Factors influencing fertility-sparing treatment for gynecologic malignancies: A survey of Society of Gynecologic Oncology members

Identifying barriers individuals face in accessing fertility care after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis

Objective

To (1) identify the major barriers premenopausal individuals face in accessing fertility care at the time of gynecologic cancer diagnosis and (2) to assess patient experiences pertaining to fertility.

Methods

We distributed an online survey about cancer diagnosis and fertility goals to patients ages 18-40 who had been treated for ovarian, endometrial, or cervical cancer at a single, large academic hospital. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey results. Patients who completed the survey were given the option to participate in a follow-up virtual interview. We conducted semi-structured interviews to discuss their fertility goals and barriers to these. Grounded theory was used to qualitatively analyze the interviews.

Results

Fifty-five patients completed the survey, and 20 patients participated in the interview. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years old. Seventy-three percent of patients recalled that at the time of their diagnosis they were considering future childbearing, and 32% underwent fertility preservation. Patients reported the emotional response to their diagnosis as a barrier to receiving fertility care, with patients reporting lack of control (80%), shock (55%), and confusion (45%). Patients also identified inadequate counseling (60.0%), lack of time (60.0%), economic constraints (55.0%) and prioritization of cancer treatment (55.0%) as barriers. Nearly all patients had a positive interview experience and expressed desire to help patients in similar situations.

Conclusion

Many premenopausal patients diagnosed with gynecologic malignancies are considering future childbearing at the time of diagnosis. Both logistical and emotional barriers prevent them from undergoing fertility preservation before initiating oncologic treatment.

Conservative management of early-stage endometrial cancer for fertility preservation: a survey study among Swedish gynecologists and gynecological oncologists

Conservative management of endometrial cancer (CMEC) is viable for women with early-stage disease wishing to preserve fertility, but there is poor knowledge regarding clinicians' attitudes towards treatment or guidelines adherence. This 55-item survey study investigated CMEC-related experience, practice and attitudes among clinically active Swedish gynecologists and gynecological oncologists, focusing on reproductive eligibility criteria. The survey consisted of a general and two specific subsets, selectively delivered to clinicians active in infertility (subset A) and endometrial cancer (subset B) care. Answers from 218 clinicians were included. More than half agreed on CMEC whereas only 5% explicitly disagreed. The majority supported a fertility work-up to substantiate reasonable chances to pregnancy and live birth. Most disagreed about CMEC in case of previous unsuccessful fertility treatments, while more than 1/3 disagreed about CMEC in known fertility problems, recurrent miscarriages or previous children. Over 50% of respondents in subset A (n = 107) found it applicable with fertility investigations such as ovarian reserve testing or, in case of male partner, semen analysis. Respondents in subset B (n = 165) agreed on items based on existing recommendations regarding the oncological management of CMEC, including the use of continuous progestins, hysteroscopic resection of macroscopic lesions, control biopsy with curettage or hysteroscopy after 6 months of treatment, pursuing pregnancy as soon as possible after complete response, and performing a hysterectomy once live birth is achieved. While many clinicians were familiar with CMEC, the overall experience is limited. Fertility specialists seem less involved than oncologists in patient care but there is broad support for fertility-related eligibility criteria.

Fertility-Sparing Treatment for Early-Stage Cervical, Ovarian, and Endometrial Malignancies

Approximately 20% of gynecologic malignancies are diagnosed in reproductive-aged women, and standard-of-care surgical treatment often precludes future fertility. In early-stage disease, shared decision making about fertility-sparing medical and surgical approaches may give well-selected patients the opportunity to pursue their family-building goals without compromising long-term survival. Although future fertility is an important consideration for young women with cancer, rates of fertility-sparing procedures remain low. Moreover, because data on pregnancy rates and outcomes after fertility-sparing treatments are limited, it is challenging to counsel patients on realistic expectations. This review examines the critical oncologic outcomes of fertility-sparing approaches in early-stage gynecologic malignancies and highlights pregnancy outcomes in this population.

