1
|
Rodriguez-Ormaza N, Anderson C, Baggett CD, Delamater PL, Troester MA, Wheeler SB, Wardell AC, Deal AM, Smitherman A, Mersereau J, Baker VL, Nichols HB. Geographic Access to Fertility Counseling among Adolescent and Young Adult Women with Cancer in North Carolina. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024; 33:1194-1202. [PMID: 38980745 PMCID: PMC11371502 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-24-0482] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2024] [Revised: 06/03/2024] [Accepted: 07/03/2024] [Indexed: 07/11/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fertility counseling is recommended for adolescent and young adult women facing gonadotoxic cancer therapy. However, fertility care is subspecialized medical care offered at a limited number of institutions, making geographic access a potential barrier to guideline-concordant care. We assessed the relationship between geographic access and receipt of fertility counseling among adolescent and young adult women with cancer. METHODS Using data from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, we identified women diagnosed with lymphoma, gynecologic cancer, or breast cancer at ages 15 to 39 years during 2004 to 2015. Eligible women were invited to complete an online survey on various topics, including fertility counseling. Geographic access was measured, using geocoded addresses, as vehicular travel time from residence to the nearest fertility clinic available at diagnosis. Multivariable regression models were used to examine the association between travel time and receipt of fertility counseling by provider type: health care provider versus fertility specialist. RESULTS Analyses included 380 women. The median travel time to a fertility clinic was 31 (IQR: 17-71) minutes. Overall, 75% received fertility counseling from a health care provider and 16% by a fertility specialist. Women who lived ≥30 minutes from a clinic were 13% less likely to receive fertility counseling by a health care provider (prevalence ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.00) and 49% less likely to receive counseling by a fertility specialist (prevalence ratio: 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.93). CONCLUSIONS Women who lived further away from fertility clinics were less likely to receive fertility counseling. IMPACT Interventions to improve access to fertility counseling should include strategies to alleviate the burden of geographic access.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nidia Rodriguez-Ormaza
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Chelsea Anderson
- Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Christopher D Baggett
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Paul L Delamater
- Department of Geography, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Melissa A Troester
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Stephanie B Wheeler
- Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Alexis C Wardell
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Allison M Deal
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Andrew Smitherman
- Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | | | - Valerie L Baker
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Hazel B Nichols
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kazmerski TM, Stransky OM, Lavage DR, Hughan KS, Jain R, Ladores SL, Stalvey MS, Tangpricha V, Taylor-Cousar JL, West NE, Sawicki GS. Clinician perspectives and practices related to sexual and reproductive care provision for males with cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros 2024; 23:417-423. [PMID: 37953183 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcf.2023.10.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2023] [Revised: 10/02/2023] [Accepted: 10/31/2023] [Indexed: 11/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Males with cystic fibrosis (MwCF) have unique sexual and reproductive health (SRH) concerns. This study investigates multidisciplinary CF clinician perspectives related to SRH for MwCF in the current era of CF care. METHODS We surveyed multidisciplinary clinicians exploring attitudes, practices, and preferences toward male CF SRH care. We compared responses across groups by population served (pediatric vs. adult vs. both pediatric and adult MwCF) using chi square/Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS A total of 297 clinicians completed the survey (41 % pediatric, 36 % adult, 23 % both; 27 % physicians, 24 % social workers, 11 % nurses, 41 % other). Nearly all (98 %) believed the CF team had a role in SRH care with 75 % believing they should be primarily responsible. Pediatric clinicians were less likely to deem SRH topics important and less likely to report annual discussions compared to adult colleagues (all p<0.05). Pediatric clinicians reported less comfort in their SRH knowledge than adult colleagues (p<0.001) and in their ability to provide SRH care (p<0.05). Common barriers endorsed by respondents included lack of SRH knowledge (75 %) and presence of family/partners in exam room (64 %). A majority rated SRH screening tools (91 %), partnerships with SRH specialists (90 %), clinician training (83 %), and management algorithms (83 %) as potential facilitators. CONCLUSION Multidisciplinary CF clinicians perceive SRH for MwCF as important but report suboptimal SRH discussions. Pediatric clinicians report significantly less comfort and skill in discussing and managing male SRH. Identified barriers and facilitators should be used to improve SRH care for MwCF.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Traci M Kazmerski
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 120 Lytton Avenue Suite M060 Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, United States; Center for Innovative Research on Gender Health Equity (CONVERGE), University of Pittsburgh, 120 Lytton Avenue Suite M060 Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, United States.
| | - Olivia M Stransky
- Center for Innovative Research on Gender Health Equity (CONVERGE), University of Pittsburgh, 120 Lytton Avenue Suite M060 Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, United States; UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, 4401 Penn Ave. Pittsburgh, PA, 15224, United States.
| | - Danielle R Lavage
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 120 Lytton Avenue Suite M060 Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, United States; Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, United States.
| | - Kara S Hughan
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 120 Lytton Avenue Suite M060 Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, United States.
| | - Raksha Jain
- University of Texas Southwestern, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390-8558, United States.
| | - Sigrid L Ladores
- School of Nursing, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 S. 2nd Ave., NB485-A, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States.
| | | | - Vin Tangpricha
- Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, 100 Woodruff Circle Atlanta, 30322, United States.
| | | | - Natalie E West
- The Johns Hopkins University, 1830 Building 5th Floor Pulmonary, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States.
| | - Gregory S Sawicki
- Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Mitigates Risk for Primary Ovarian Insufficiency but Does Not Decrease Risk for Infertility in Pediatric and Young Adult Survivors of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Transplant Cell Ther 2023; 29:130.e1-130.e8. [PMID: 36323400 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2022.10.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2022] [Revised: 09/17/2022] [Accepted: 10/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a curative therapy for many pediatric malignant and nonmalignant conditions. Gonadal insufficiency or infertility is present in almost all HSCT survivors who received a myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimen. Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens are being increasingly used in medically fragile patients or in patients with nonmalignant diagnoses to limit the toxicities associated with HSCT; however, the short-term and long-term gonadal toxicity of RIC regimens in pediatric and young adult survivors remains unknown. In this study, we compared the prevalence of gonadal insufficiency and infertility among pubertal and postpubertal pediatric and young adult survivors of HSCT who received a RIC regimen versus those who received a MAC regimen. Twenty-three females (RIC, n = 8; MAC, n = 15) and 35 males (RIC, n = 19; MAC, n = 16) were included in this single-center, retrospective cross-sectional study. Eligible patients were those with available laboratory results who were ≥1 year post-HSCT, age <40 years, and pubertal or postpubertal as assessed by an endocrinologist. Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), estradiol, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels were measured in females, and FSH, LH, total testosterone, and inhibin B (InhB) levels were measured in males. Twenty-one males (RIC, n = 11; MAC, n = 10) underwent semen analysis through a separate consent. Parametric and nonparametric analyses were undertaken to compare the RIC and MAC groups. Female patients who received RIC were less likely than those who received MAC to develop primary ovarian insufficiency, as demonstrated by elevated FSH (P = .02) and low estradiol (P = .01) or elevated LH (P = .09). Most females in the RIC (75%) and MAC (93%) groups had low AMH levels, indicating low or absent ovarian reserve, with no significant difference between the groups (P = .53). In males, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the prevalence of abnormal FSH, LH, testosterone, or InhB levels. Ten of 11 RIC males (91%) and 10 of 10 MAC males (100%) had azoospermia or oligospermia, at a median time to semen analysis from HSCT of 3.7 years (range, 1.3 to 12.2 years). RIC may pose less risk than MAC for primary ovarian insufficiency among female survivors of HSCT; however, both female and male recipients of either RIC or MAC regimens are at high risk for infertility. In the largest reported series of semen analyses of pediatric and young adult male recipients of RIC, azoospermia or oligospermia was found in nearly all (91%) RIC survivors. All patients undergoing HSCT should receive counseling about the high risk of gonadal toxicity, and efforts should be made to preserve fertility in patients undergoing either RIC or MAC.
