure and other risk factors. Because of these factors and the low certainty of the results, experts say the findings do not change current medical practices. Patients should talk to their doctors about their specific treatment plans and any concerns about skin health.

What this means for you:
Fertility treatments show a modest link to melanoma, but the risk is small and does not change current medical advice.

Common questions

Is it safe for me to have fertility treatments?

The study found a modest increase in melanoma for women on fertility treatments, but the absolute numbers were small, between 3 and 8 per 10,000 women. Because the evidence is not certain and the risk is small, these findings do not change current medical practices. You should discuss your specific treatment and any concerns with your doctor.

Is there a difference between IVF and other fertility drugs?

The study found a stronger link to melanoma for drug-only ovulation induction, with 5 to 13 cases per 10,000 women. In contrast, the link for ART and IVF was near-null, with only 1 to 3 cases per 10,000 women. These findings are based on observational data and do not prove that drugs cause cancer.

Does this mean I should worry about skin cancer?

The study showed a modest link, but the absolute risk remains low. The researchers noted that the evidence is not strong enough to change how doctors treat patients. You should talk to your healthcare provider about your personal risk factors and how to manage your skin health during treatment.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedNov 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Cancer safety after fertility treatment is well studied for breast and gynaecological tumours, but melanoma risk remains poorly characterized. We synthesized internally controlled evidence on this association. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (2000-2025) were searched for comparative observational studies of melanoma incidence. The primary outcome was incident melanoma; treatment-pathway/SIR analyses were secondary. Hazard ratios and case-cohort relative risks (rare-disease approximation) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis (REML, Hartung-Knapp) in R; SIRs were synthesized separately. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-E and certainty graded using GRADE. RESULTS: Twelve observational studies (3,733,499 women; 219,357 exposed) were included. ROBINS-E rated no study overall low risk of bias (83% some concerns, 17% high risk), reflecting incomplete ultraviolet-exposure adjustment. Melanoma risk was modestly elevated (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02-1.50; I = 0%; prediction interval 0.97-1.58); drug-only ovulation induction showed a stronger association (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.01-1.92), while ART/IVF was near-null (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81-1.48). Corresponding absolute increases were approximately 3-8, 5-13, and 1-3 per 10,000 women over 10 years (baseline 13.3-33.1/100,000/year). Certainty was very low for any fertility treatment and drug-only treatment, and low for ART/IVF. SIR-based analyses were non-significant and highly heterogeneous (SIR 1.25, 95% CI 0.66-2.38; I = 80%). CONCLUSIONS: Observed associations are small and of very low to low certainty, reflecting incomplete ultraviolet-exposure and risk-factor adjustment; causality cannot be established. Current evidence does not justify changes in fertility-treatment practice. Future studies require cycle-level exposure data and rigorous ultraviolet-exposure control.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.