Fertility considerations prior to conservative management of gynecologic cancers

Fertility-sparing management of early-stage gynecologic cancers is becoming more prevalent as increasing evidence demonstrates acceptable oncologic and reproductive outcomes in appropriately selected patients. However, in the absence of randomized controlled trials, most of the commonly used treatment algorithms are based only on observational studies. As women are increasingly postponing childbearing, the need for evidence-based guidance on the optimal selection of appropriate candidates for fertility-sparing therapies is paramount. It is imperative to seriously consider the fertility potential of a given individual prior to making major oncologic treatment decisions that may deviate from the accepted standard of care. It is a disservice to patients to undergo a fertility-sparing procedure in hopes of ultimately achieving a live birth, only to determine later they have poor baseline fertility potential or other substantial barriers to conception including excess financial toxicity. Many women with oncologic diagnoses are of advanced maternal age and their obstetric and neonatal risks must be considered. In the era of advanced assisted reproductive technologies, patients should be provided realistic expectations regarding success rates while understanding the potential oncologic perils. A multidisciplinary approach to the conservative treatment of early-stage gynecologic cancers with early referral to reproductive specialists as well as maternal-fetal medicine specialists is warranted. In this review, we discuss the recommended fertility evaluation for patients with newly diagnosed, early-stage gynecologic cancers who are considering fertility-sparing management.

Reproductive counseling and pregnancy outcomes after radical trachelectomy for early stage cervical cancer

Objective

To evaluate patient perceptions of preoperative reproductive counseling and to evaluate complications and pregnancy outcomes in women who had radical trachelectomy (RT) for early stage cervical cancer.

Methods

Patients who underwent RT from January 1, 2004, through July 31, 2017, and had been cancer free for more than 1 year after RT were eligible; consented patients were sent a 16-item online survey.

Results

Of the 58 eligible patients, 39 patients (67%) completed the questionnaire. Eighteen patients (46%) reported receiving reproductive counseling and 26 (68%) reported receiving counseling about pregnancy risks and complications prior to RT, mainly delivered by gynecologic oncologists. Twenty-nine patients (74%) reported having a complication after RT, and cervical stenosis was the most common complication, occurring in 13 patients (33%). Twenty-four patients actively attempted to conceive after RT, and 20 pregnancies were achieved in 13 patients for a pregnancy rate of 54%. Eight pregnancies were spontaneous and 12 required a fertility treatment. There were 5 spontaneous first-trimester miscarriages; 14 of the 20 pregnancies (70%) resulted in live births. The median time to conception was 13.5 months (range, 1–120).

Conclusion

A significant proportion of women with early stage cervical cancer do not receive adequate reproductive counseling before RT, and many women undergoing RT experience complications that can negatively impact their fertility. We recommend a preoperative consultation with a reproductive endocrinologist for all patients considering RT.

Fertility-sparing surgery and survival among reproductive-age women with epithelial ovarian cancer in 2 cancer registries

BACKGROUND

This study examined predictors of fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) among reproductive-age women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). In addition, relationships between FSS and survival were assessed in models stratified by tumor characteristics.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) were queried for women 44 years old or younger with a primary EOC. FSS included unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and uterine preservation, whereas surgeries including bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were categorized as non-FSS. Logistic regression was used to estimate multivariable-adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between clinical characteristics (eg, age at diagnosis and race) and FSS odds. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for FSS and overall survival in subgroups defined by stage and grade or by stage and histology. Analyses were stratified by database (SEER vs NCDB).

RESULTS

This analysis included 9017 women (SEER, n = 3932; NCDB, n = 5085) with EOC diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 44 years. In both cohorts, factors associated with significantly higher FSS odds included a younger age, a more recent ovarian cancer diagnosis, and no adjuvant chemotherapy. FSS was significantly associated with lower overall survival among women with stage II to IV, serous EOC (SEER HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.22-2.12). Significant associations between FSS and survival were not observed in other subgroups defined by stage and grade or by stage and histology.

CONCLUSIONS

FSS appears to be safe for certain women with EOC but was related to poor survival among women with advanced-stage, serous EOC. Confirmatory studies with information on fertility intentions are needed.

Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Young Women With Gynecologic Cancers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of the dependent coverage mandate of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) on insurance status, stage at diagnosis, and receipt of fertility-sparing treatment among young women with gynecologic cancer.

METHODS

We used a difference-in-differences design to assess insurance status, stage at diagnosis (stage I-II vs III-IV), and receipt of fertility-spearing treatment before and after the 2010 ACA among young women aged 21-26 years vs women aged 27-35 years. We used the National Cancer Database with the 2004-2009 surveys as the pre-ACA years and the 2011-2014 surveys as the post-ACA years. Women with uterine, cervical, ovarian, vulvar, or vaginal cancer were included. We analyzed outcomes for women overall and by cancer and insurance type, adjusting for race, nonrural area, and area-level household income and education level.