Collapse
|
4
|
Arapaki A, Christopoulos P, Kalampokas E, Triantafyllidou O, Matsas A, Vlahos NF. Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation in Children and Adolescents. CHILDREN (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2022; 9:1256. [PMID: 36010146 PMCID: PMC9406615 DOI: 10.3390/children9081256] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2022] [Revised: 07/29/2022] [Accepted: 08/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Cancer during childhood and adolescence remains a major public health issue, affecting a significant portion of this age group. Although newer anti-cancer treatments have improved survival rates, this comes at a cost in terms of gonadotoxic effects. As a result, the preservation of fertility is important. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation, one of the newest methods, has some advantages, especially for prepubertal patients: no need for ovarian stimulation, thus, no further risk for estrogen-sensitive cancer types, and preservation of more and better-quality primordial follicles of the ovarian cortex. The most frequent indications include treatment with alkylating agents, ovarian-focused radiotherapy, leukemias, lymphomas, brain and neurological tumors, as well as Turner syndrome and benign hemoglobinopathies. An expected survival exceeding 5 years, the absence of systematic disease and an overall risk of premature ovarian insufficiency over 50% are among the criteria that need to be fulfilled in order for a patient to undertake this method. Orthotopic transplantation is more frequently used, since it can allow both live birth and the recovery of endocrine function. Reimplantation of malignant cells is always a major risk and should always be taken into consideration. Histological analysis, as well as immunohistochemical and molecular methods, are needed in order to improve the search for malignant cells before transplantation. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation appears to be a method with specific benefits, indications and risks which can be an important tool in terms of preserving fertility in younger women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Panagiotis Christopoulos
- Second Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, “Aretaieion” Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece
| | | | | | | | - Nikolaos F. Vlahos
- Second Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, “Aretaieion” Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ataman LM, Laronda MM, Gowett M, Trotter K, Anvari H, Fei F, Ingram A, Minette M, Suebthawinkul C, Taghvaei Z, Torres-Vélez M, Velez K, Adiga SK, Anazodo A, Appiah L, Bourlon MT, Daniels N, Dolmans MM, Finlayson C, Gilchrist RB, Gomez-Lobo V, Greenblatt E, Halpern JA, Hutt K, Johnson EK, Kawamura K, Khrouf M, Kimelman D, Kristensen S, Mitchell RT, Moravek MB, Nahata L, Orwig KE, Pavone ME, Pépin D, Pesce R, Quinn GP, Rosen MP, Rowell E, Smith K, Venter C, Whiteside S, Xiao S, Zelinski M, Goldman KN, Woodruff TK, Duncan FE. A synopsis of global frontiers in fertility preservation. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022; 39:1693-1712. [PMID: 35870095 PMCID: PMC9307970 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02570-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2022] [Accepted: 07/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Since 2007, the Oncofertility Consortium Annual Conference has brought together a diverse network of individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and professional levels to disseminate emerging basic and clinical research findings in fertility preservation. This network also developed enduring educational materials to accelerate the pace and quality of field-wide scientific communication. Between 2007 and 2019, the Oncofertility Consortium Annual Conference was held as an in-person event in Chicago, IL. The conference attracted approximately 250 attendees each year representing 20 countries around the world. In 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this paradigm and precluded an in-person meeting. Nevertheless, there remained an undeniable demand for the oncofertility community to convene. To maintain the momentum of the field, the Oncofertility Consortium hosted a day-long virtual meeting on March 5, 2021, with the theme of "Oncofertility Around the Globe" to highlight the diversity of clinical care and translational research that is ongoing around the world in this discipline. This virtual meeting was hosted using the vFairs ® conference platform and allowed over 700 people to participate, many of whom were first-time conference attendees. The agenda featured concurrent sessions from presenters in six continents which provided attendees a complete overview of the field and furthered our mission to create a global community of oncofertility practice. This paper provides a synopsis of talks delivered at this event and highlights the new advances and frontiers in the fields of oncofertility and fertility preservation around the globe from clinical practice and patient-centered efforts to translational research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L M Ataman
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - M M Laronda
- Stanley Manne Children's Research Institute, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - M Gowett
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - K Trotter
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - H Anvari
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - F Fei
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - A Ingram
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - M Minette
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - C Suebthawinkul
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - Z Taghvaei
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - M Torres-Vélez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - K Velez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - S K Adiga
- Department of Clinical Embryology, Kasturba Medical College Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India
| | - A Anazodo
- Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - L Appiah
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - M T Bourlon
- Hemato-Oncology Department, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas Y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - N Daniels
- The Oncology and Fertility Centres of Ekocorp, Eko Hospitals, Lagos, Nigeria
| | - M M Dolmans
- Gynecology Research Unit, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale Et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Av. Mounier 52, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
- Department of Gynecology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Av. Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium
| | - C Finlayson
- Department of Pediatrics (Endocrinology), Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - R B Gilchrist
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - V Gomez-Lobo
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - J A Halpern
- Department of Urology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - K Hutt
- Anatomy & Developmental Biology, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - E K Johnson
- Department of Urology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
- Division of Urology, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - K Kawamura
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Juntendo University Faculty of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - M Khrouf
- FERTILLIA, Clinique la Rose, Tunis, Tunisia
| | - D Kimelman
- Centro de Esterilidad Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
| | - S Kristensen
- Department of Fertility, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - R T Mitchell
- Department of Developmental Endocrinology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - M B Moravek
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - L Nahata
- Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA
- Endocrinology and Center for Biobehavioral Health, Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - K E Orwig
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - M E Pavone
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - D Pépin
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - R Pesce
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - G P Quinn
- Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Medical Ethics, Population Health, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA
| | - M P Rosen
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - E Rowell
- Department of Surgery (Pediatric Surgery), Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - K Smith
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - C Venter
- Vitalab, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - S Whiteside
- Fertility & Reproductive Health Program, Department of Hematology/Oncology/BMT, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - S Xiao
- Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Environmental Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - M Zelinski
- Division of Reproductive & Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, OR, USA
| | - K N Goldman
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - T K Woodruff
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
| | - F E Duncan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 7-117, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Levin NJ, Zhang A, Kattari S, Moravek M, Zebrack B. "Queer Insights": Considerations and Challenges for Assessing Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation in Oncofertility Research. ANNALS OF LGBTQ PUBLIC AND POPULATION HEALTH 2022; 3:111-128. [PMID: 38078047 PMCID: PMC10704859 DOI: 10.1891/lgbtq-2021-0015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2024]
Abstract
This article addresses issues related to clinical and research approaches to oncofertility for adolescent and young adult (AYA) sexual and gender minority (SGM) cancer patients. Limited attention has been dedicated to understanding the extent to which oncofertility services are appropriately and equitably delivered to AYAs with diverse orientations toward sexual orientation, gender identity, and future family. Unresolved challenges to conducting research with this vulnerable population perpetuate a lack of adequate knowledge about SGM AYA oncofertility needs. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to inform considerations of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation for investigations that include SGM AYAs. In order to improve the knowledge base and clinical services for this population, we discuss (1) challenges to sampling this population; (2) categorization and survey logic (e.g., skip patterns) in light of fluid sexual orientation and gender identities; and (3) clinical implications of accurately assessing sex and gender for oncofertility research and practice. We also recommend strategies for producing inclusive and accurate assessments of sexual and gender identity categories in both research and clinical encounters with SGM AYAs. Incorporating "queer insights" into empirical research - that is, positioning queer theory at the center of oncofertility study design - is suggested as a future direction for oncofertility research and practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nina Jackson Levin
- University of Michigan, School of Social Work and Department of Anthropology
| | - Anao Zhang
- University of Michigan, School of Social Work
| | - Shanna Kattari
- University of Michigan, School of Social Work and Department of Women’s and Gender Studies
| | - Molly Moravek
- University of Michigan, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Department of Urology, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Viviani S, Dellino M, Ramadan S, Peracchio C, Marcheselli L, Minoia C, Guarini A. Fertility preservation strategies for patients with lymphoma: a real-world practice survey among Fondazione Italiana Linfomi centers. TUMORI JOURNAL 2021; 108:572-577. [PMID: 34431742 DOI: 10.1177/03008916211040556] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Improvement in the prognosis of lymphomas in recent decades has allowed focus on reducing long-term toxicity of treatment, including infertility. The aim of this study was to assess the fertility preservation knowledge and practices among hematologic centers affiliated with Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL) in Italy. METHODS A survey questionnaire was provided to 152 FIL centers between December 2019 and December 2020. RESULTS Responses from 58 centers (38%) were received. All respondents reported informing patients about treatment-related gonadotoxicity. A minority of patients (10% female, 20% male) refused fertility preservation due to personal reasons. The most common fertility preservation options offered to female patients were mature oocyte cryopreservation (43.1%), ovarian tissue cryopreservation (6.9%), and mature oocyte or ovarian tissue cryopreservation (39.7%). Six centers (10.3%) did not perform any procedures. All centers offered sperm cryopreservation for male patients. Challenges regarding the time intervals between lymphoma diagnosis and fertility consultation (up to 20 days) as well as between consultation and fertility preservation procedure (up to 40 days) were revealed. CONCLUSIONS This survey provides insight into fertility preservation practices among Italian hematologic centers and points out an urgent need to improve close cooperation between hematologists and fertility preservation specialists in order to avoid unacceptable delays in lymphoma treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simonetta Viviani
- Division of Onco-Hematology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Miriam Dellino
- Gynecologic Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II," Bari, Italy
| | - Safaa Ramadan
- Division of Onco-Hematology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | | | | | - Carla Minoia
- Hematology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II," Bari, Italy
| | - Attilio Guarini
- Hematology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II," Bari, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
The Cancer Care Index: A Novel Metric to Assess Overall Performance of a Pediatric Oncology Program. J Patient Saf 2021; 16:e120-e125. [PMID: 27314203 DOI: 10.1097/pts.0000000000000267] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Childhood cancer metrics are currently primarily focused on survival rates and late effects of therapy. Our objectives were to design and test a metric that reflected overall quality and safety performance, across all cancer types, of an oncology-bone marrow transplant service line and to use the metric to drive improvement. METHOD The Cancer Care Index (CCI) aggregates adverse safety events and missed opportunities for best practices into a composite score that reflects overall program performance without regard to cancer type or patient outcome. Fifteen domains were selected in 3 areas as follows: (1) treatment-related quality and safety, (2) provision of a harm-free environment, and (3) psychosocial support. The CCI is the aggregate number of adverse events or missed opportunities to provide quality care in a given time frame. A lower CCI reflects better care and improved overall system performance. Multidisciplinary microsystem-based teams addressed specific aims for each domain. The CCI was widely followed by all team members, particularly frontline providers. RESULTS The CCI was easy to calculate and deploy and well accepted by the staff. The annual CCI progressively decreased from 278 in 2012 to 160 in 2014, a 42% reduction. Improvements in care were realized across most index domains. Multiple new initiatives were successfully implemented. CONCLUSIONS The CCI is a useful metric to document performance improvement across a broad range of domains, regardless of cancer type. By the use of quality improvement science, progressive reduction in CCI has occurred over a 3-year period.
Collapse
|
9
|
Woodruff TK, Ataman-Millhouse L, Acharya KS, Almeida-Santos T, Anazodo A, Anderson RA, Appiah L, Bader J, Becktell K, Brannigan RE, Breech L, Bourlon MT, Bumbuliene Ž, Burns K, Campo-Engelstein L, Campos JR, Centola GM, Chehin MB, Chen D, De Vos M, Duncan FE, El-Damen A, Fair D, Famuyiwa Y, Fechner PY, Fontoura P, Frias O, Gerkowicz SA, Ginsberg J, Gracia CR, Goldman K, Gomez-Lobo V, Hazelrigg B, Hsieh MH, Hoyos LR, Hoyos-Martinez A, Jach R, Jassem J, Javed M, Jayasinghe Y, Jeelani R, Jeruss JS, Kaul-Mahajan N, Keim-Malpass J, Ketterl TG, Khrouf M, Kimelman D, Kusuhara A, Kutteh WH, Laronda MM, Lee JR, Lehmann V, Letourneau JM, McGinnis LK, McMahon E, Meacham LR, Mijangos MFV, Moravek M, Nahata L, Ogweno GM, Orwig KE, Pavone ME, Peccatori FA, Pesce RI, Pulaski H, Quinn G, Quintana R, Quintana T, de Carvalho BR, Ramsey-Goldman R, Reinecke J, Reis FM, Rios J, Rhoton-Vlasak AS, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Roeca C, Rotz SJ, Rowell E, Salama M, Saraf AJ, Scarella A, Schafer-Kalkhoff T, Schmidt D, Senapati S, Shah D, Shikanov A, Shnorhavorian M, Skiles JL, Smith JF, Smith K, Sobral F, Stimpert K, Su HI, Sugimoto K, Suzuki N, Thakur M, Victorson D, Viale L, Vitek W, Wallace WH, Wartella EA, Westphal LM, Whiteside S, Wilcox LH, Wyns C, Xiao S, Xu J, Zelinski M. A View from the past into our collective future: the oncofertility consortium vision statement. J Assist Reprod Genet 2021; 38:3-15. [PMID: 33405006 PMCID: PMC7786868 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-020-01983-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2020] [Accepted: 10/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Today, male and female adult and pediatric cancer patients, individuals transitioning between gender identities, and other individuals facing health extending but fertility limiting treatments can look forward to a fertile future. This is, in part, due to the work of members associated with the Oncofertility Consortium. Methods The Oncofertility Consortium is an international, interdisciplinary initiative originally designed to explore the urgent unmet need associated with the reproductive future of cancer survivors. As the strategies for fertility management were invented, developed or applied, the individuals for who the program offered hope, similarly expanded. As a community of practice, Consortium participants share information in an open and rapid manner to addresses the complex health care and quality-of-life issues of cancer, transgender and other patients. To ensure that the organization remains contemporary to the needs of the community, the field designed a fully inclusive mechanism for strategic planning and here present the findings of this process. Results This interprofessional network of medical specialists, scientists, and scholars in the law, medical ethics, religious studies and other disciplines associated with human interventions, explore the relationships between health, disease, survivorship, treatment, gender and reproductive longevity. Conclusion The goals are to continually integrate the best science in the service of the needs of patients and build a community of care that is ready for the challenges of the field in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Teresa K Woodruff
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
| | - Lauren Ataman-Millhouse
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kelly S Acharya
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Duke Fertility Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Teresa Almeida-Santos
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, Coimbra Hospital and University Centre, Coimbra, Portugal.,Clinical Academic Center of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.,Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Antoinette Anazodo
- Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia.,Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.,School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Richard A Anderson
- Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Leslie Appiah
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Joy Bader
- ReproTech, Ltd., Saint Paul, MN, USA
| | | | - Robert E Brannigan
- Department of Urology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Lesley Breech
- Department of Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Maria T Bourlon
- Hemato-Oncology Department, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Žana Bumbuliene
- Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
| | - Karen Burns
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.,Division of Oncology, Cancer and Blood Diseases Institute, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Lisa Campo-Engelstein
- Institute for the Medical Humanities, Department of Preventive Medicine and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
| | | | - Grace M Centola
- Dadi, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, USA.,Phoenix Sperm Bank of Seattle Sperm Bank, Phoenix, AZ, USA.,New England Cryogenic Center/New England Cord Blood Bank, Marlborough, MA, USA
| | | | - Diane Chen
- Potocsnak Family Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine and Pritzker Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.,Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Michel De Vos
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.,Follicle Biology Laboratory (FOBI), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.,Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Perinatology and Reproductology, Institute of Professional Education, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Francesca E Duncan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Ahmed El-Damen
- IVIRMA Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.,Division of Embryology and Comparative Anatomy, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
| | - Douglas Fair
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, University of Utah, Primary Children's Hospital, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Yemi Famuyiwa
- Montgomery Fertility Center, Rockville, MD, USA.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Patricia Y Fechner
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Olivia Frias
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | | | - Jill Ginsberg
- Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Clarisa R Gracia
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kara Goldman
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Veronica Gomez-Lobo
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Michael H Hsieh
- Department of Urology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Luis R Hoyos
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Alfonso Hoyos-Martinez
- Department of Pediatrics, Section of Pediatric Diabetes and Endocrinology, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Robert Jach
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
| | - Jacek Jassem
- Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
| | - Murid Javed
- OriginElle Fertility Clinic and Women's Health Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Yasmin Jayasinghe
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Roohi Jeelani
- Vios Fertility Institute, Chicago, IL, USA.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Jacqueline S Jeruss
- Departments of Surgery, Pathology, and Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Nalini Kaul-Mahajan
- Mother & Child Hospital, New Delhi, India.,Ferticity Fertility Clinics, New Delhi, India
| | - Jessica Keim-Malpass
- School of Nursing, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.,Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Tyler G Ketterl
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.,Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Dana Kimelman
- Centro de Esterilidad Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
| | - Atsuko Kusuhara
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - William H Kutteh
- Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA.,Department of Surgery, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Monica M Laronda
- Stanley Manne Children's Research Institute, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.,Department of Pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Jung Ryeol Lee
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Fertility Preservation and Enhancement Research Laboratory, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Vicky Lehmann
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joseph M Letourneau
- University of Utah Center for Reproductive Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Lynda K McGinnis
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Eileen McMahon
- Sinai Health System, Mount Sinai Fertility, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lillian R Meacham
- Department of Pediatrics, Aflac Cancer Center of Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Monserrat Fabiola Velez Mijangos
- Biology of Human Reproduction Department, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Molly Moravek
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Leena Nahata
- Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - George Moses Ogweno
- Reproductive Endocrinology and Fertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Nairobi Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya.,Esis Health Services (EHS), Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Kyle E Orwig
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Mary Ellen Pavone
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Fedro Alessandro Peccatori
- Fertility & Procreation Unit, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Romina Ileana Pesce
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Hanna Pulaski
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Gwendolyn Quinn
- Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Medical Ethics, Population Health, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | - Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman
- Department of Medicine/Division of Rheumatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | - Fernando M Reis
- Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
| | - Julie Rios
- Department of Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Alice S Rhoton-Vlasak
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Kenny A Rodriguez-Wallberg
- Department of Reproductive Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Cassandra Roeca
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Seth J Rotz
- Department of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology, and Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Erin Rowell
- Stanley Manne Children's Research Institute, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.,Department of Pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Mahmoud Salama
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Amanda J Saraf
- Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Anibal Scarella
- Centro de Reproducción Humana, Facultad Medicina, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile.,Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Escuela de Medicina, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile
| | | | - Deb Schmidt
- Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Suneeta Senapati
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Divya Shah
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Ariella Shikanov
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Margarett Shnorhavorian
- Department of Urology, Division of Pediatric Urology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Jodi L Skiles
- Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - James F Smith
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Kristin Smith
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Fabio Sobral
- Pregna Medicina Reproductiva, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Kyle Stimpert
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - H Irene Su
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Kouhei Sugimoto
- International Center for Reproductive Medicine, Dokkyo Medical University, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan
| | - Nao Suzuki
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan
| | - Mili Thakur
- Reproductive Genomics Program, The Fertility Center, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.,Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
| | - David Victorson
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | - Wendy Vitek
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - W Hamish Wallace
- Paediatric Oncology, University of Edinburgh & Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Ellen A Wartella
- Center on Media and Human Development, School of Communication, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Lynn M Westphal
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Stacy Whiteside
- Fertility & Reproductive Health Program, Department of Hematology/Oncology/BMT, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
| | | | - Christine Wyns
- Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Shuo Xiao
- Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Environmental Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Jing Xu
- Division of Reproductive & Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, OR, USA.,Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Mary Zelinski
- Division of Reproductive & Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, OR, USA.,Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Bala R, Singh V, Rajender S, Singh K. Environment, Lifestyle, and Female Infertility. Reprod Sci 2020; 28:617-638. [DOI: 10.1007/s43032-020-00279-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2020] [Accepted: 07/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
|
11
|
Salama M, Ataman-Millhouse L, Sobral F, Terrado G, Scarella A, Bourlon MT, Adiga SK, Udupa KS, Mahajan N, Patil M, Venter C, Demetriou G, Quintana R, Rodriguez G, Quintana T, Viale L, Bonilla YAR, Noguera JAR, Velásquez JCV, Pineda JID, Aldecoa MDC, Javed M, Al Sufyan H, Daniels N, Ogunmokun AA, Woodruff TK. Barriers and Opportunities of Oncofertility Practice in Nine Developing Countries and the Emerging Oncofertility Professional Engagement Network. JCO Glob Oncol 2020; 6:369-374. [PMID: 35275747 PMCID: PMC9812505 DOI: 10.1200/go.22.00005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/29/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Oncofertility practice continues to grow in developing countries despite the lack of health care services, especially those related to cancer care. The purpose of this study is to further explore oncofertility practice in these countries and identify opportunities for field-wide coalescence. METHODS We generated a survey to learn more about oncofertility practice in nine developing countries within our Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network-Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Nigeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and India. Their responses were collected, reviewed, and discussed. RESULTS Surveyed centers from the nine developing countries continue to experience a similar set of common challenges, including a lack of awareness among providers and patients, cultural and religious constraints, lack of insurance coverage and funding to help to support oncofertility programs, and high out-of-pocket costs for patients. Despite these barriers, many opportunities exist and there is great potential for the future. CONCLUSION The current need is to unify the new technologies and best practices that emerge from rural communities and developing countries with those in large metropolitan cities, both domestically (US based) and abroad, into a functional unit: the Oncofertility Professional Engagement Network. The Oncofertility Professional Engagement Network will bridge the gap between domestic and international programs to establish a strong global network in which members share resources, methodologies and experiences and further build cultural competency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahmoud Salama
- Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
- National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt
| | | | - Fabio Sobral
- Pregna Medicina Reproductiva, Buenos Aires,
Argentina
| | | | | | - Maria T. Bourlon
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y
Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | | | | | - Madhuri Patil
- Private Fertility and Endoscopy Clinic, Bangalore,
India
| | - Chris Venter
- Vitalab Fertility Centre, Johannesburg, South
Africa
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Yuly Andrea Remolina Bonilla
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y
Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
- Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogota,
Colombia
| | | | | | | | | | - Murid Javed
- Thuriah Medical Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | | | - Nonso Daniels
- The Oncology and Fertility Centres of Ekocorp, Eko
Hospitals, Lagos, Nigeria
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Salama M, Anazodo A, Woodruff TK. Preserving fertility in female patients with hematological malignancies: a multidisciplinary oncofertility approach. Ann Oncol 2019; 30:1760-1775. [PMID: 31418765 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz284] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Oncofertility is a new interdisciplinary field at the intersection of oncology and reproductive medicine that expands fertility options for young cancer patients. The most common forms of hematological malignancies that occur in girls and young women and therefore necessitate oncofertility care are acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Aggressive gonadotoxic anticancer regimens including alkylating chemotherapy and total body irradiation are used often in treating girls and young women with hematological malignancies. The risks of gonadotoxicity and subsequent iatrogenic premature ovarian insufficiency and fertility loss depend mainly on the type and stage of the disease, dose of anticancer therapy as well as the age of the patient at the beginning of treatment. To avoid or at least mitigate the devastating complications of anticancer therapy-induced gonadotoxicity, effective and comprehensive strategies that integrate different options for preserving and restoring fertility ranging from established to experimental strategies should be offered before, during, and after chemotherapy or radiotherapy. A multidisciplinary approach that involves strong coordination and collaboration between hemato-oncologists, gynecologists, reproductive biologists, research scientists, and patient navigators is essential to guarantee high standard of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Salama
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine-Northwestern University, Chicago, USA
| | - A Anazodo
- Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Nelune Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia; School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - T K Woodruff
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine-Northwestern University, Chicago, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Salama M, Ataman-Millhouse L, Sobral F, Terrado G, Scarella A, Bourlon MT, Adiga SK, Udupa KS, Mahajan N, Patil M, Venter C, Demetriou G, Quintana R, Rodriguez G, Quintana T, Viale L, Bonilla YAR, Noguera JAR, Velásquez JCV, Pineda JID, Aldecoa MDC, Javed M, Al Sufyan H, Daniels N, Ogunmokun AA, Woodruff TK. Barriers and Opportunities of Oncofertility Practice in Nine Developing Countries and the Emerging Oncofertility Professional Engagement Network. J Glob Oncol 2018; 4:JGO.18.00180. [PMID: 32259158 PMCID: PMC7853876 DOI: 10.1200/jgo.18.00180] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/29/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Oncofertility practice continues to grow in developing countries despite the lack of health care services, especially those related to cancer care. The purpose of this study is to further explore oncofertility practice in these countries and identify opportunities for field-wide coalescence. METHODS We generated a survey to learn more about oncofertility practice in nine developing countries within our Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network-Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Nigeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and India. Their responses were collected, reviewed, and discussed. RESULTS Surveyed centers from the nine developing countries continue to experience a similar set of common challenges, including a lack of awareness among providers and patients, cultural and religious constraints, lack of insurance coverage and funding to help to support oncofertility programs, and high out-of-pocket costs for patients. Despite these barriers, many opportunities exist and there is great potential for the future. CONCLUSION The current need is to unify the new technologies and best practices that emerge from rural communities and developing countries with those in large metropolitan cities, both domestically (US based) and abroad, into a functional unit: the Oncofertility Professional Engagement Network. The Oncofertility Professional Engagement Network will bridge the gap between domestic and international programs to establish a strong global network in which members share resources, methodologies and experiences and further build cultural competency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahmoud Salama
- Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
- National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt
| | | | - Fabio Sobral
- Pregna Medicina Reproductiva, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | | | - Maria T. Bourlon
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | | | | | - Madhuri Patil
- Private Fertility and Endoscopy Clinic, Bangalore, India
| | - Chris Venter
- Vitalab Fertility Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Yuly Andrea Remolina Bonilla
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
- Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogota, Colombia
| | | | | | | | | | - Murid Javed
- Thuriah Medical Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | | | - Nonso Daniels
- The Oncology and Fertility Centres of Ekocorp, Eko Hospitals, Lagos, Nigeria
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Smith BM, Duncan FE, Ataman L, Smith K, Quinn GP, Chang RJ, Finlayson C, Orwig K, Valli-Pulaski H, Moravek MB, Zelinski MB, Irene Su H, Vitek W, Smith JF, Jeruss JS, Gracia C, Coutifaris C, Shah D, Nahata L, Gomez-Lobo V, Appiah LC, Brannigan RE, Gillis V, Gradishar W, Javed A, Rhoton-Vlasak AS, Kondapalli LA, Neuber E, Ginsberg JP, Muller CH, Hirshfeld-Cytron J, Kutteh WH, Lindheim SR, Cherven B, Meacham LR, Rao P, Torno L, Sender LS, Vadaparampil ST, Skiles JL, Schafer-Kalkhoff T, Frias OJ, Byrne J, Westphal LM, Schust DJ, Klosky JL, McCracken KA, Ting A, Khan Z, Granberg C, Lockart B, Scoccia B, Laronda MM, Mersereau JE, Marsh C, Pavone ME, Woodruff TK. The National Physicians Cooperative: transforming fertility management in the cancer setting and beyond. Future Oncol 2018; 14:3059-3072. [PMID: 30474429 PMCID: PMC6331694 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2018-0278] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Once unimaginable, fertility management is now a nationally established part of cancer care in institutions, from academic centers to community hospitals to private practices. Over the last two decades, advances in medicine and reproductive science have made it possible for men, women and children to be connected with an oncofertility specialist or offered fertility preservation soon after a cancer diagnosis. The Oncofertility Consortium's National Physicians Cooperative is a large-scale effort to engage physicians across disciplines – oncology, urology, obstetrics and gynecology, reproductive endocrinology, and behavioral health – in clinical and research activities to enable significant progress in providing fertility preservation options to children and adults. Here, we review the structure and function of the National Physicians Cooperative and identify next steps.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brigid M Smith
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Francesca E Duncan
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Lauren Ataman
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Kristin Smith
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.,Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Gwendolyn P Quinn
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA
| | - R Jeffrey Chang
- Department of OB/GYN & Reproductive Sciences, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
| | - Courtney Finlayson
- Division of Endocrinology, Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60611 USA.,Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Kyle Orwig
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.,Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
| | - Hanna Valli-Pulaski
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.,Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
| | - Molly B Moravek
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Mary B Zelinski
- Division of Reproductive & Developmental Science, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Beaverton, OR 97006, USA.,Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, OR 97239, USA
| | - H Irene Su
- Department of Reproductive Medicine & Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
| | - Wendy Vitek
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry, Rochester, NY 14642, USA
| | - James F Smith
- Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA
| | - Jacqueline S Jeruss
- Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.,Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Clarisa Gracia
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Christos Coutifaris
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Divya Shah
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Leena Nahata