RESULTS

A total of 1,912 gynecologic cancer cases pre-ACA and 2,059 post-ACA were identified for women aged 21-26 years vs 9,782 cases pre-ACA and 10,456 post-ACA for women aged 27-35 years. The ACA was associated with increased insurance (difference in differences 2.2%, 95% CI -4.0 to 0.1, P=.04) for young women aged 21-26 years vs women aged 27-35 years and with a significant improvement in early stage at cancer diagnosis (difference in differences 3.6%, 95% CI 0.4-6.9, P=.03) for women aged 21-26 years. Receipt of fertility-sparing treatment increased for women in both age groups post-ACA (P for trend=.004 for women aged 21-26 years and .001 for women aged 27-35 years); there was no significant difference in differences between age groups. Privately insured women were more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage and receive fertility-sparing treatment than publicly insured or uninsured women throughout the study period (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Under the ACA's dependent coverage mandate, young women with gynecologic cancer were more likely to be insured and diagnosed at an early stage of disease.

Successful yolk-sac tumor treatment with fertility-sparing partial oophorectomy

Yolk-sac tumors account for about 20% of ovarian germ cell tumors and occur predominantly in women below 35 years of age. Modern evidence-based treatment strategies have ensured long term post-treatment survival, but with increased survival, attention has been turned to an urgent need for developing fertility sparing treatment strategies. In this report we describe the successful treatment of a young woman who was able to conceive and deliver two children, in spite of the loss of one ovary two years prior to being diagnosed with an ovarian yolk-sac tumor on the remaining ovary.

Low grade serous ovarian carcinoma: identifying variations in practice patterns

Objectives

Low grade serous ovarian carcinoma is a rare subtype of ovarian cancer with an indolent and chemorefractory course. As such, treatment strategies among practitioners are not uniformly known. The primary objective of this study was to identify differences in practice patterns among physicians who treat low grade serous carcinoma.

Methods Materials

A de novo survey was distributed to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Questions about demographics, management of primary and recurrent disease, and use of consolidation therapy were included. Statistical analyses were performed using χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests.

Results

194 gynecologic oncologists completed the survey. Approximately two-thirds of respondents practiced in a university based setting and treated a high volume of ovarian cancers, including low grade serous carcinoma. 82% recommended somatic testing during treatment and 84% routinely sent patients for genetic counseling. Treatment preferences for primary disease varied by debulking status. 48% of practitioners used hormone antagonism as consolidation after primary treatment. Secondary cytoreduction was preferred for patients with platinum sensitive recurrence and a long disease free interval following primary treatment (P<0.001). Hormone antagonism was the preferred treatment for the first platinum resistant recurrence (54%), while a BRAF inhibitor was the preferred agent in platinum resistant recurrence in the presence of a known BRAF mutation (56%).

Conclusions

There was significant variation in the preferred management of low grade serous carcinoma among practitioners. Further efforts to improve knowledge of this disease, identify optimal treatment modalities, and provide guidelines for management should be encouraged.

Palliative Total Pelvic Exenteration for Gynecologic Cancers: A Cross-sectional Study of Society of Gynecologic Oncology Members

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate contemporary practices and opinions among gynecologic oncologists regarding the use of total pelvic exenteration (TPE) for palliative intent.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study of the membership of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology utilized an electronic survey to assess the opinions and practice patterns of gynecologic oncologists regarding TPEs. The primary outcome was willingness to consider a TPE for palliative intent, and demographic and practice characteristics were collected for correlation. Qualitative data were also collected. Descriptive statistics are presented, and χ tests, Fisher exact tests, and logistic regression analyses were used.

RESULTS

We included 315 surveys for analysis, for a completed response rate of 23.5%. Approximately half (52.4%, n = 165) of respondents indicated willingness to consider palliative TPE. When controlled for all variables, gynecologic oncologists who were more than 10 years out of fellowship were less likely to perform a palliative exenteration (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.98), whereas those who reported experience with minimally invasive exenteration were more likely to offer it for palliation (odds ratio, 2.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.73). Fifty-three respondents (16.8%) provided qualitative data. The themes that emerged as considerations for TPE as palliation were (1) symptoms and quality of life, (2) surgical and perioperative morbidity, (3) anticipated overall survival, (4) counseling and informed consent, (5) functional status and comorbidities, (6) likelihood of residual disease, and (7) alternative procedures available for palliation.

CONCLUSION

Half of gynecologic oncologists seem to be willing to offer a palliative TPE, although more-experienced gynecologic oncologists are more likely to reserve the procedure for curative intent.