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine/Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.,Center for Behavioral Health, the Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH 43205, USA
| | - Veronica Gomez-Lobo
- Division of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC 20010, USA
| | - Leslie Coker Appiah
- The James Cancer Center, Nationwide Children's Hospital, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
| | - Robert E Brannigan
- Department of Urology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Valerie Gillis
- Department of Urology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - William Gradishar
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Asma Javed
- Department of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, Division of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Alice S Rhoton-Vlasak
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA
| | | | - Evelyn Neuber
- Center for Advanced Reproductive Services, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT 06032, USA
| | - Jill P Ginsberg
- Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Charles H Muller
- Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | | | - William H Kutteh
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.,Department of Surgery, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN 38105, USA.,Fertility Associates of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38120, USA
| | - Steven R Lindheim
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Wright State University, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, OH 45435, USA
| | - Brooke Cherven
- Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA 30342, USA
| | - Lillian R Meacham
- Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center & Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology/Oncology & Division of Endocrinology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
| | - Pooja Rao
- Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Penn State Health Children's Hospital, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
| | - Lilibeth Torno
- Division of Oncology, CHOC Children's Hospital, Orange, CA 92868, USA
| | - Leonard S Sender
- Division of Oncology, CHOC Children's Hospital, Orange, CA 92868, USA
| | - Susan T Vadaparampil
- Department of Health Outcomes & Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL 33612, USA.,Department of Health Outcomes and Behaviors, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33612, USA
| | - Jodi L Skiles
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.,Riley Hospital for Children at IU Health, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
| | - Tara Schafer-Kalkhoff
- Division of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA
| | - Oliva J Frias
- Division of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA
| | - Julia Byrne
- Children's Research Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Lynn M Westphal
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Danny J Schust
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO 65212, USA
| | - James L Klosky
- Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center & Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology/Oncology & Division of Endocrinology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.,Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30307, USA
| | - Kate A McCracken
- Section of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH 43205, USA.,Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
| | - Alison Ting
- Division of Reproductive & Developmental Science, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Beaverton, OR 97006, USA.,21st Century Medicine, Inc., Fontana, CA 92336, USA
| | - Zaraq Khan
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.,Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | | | - Barbara Lockart
- Division of Hematology, Oncology & Stem Cell Transplant, Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.,Division of General Pediatric Surgery, Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Bert Scoccia
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA
| | - Monica M Laronda
- Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.,Stanley Manne Children's Research Institute, Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Jennifer E Mersereau
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC 27599, USA
| | - Courtney Marsh
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA
| | - Mary Ellen Pavone
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Teresa K Woodruff
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
The use of a virtual journal club to promote cross-cultural learning in the reproductive sciences. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018; 35:2141-2147. [PMID: 30246222 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-1309-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2018] [Accepted: 09/07/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Scientific literacy and communication are critical skills in the biological sciences. Journal clubs, in which peer-reviewed academic literature is discussed, are traditionally used to teach students to evaluate the literature, review scientific findings, and learn about historical, controversial, or current topics. METHODS We used a virtual journal club to facilitate the international interaction between two universities with master's degree programs in the reproductive sciences: the University of Murcia (Spain) and Northwestern University (USA). The virtual journal club occurred over a 2-hour period and was held using Blue Jeans Conferencing Service software and involved a total of 29 students. During this event, the students who were separated physically by thousands of miles discussed and exchanged ideas about a high-impact publication in real time. A survey assessment was administered to students at the University of Murcia following the event. RESULTS Positive perceptions included the establishment of cross-institutional interactions and the ability to practice scientific communication in another language. Areas noted for improvement included preparation time and engagement opportunities. CONCLUSION Overall, the virtual journal club is an innovative technology that can easily be broadened and has the potential to foster collaboration, ameliorate multilingual communication, improve cultural competencies, and expand professional global networks.
Collapse
|
16
|
Scarella Chamy A, Díaz-García C, Herraiz S, Kliemchen Rodrigues J. [Fertility preservation in the oncology patient]. Medwave 2017; 17:e7090. [PMID: 29149096 DOI: 10.5867/medwave.2017.09.7090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2017] [Accepted: 10/19/2017] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
In recent years, medical advances have substantially improved survival of cancer patients, generating growing concern about the quality of life of the survivors. Increased attention has been paid to reproductive problems after oncological treatments. International guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients require that healthcare teams discuss, as early as possible, the impact of cancer treatments on fertility and encourage access to fertility preservation techniques. The development of these techniques in women is a recent effort and many patients and health care providers are not familiar with their rapid expansion. This article discusses indications, results, and risks of the different options currently available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anibal Scarella Chamy
- Centro de Reproducción Humana, Facultad Medicina, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile; Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Escuela de Medicina, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile. Address: Hontaneda 2664, Valparaíso, Región de Valparaíso, Chile, CP: 2341386.
| | - César Díaz-García
- Grupo Acreditado de Investigación en Medicina Reproductiva, IIS La Fe, Valencia, España; Departamento de Pediatría, Obstetricia y Ginecología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, España; IVI-London, IVI-RMA Global, Londres, Reino Unido
| | - Sonia Herraiz
- Grupo Acreditado de Investigación en Medicina Reproductiva, IIS La Fe, Valencia, España; Departamento de Pediatría, Obstetricia y Ginecología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, España
| | - Jhenifer Kliemchen Rodrigues
- Latin American Oncofertility Network, Minas Gerais, Brasil; In Vitro Embriologia Clínica e Consultoria, Nova Lima, Minas Gerais, Brasil; Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Salama M, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Mallmann P. Advances in fertility preservation of female patients with hematological malignancies. Expert Rev Hematol 2017; 10:951-960. [PMID: 28828900 DOI: 10.1080/17474086.2017.1371009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The most common forms of hematological malignancies that occur in female reproductive years are lymphoma and leukemia. Areas covered: Several aggressive gonadotoxic regimens such as alkylating chemotherapy and total body irradiation are used frequently in treatment of lymphoma and leukemia leading to subsequent iatrogenic premature ovarian failure and fertility loss. In such cases, female fertility preservation options should be offered in advance. Expert commentary: In order to preserve fertility of young women and girls with lymphoma and leukemia, several established, experimental, and debatable options can be offered before starting chemotherapy and radiotherapy. However, each of those female fertility preservation options has both advantages and disadvantages and may not be suitable for all patients. That is why a fertility preservation strategy should be individualized and tailored distinctively for each patient in order to be effective. Artificial human ovary is a novel experimental in vitro technology to produce mature oocytes that could be the safest option to preserve and restore fertility of young women and girls with hematological malignancies especially when other fertility preservation options are not feasible or contraindicated. Further research and studies are needed to improve the results of artificial human ovary and establish it in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahmoud Salama
- a Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty , University of Cologne , Cologne , Germany
| | - Vladimir Isachenko
- a Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty , University of Cologne , Cologne , Germany
| | - Evgenia Isachenko
- a Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty , University of Cologne , Cologne , Germany
| | - Gohar Rahimi
- a Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty , University of Cologne , Cologne , Germany
| | - Peter Mallmann
- a Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty , University of Cologne , Cologne , Germany
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Pereira N, Schattman GL. Fertility Preservation and Sexual Health After Cancer Therapy. J Oncol Pract 2017; 13:643-651. [PMID: 28809602 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2017.023705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Recent developments in cancer diagnostics and treatments have considerably improved long-term survival rates. Despite improvements in chemotherapy regimens, more focused radiotherapy and diverse surgical options, cancer treatments often have gonadotoxic side-effects that can manifest as loss of fertility or sexual dysfunction, particularly in young cancer survivors. In this review, we focus on two pertinent quality-of-life issues in female cancer survivors of reproductive age-fertility preservation and sexual function. Fertility preservation encompasses all clinical and laboratory efforts to preserve a woman's chance to achieve future genetic motherhood. These efforts range from well-established protocols such as ovarian stimulation with cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes, to nascent clinical trials involving cryopreservation and re-implantation of ovarian tissue. Therefore, fertility preservation strategies are individualized to the cancer diagnosis, time interval until initiation of treatments must begin, prognosis, pubertal status, and maturity level of patient. Some patients choose not to pursue fertility preservation, and the conversation then centers around other quality of life issues. Not all cancer treatments cause loss of fertility; however, most treatments can directly impact the physical and psychosocial aspects of sexual function. Cancer treatment is also associated with fear, anxiety, and depression, which can further decrease sexual desire, function, and frequency. Sexual dysfunction after cancer treatment is generally ascertained by compassionate inquiry. Strategies to promote sexual function after cancer treatment include pelvic floor exercises, clitoral therapy devices, pharmacologic agents, as well as couples-based psychotherapeutic and psycho-educational interventions. Quality-of-life issues in young cancer survivors are often best addressed by utilizing a multidisciplinary team consisting of physicians, nurses, social workers, psychiatrists, sex educators, counselors, or therapists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nigel Pereira
- The Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
| | - Glenn L Schattman
- The Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Norton WE, Lungeanu A, Chambers DA, Contractor N. Mapping the Growing Discipline of Dissemination and Implementation Science in Health. Scientometrics 2017; 112:1367-1390. [PMID: 29249842 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2455-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Background The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in health has grown considerably in the past decade. Despite the potential for advancing the science, limited research has focused on mapping the field. Methods We administered an online survey to individuals in the D&I field to assess participants' demographics and expertise, as well as engagement with journals and conferences, publications, and grants. A combined roster-nomination method was used to collect data on participants' advice networks and collaboration networks; participants' motivations for choosing collaborators was also assessed. Frequency and descriptive statistics were used to characterize the overall sample; network metrics were used to characterize both networks. Among a sub-sample of respondents who were researchers, regression analyses identified predictors of two metrics of academic performance (i.e., publications and funded grants). Results A total of 421 individuals completed the survey, representing a 30.75% response rate of eligible individuals. Most participants were White (n = 343), female (n = 284, 67.4%), and identified as a researcher (n = 340, 81%). Both the advice and the collaboration networks displayed characteristics of a small world network. The most important motivations for selecting collaborators were aligned with advancing the science (i.e., prior collaborators, strong reputation, and good collaborators) rather than relying on human proclivities for homophily, proximity, and friendship. Among a sub-sample of 295 researchers, expertise (individual predictor), status (advice network), and connectedness (collaboration network) were significant predictors of both metrics of academic performance. Conclusions Network-based interventions can enhance collaboration and productivity; future research is needed to leverage these data to advance the field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wynne E Norton
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Alina Lungeanu
- Population Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
| | - David A Chambers
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Noshir Contractor
- Departments of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Communication Studies, and Management and Organizations, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Fertility preservation training for obstetrics and gynecology fellows: a highly desired but non-standardized experience. FERTILITY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 2017; 3:9. [PMID: 28690863 PMCID: PMC5496430 DOI: 10.1186/s40738-017-0036-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2017] [Accepted: 06/15/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite a large body of data suggesting that delivery of fertility care to cancer patients is inconsistent and frequently insufficient, there is a paucity of literature examining training in fertility preservation for those physicians expected to discuss options or execute therapy. The study objective was to compare fertility preservation training between Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility (REI) and Gynecologic Oncology (GYN ONC) fellows and assess the need for additional education in this field. METHODS A 38-item survey was administered to REI and GYN ONC fellows in the United states in April 2014. Survey items included: 1) Clinical exposure, perceived quality of training, and self-reported knowledge in fertility preservation; 2) an educational needs assessment of desire for additional training in fertility preservation. RESULTS Seventy-nine responses were received from 137 REI and 160 GYN ONC fellows (response rate 27%). REI fellows reported seeing significantly more fertility preservation patients and rated their training more favorably than GYN ONC fellows (48% of REI fellows versus 7% of GYN ONC fellows rated training as 'excellent', p < 0.001). A majority of all fellows felt discussing fertility preservation was 'very important' but fellows differed in self-reported ability to counsel patients, with 43% of REI fellows and only 4% of GYN ONC fellows able to counsel patients 'all the time' (p = 0.002). Seventy-six percent of all fellows felt more education in fertility preservation was required, and 91% felt it should be a required component of fellowship training. CONCLUSION Significant variability exists in fertility preservation training for REI and GYN ONC fellows, with the greatest gap seen for GYN ONC fellows, both in perceived quality of fertility preservation training and number of fertility preservation patients seen. A majority of fellows in both disciplines support the idea of a standardized multi-disciplinary curriculum in fertility preservation.
Collapse
|
21
|
Hanselin MR, Roybal DL, Leininger TB. Ethics and Oncofertility: A Call for Religious Sensitivity. J Oncol Pract 2017; 13:e582-e589. [DOI: 10.1200/jop.2016.020487] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
For patients of reproductive age, treating cancer may come at the price of infertility. Literature regarding fertility preservation recommendations in this population has increased significantly, but this literature too often overlooks or insufficiently considers the relevance of religious preferences. Similarly, practice guidelines do not address the role of religion in the oncofertility discussion. The acceptance of oncofertility practices varies significantly among Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. A patient’s faith-based spirituality or secular morality may enhance his or her interpretation of the meaning of illness and should be incorporated into the informed-consent process. In this article, we describe the role of religious sensitivity in oncofertility care and argue for its importance in such care. We briefly summarize the views and moral reasoning about oncofertility in a few religions commonly encountered in many patient populations today. We recommend that clinicians discuss fertility options early in the decision process and, when relevant, incorporate the patient’s moral and religious preferences into the treatment plan. We encourage providers to be prepared to offer resources to patients who desire moral and spiritual guidance about fertility preservation options. Hospital chaplains should be able to provide such resources.
Collapse
|
22
|
Salama M, Woodruff TK. Anticancer treatments and female fertility: clinical concerns and role of oncologists in oncofertility practice. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2017; 17:687-692. [PMID: 28537815 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2017.1335199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Anticancer treatments such as aggressive chemotherapy and radiotherapy have deleterious gonadotoxic side effects and are considered the most common causes of pathological and iatrogenic fertility loss in women. Areas covered: In order to preserve fertility of young women and girls with cancer, several established, experimental, and debatable options can be offered in the emerging field of oncofertility. This article reviews the effects of anticancer treatments on female fertility and discusses the current challenges and future directions of fertility preservation options that can be offered to the female patients with cancer. Expert commentary: Although promising, several medical, economic, social and legal barriers face oncofertility practice around the globe especially in underserved areas. To overcome such barriers, more effective solutions should be provided to spread awareness and enhance communication between patients, oncologists and gynecologists. Early referral by oncologists before initiation of chemotherapy and radiotherapy is an important key factor for success in female fertility preservation strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahmoud Salama
- a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Faculty , University of Cologne , Cologne , Germany
| | - Teresa K Woodruff
- b Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine , Northwestern University , Chicago , Illinois , USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Ladanyi C, Mor A, Christianson MS, Dhillon N, Segars JH. Recent advances in the field of ovarian tissue cryopreservation and opportunities for research. J Assist Reprod Genet 2017; 34:709-722. [PMID: 28365839 PMCID: PMC5445043 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-017-0899-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2016] [Accepted: 03/01/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to summarize the latest advances and successes in the field of ovarian tissue cryopreservation while identifying gaps in current knowledge that suggest opportunities for future research. METHODS A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines for all relevant full-text articles in PubMed published in English that reviewed or studied historical or current advancements in ovarian tissue cryopreservation and auto-transplantation techniques. RESULTS Ovarian tissue auto-transplantation in post-pubertal women is capable of restoring fertility with over 80 live births currently reported with a corresponding pregnancy rate of 23 to 37%. The recently reported successes of live births from transplants, both in orthotopic and heterotopic locations, as well as the emerging methods of in vitro maturation (IVM), in vitro culture of primordial follicles, and possibility of in vitro activation (IVA) suggest new fertility options for many women and girls. Vitrification, as an ovarian tissue cryopreservation technique, has also demonstrated successful live births and may be a more cost-effective method to freezing with less tissue injury. Further, transplantation via the artificial ovary with an extracellular tissue matrix (ECTM) scaffolding as well as the effects of sphingosine-1-phosphate (SIP) and fibrin modified with heparin-binding peptide (HBP), heparin, and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have demonstrated important advancements in fertility preservation. As a fertility preservation method, ovarian tissue cryopreservation and auto-transplantation are currently considered experimental, but future research may pave the way for these modalities to become a standard of care for women facing the prospect of sterility from ovarian damage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Camille Ladanyi
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME 04102 USA
| | - Amir Mor
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11219 USA
| | - Mindy S. Christianson
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
| | - Namisha Dhillon
- University of Toledo College of Medicine, Toledo, OH 43614 USA
| | - James H. Segars
- Howard W. and Georgeanna Seegar Jones Division of Reproductive Sciences and Women’s Health Research, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Ave, Ross Building (Room 624), Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Abstract
Introduction The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(ACA) significantly increased the number of Americans with health insurance and has greatly improved access to health care services. However, states retain considerable jurisdiction over what benefits must be offered. The lack of a federal mandate for fertility preservation coverage results in a patchwork of benefits dependent on state statutes and regulation. Pediatric, adolescent and unmarried patients diagnosed with cancer or autoimmune diseases that impact fertility are often carved out of such coverage. Methods This review analyzed legislative and regulatory efforts in 10 states to determine the breadth of fertility preservation coverage in private, employer-based insurance plans and Medicaid, with particular interest in coverage for pediatric and adolescent patients. Results Fifteen states require coverage of fertility preservation in private insurance plans; five states only extend this benefit to females. The statutes differ in terms of whom the coverage extends to based on marriage status, diagnosis, length of fertility problems, and the monetary limit of the benefit. Fertility preservation is not a mandatory benefit under federal Medicaid regulation, however states can opt to include it in their state Medicaid plan; no state currently covers fertility preservation as an optional benefit. Conclusions Coverage of fertility preservation is extremely limited both in scope of benefits and the number of states that require such a benefit. State governments can expand access to a fertility preservation benefit by removing spousal and expanding diagnostic criteria and by including the benefit in Medicaid plans.
Collapse
|
25
|
Fibrin in Reproductive Tissue Engineering: A Review on Its Application as a Biomaterial for Fertility Preservation. Ann Biomed Eng 2017; 45:1650-1663. [PMID: 28271306 DOI: 10.1007/s10439-017-1817-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2017] [Accepted: 02/25/2017] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
In recent years, reproductive medicine has made good use of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine techniques to develop alternatives to restore fertility in cancer patients. For young female cancer patients who cannot undergo any of the currently applied strategies due to the possible presence of malignant cells in their ovaries, the challenge is creating an in vitro or in vivo artificial ovary using carefully selected biomaterials. Thanks to its numerous qualities, fibrin has been widely used as a scaffold material for fertility preservation applications. The goal of this review is to examine and discuss the applications and advantages of this biopolymer for fertility restoration in cancer patients, and consider the main results achieved so far.
Collapse
|
26
|
Kim SY, Kim SK, Lee JR, Woodruff TK. Toward precision medicine for preserving fertility in cancer patients: existing and emerging fertility preservation options for women. J Gynecol Oncol 2016; 27:e22. [PMID: 26768785 PMCID: PMC4717227 DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2016.27.e22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
As the number of young cancer survivors increases, quality of life after cancer treatment is becoming an ever more important consideration. According to a report from the American Cancer Society, approximately 810,170 women were diagnosed with cancer in 2015 in the United States. Among female cancer survivors, 1 in 250 are of reproductive age. Anticancer therapies can result in infertility or sterility and can have long-term negative effects on bone health, cardiovascular health as a result of reproductive endocrine function. Fertility preservation has been identified by many young patients diagnosed with cancer as second only to survival in terms of importance. The development of fertility preservation technologies aims to help patients diagnosed with cancer to preserve or protect their fertility prior to exposure to chemo- or radiation therapy, thus improving their chances of having a family and enhancing their quality of life as a cancer survivor. Currently, sperm, egg, and embryo banking are standard of care for preserving fertility for reproductive-age cancer patients; ovarian tissue cryopreservation is still considered experimental. Adoption and surrogate may also need to be considered. All patients should receive information about the fertility risks associated with their cancer treatment and the fertility preservation options available in a timely manner, whether or not they decide to ultimately pursue fertility preservation. Because of the ever expanding number of options for treating cancer and preserving fertility, there is now an opportunity to take a precision medicine approach to informing patients about the fertility risks associated with their cancer treatment and the fertility preservation options that are available to them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- So-Youn Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
| | - Seul Ki Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jung Ryeol Lee
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Teresa K Woodruff
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Batchvarov IS, Taylor RW, Bustamante-Marín X, Czerwinski M, Johnson ES, Kornbluth S, Capel B. A grafted ovarian fragment rescues host fertility after chemotherapy. Mol Hum Reprod 2016; 22:842-851. [PMID: 27698028 DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaw064] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2015] [Revised: 07/15/2016] [Accepted: 09/30/2016] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Can host fertility be rescued by grafting of a fragment of a healthy ovary soon after chemotherapy? SUMMARY ANSWER We found that grafting a green fluorescent protein (GFP)-positive fragment from a healthy isogenic ovary to the left ovary of a chemo-treated host rescued function and fertility of the grafted host ovary, and resulted in the production of host-derived offspring as late as the sixth litter after chemotherapy (CTx) treatment, whereas none of the ungrafted controls produced a second litter. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In women and girls undergoing chemotherapy, infertility and premature ovarian failure are frequent outcomes. There are accumulating reports of improved endocrine function after autotransplantation of an ovarian fragment, raising the possibility that the transplant is beneficial to the endogenous ovary. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We first established a CTx treatment regimen that resulted in the permanent loss of fertility in 100% of female mice of the FVB inbred strain. We grafted an isogenic ovary fragment from a healthy female homozygous for a GFP transgene to the left ovary of 100 CTx-treated hosts, and compared fertility to 39 ungrafted controls in 6 months of continuous matings, using GFP to distinguish offspring derived from the graft, and those derived from the host. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Immunofluoresece and western blot analysis of 39 treated ovaries during and 15 days after CTx treatment revealed elevated apoptosis, rapid loss of granulosa cells and an increased recruitment of growing follicles. Using immunofluorescence and confocal imaging, we tracked the outcome of the grafted tissue over 4 months and its effect on the adjacent and contralateral ovary of the host. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Fifty-three percent of grafted females produced a second litter whereas none of the ungrafted females produced a second litter. The likelihood that this could occur by chance is very low (P < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION These results are shown only in mice, and whether or how they might apply to chemotherapy patients subjected to different CTx regimens is not yet clear. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our experiments prove that rescue of a chemo-treated ovary is possible, and establish a system to investigate the mechanism of rescue and to identify the factors responsible with the long-term goal of developing therapies for preservation of ovarian endocrine function and fertility in women undergoing chemotherapy. LARGE SCALE DATA No large datasets were produced. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS Duke University Medical Center Chancellor's Discovery Grant to BC; ESJ was supported by an NRSA 5F31CA165545; SK was supported by NIH RO1 GM08033; RWT was supported by the Duke University School of Medicine Ovarian Cancer Research Fellowship; XBM was supported by CONICYT. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rachel Williamson Taylor
- Department of Cell Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.,School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Ximena Bustamante-Marín
- Department of Cell Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.,Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Departamento Biomédico Universidad de Antofagasta, Antofagasta, Chile
| | - Michael Czerwinski
- Department of Cell Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Erika Segear Johnson
- Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Sally Kornbluth
- Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Blanche Capel
- Department of Cell Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Abstract
Human ovary autotransplantation is a promising option for fertility preservation of young women and girls undergoing gonadotoxic treatments for cancer or some autoimmune diseases. Although experimental, it resulted in at least 42 healthy babies worldwide. According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic literature review was performed for all relevant full-text articles published in English from 1 January 2000 to 01 October 2015 in PubMed to explore the latest clinical and research advances of human ovary autotransplantation. Human ovary autotransplantation involves ovarian tissue extraction, freezing/thawing, and transplantation back into the same patient. Three major forms of human ovary autotransplantation exist including (a) transplantation of cortical ovarian tissue, (b) transplantation of whole ovary, and (c) transplantation of ovarian follicles (artificial ovary). According to the recent guidelines, human ovary autotransplantation is still considered experimental; however, it has unique advantages in comparison to other options of female fertility preservation. Human ovary autotransplantation (i) does not need prior ovarian stimulation, (ii) allows immediate initiation of cancer therapy, (iii) can restore both endocrine and reproductive ovarian functions, and (iv) may be the only fertility preservation option suitable for prepubertal girls or for young women with estrogen-sensitive malignancies. As any other fertility preservation option, human ovary autotransplantation has both advantages and disadvantages and may not be feasible for all cases. The major challenges facing this option are how to avoid the risk of reintroducing malignant cells and how to prolong the lifespan of ovarian transplant as well as how to improve artificial ovary results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahmoud Salama
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Teresa K Woodruff
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 East Superior Street, Room 10-119, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Fantus S, Gupta AA, Lorenzo AJ, Brownstone D, Maloney AM, Shaul RZ. Addressing Fertility Preservation for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol 2016; 4:152-6. [PMID: 27077152 DOI: 10.1089/jayao.2014.0048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
30
|
Duncan FE, Zelinski M, Gunn AH, Pahnke JE, O'Neill CL, Songsasen N, Woodruff RI, Woodruff TK. Ovarian tissue transport to expand access to fertility preservation: from animals to clinical practice. Reproduction 2016; 152:R201-R210. [PMID: 27492079 DOI: 10.1530/rep-15-0598] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2015] [Accepted: 08/04/2016] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Primordial follicles dictate a female's reproductive life span and therefore are central to fertility preservation for both endangered species and individuals with fertility-threatening conditions. Ovarian tissue containing primordial follicles can be cryopreserved and later thawed and transplanted back into individuals to restore both endocrine function and fertility. Importantly, increasing numbers of human live births have been reported following ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation. A current limitation of this technology is patient access to sites that are approved or equipped to process and cryopreserve ovarian tissue - especially in larger countries or low resource settings. Here, we review empirical evidence from both animal models and human studies that suggest that ovarian tissue can be transported at cold temperatures for several hours while still maintaining the integrity and reproductive potential of the primordial follicles within the tissue. In fact, several human live births have been reported in European countries using tissue that was transported at cold temperatures for up to 20 h before cryopreservation and transplantation. Ovarian tissue transport, if implemented widely in clinical practice, could therefore expand both patient and provider access to emerging fertility preservation options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca E Duncan
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Mary Zelinski
- Oregon National Primate Research CenterBeaverton, Oregon, USA
| | - Alexander H Gunn
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Jennifer E Pahnke
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Conor L O'Neill
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | | | - Ryan I Woodruff
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Teresa K Woodruff
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Salama M, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Mallmann P. Updates in preserving reproductive potential of prepubertal girls with cancer: Systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2016; 103:10-21. [PMID: 27184425 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.04.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2015] [Revised: 03/10/2016] [Accepted: 04/07/2016] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION With increasing numbers of adult female survivors of childhood cancers due to advances in early diagnosis and treatment, the issue of preserving the reproductive potential of prepubertal girls undergoing gonadotoxic treatments has gained greater attention. METHODS According to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed for all relevant full-text articles published in PubMed in English throughout the past 15 years to explore the significant updates in preserving the reproductive potential of prepubertal girls with cancer. RESULTS The two established fertility preservation options, embryo freezing and egg freezing, cannot be offered routinely to prepubertal girls as these options necessitate prior ovarian stimulation and subsequent mature oocytes retrieval that are contraindicated or infeasible before puberty. Therefore, the most suitable fertility preservation options to prepubertal girls are (1) ovarian tissue freezing and autotransplantation, (2) in vitro maturation, and (3) ovarian protection techniques. In this review, we discuss in detail those options as well as their success rates, advantages, disadvantages and future directions. We also suggest a new integrated strategy to preserve the reproductive potential of prepubertal girls with cancer. CONCLUSION Although experimental, ovarian tissue slow freezing and orthotopic autotransplantation may be the most feasible option to preserve the reproductive potential of prepubertal girls with cancer. However, this technique has two major and serious disadvantages: (1) the risk of reintroducing malignant cells, and (2) the relatively short lifespan of ovarian tissue transplants. Several medical and ethical considerations should be taken into account before applying this technique to prepubertal girls with cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahmoud Salama
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, Germany; Department of Reproductive Medicine, Medical Division, National Research Center of Egypt, Egypt.
| | - Vladimir Isachenko
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, Germany.
| | - Evgenia Isachenko
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, Germany.
| | - Gohar Rahimi
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, Germany.
| | - Peter Mallmann
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Quinn GP, Woodruff TK, Knapp CA, Bowman ML, Reinecke J, Vadaparampil ST. Expanding the Oncofertility Workforce: Training Allied Health Professionals to Improve Health Outcomes for Adolescents and Young Adults. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol 2016; 5:292-6. [PMID: 26978683 DOI: 10.1089/jayao.2016.0003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
As cancer survivors live longer, fertility and reproductive health become important health concerns. Like other secondary effects of cancer treatment, these anticipated health risks should be addressed before the initiation of cancer treatment. While existing and emerging technologies may prevent or reduce risk of infertility (e.g., sperm, oocyte, embryo, or tissue banking), the lack of a trained workforce knowledgeable about oncology and reproductive health poses a barrier to care. The allied health professional (AHP) is a target of opportunity because of the direct and sustained patient relationships. Thus, developing tailored educational programs for nurses, social workers, psychologists, and physician assistants is an urgent unmet need toward field building. In this report, we outline results from a pilot study evaluating AHP perceptions of an oncology and reproductive health curriculum originally developed for nurses and adapted to meet the needs of several other AHP groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gwendolyn P Quinn
- 1 Health Outcomes and Behavior Program, Moffitt Cancer Center , Tampa, Florida.,2 Department of Oncologic Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida , Tampa, Florida
| | - Teresa K Woodruff
- 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University , Evanston, Illinois
| | - Caprice A Knapp
- 4 Department of Health Policy and Administration, Pennsylvania State University , University Park, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Joyce Reinecke
- 5 Alliance for Fertility Preservation , Oakland, California
| | - Susan T Vadaparampil
- 1 Health Outcomes and Behavior Program, Moffitt Cancer Center , Tampa, Florida.,2 Department of Oncologic Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida , Tampa, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW This article aims to carefully evaluate a number of critical points related to ovarian tissue freezing and presents factual data in terms of live birth rates and risks. RECENT FINDINGS Reimplantation of frozen-thawed ovarian tissue remains an experimental procedure according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, despite almost 40 live births reported in the literature. Recent literature on the topic has focused on the risk of reimplanting malignant cells, so the present review assesses the risks according to disease. SUMMARY This manuscript emphasizes the crucial importance of not only preserving fertility in young women but also clearly explaining to patients the different available options and their respective success rates. Some previously published reviews have reported inaccurate reimplantation success rates. In this review, we report the true picture, with a live birth rate of 25%. Ovarian tissue freezing may be combined with pickup of immature oocytes (at the time of ovarian biopsy and tissue removal) or mature oocytes (if chemotherapy can be delayed).
Collapse
|
34
|
Maggi R, Cariboni AM, Marelli MM, Moretti RM, Andrè V, Marzagalli M, Limonta P. GnRH and GnRH receptors in the pathophysiology of the human female reproductive system. Hum Reprod Update 2015; 22:358-81. [PMID: 26715597 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmv059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 126] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2015] [Accepted: 12/03/2015] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human reproduction depends on an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis. Hypothalamic gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) has been recognized, since its identification in 1971, as the central regulator of the production and release of the pituitary gonadotrophins that, in turn, regulate the gonadal functions and the production of sex steroids. The characteristic peculiar development, distribution and episodic activity of GnRH-producing neurons have solicited an interdisciplinary interest on the etiopathogenesis of several reproductive diseases. The more recent identification of a GnRH/GnRH receptor (GnRHR) system in both the human endometrium and ovary has widened the spectrum of action of the peptide and of its analogues beyond its hypothalamic function. METHODS An analysis of research and review articles published in international journals until June 2015 has been carried out to comprehensively summarize both the well established and the most recent knowledge on the physiopathology of the GnRH system in the central and peripheral control of female reproductive functions and diseases. RESULTS This review focuses on the role of GnRH neurons in the control of the reproductive axis. New knowledge is accumulating on the genetic programme that drives GnRH neuron development to ameliorate the diagnosis and treatment of GnRH deficiency and consequent delayed or absent puberty. Moreover, a better understanding of the mechanisms controlling the episodic release of GnRH during the onset of puberty and the ovulatory cycle has enabled the pharmacological use of GnRH itself or its synthetic analogues (agonists and antagonists) to either stimulate or to block the gonadotrophin secretion and modulate the functions of the reproductive axis in several reproductive diseases and in assisted reproduction technology. Several inputs from other neuronal populations, as well as metabolic, somatic and age-related signals, may greatly affect the functions of the GnRH pulse generator during the female lifespan; their modulation may offer new possible strategies for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. A GnRH/GnRHR system is also expressed in female reproductive tissues (e.g. endometrium and ovary), both in normal and pathological conditions. The expression of this system in the human endometrium and ovary supports its physiological regulatory role in the processes of trophoblast invasion of the maternal endometrium and embryo implantation as well as of follicular development and corpus luteum functions. The GnRH/GnRHR system that is expressed in diseased tissues of the female reproductive tract (both benign and malignant) is at present considered an effective molecular target for the development of novel therapeutic approaches for these pathologies. GnRH agonists are also considered as a promising therapeutic approach to counteract ovarian failure in young female patients undergoing chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Increasing knowledge about the regulation of GnRH pulsatile release, as well as the therapeutic use of its analogues, offers interesting new perspectives in the diagnosis, treatment and outcome of female reproductive disorders, including tumoral and iatrogenic diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roberto Maggi
- Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via G. Balzaretti, 9, 20133 Milano, Italy
| | - Anna Maria Cariboni
- Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via G. Balzaretti, 9, 20133 Milano, Italy
| | - Marina Montagnani Marelli
- Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via G. Balzaretti, 9, 20133 Milano, Italy
| | - Roberta Manuela Moretti
- Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via G. Balzaretti, 9, 20133 Milano, Italy
| | - Valentina Andrè
- Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via G. Balzaretti, 9, 20133 Milano, Italy
| | - Monica Marzagalli
- Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via G. Balzaretti, 9, 20133 Milano, Italy
| | - Patrizia Limonta
- Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via G. Balzaretti, 9, 20133 Milano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Abstract
Fertility preservation is the process by which either oocytes (eggs) or sperm undergo an intervention to preserve their use for future attempts at conception. Consideration of fertility preservation in the pediatric and adolescent population is important, as future childbearing is usually a central life goal. For postpubertal girls, both oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard of care and for postpubertal boys, sperm cryopreservation continues to be recommended. Although all the risks are unknown, it appears that fertility preservation in most cases does not worsen prognosis, allows for the birth of healthy children, and does not increase the chance of recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie J Estes
- Donor Oocyte Program, Robotic Surgical Services, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey Medical Center, Mail Code H103, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA 17033-0850, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher L R Barratt
- Editor In Chief, MHR Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Medical School, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK Assisted Conception Unit, NHS Tayside, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Woodruff TK. Oncofertility: a grand collaboration between reproductive medicine and oncology. Reproduction 2015; 150:S1-10. [PMID: 26130814 PMCID: PMC4710491 DOI: 10.1530/rep-15-0163] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2015] [Accepted: 06/29/2015] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
In 2007, I was asked by the University of Calgary to participate in a symposium called 'Pushing the Boundaries--Advances that Will Change the World in 20 Years'. My topic was oncofertility, a word I had just coined to describe the intersection of two disciplines--oncology and fertility--and I was thrilled to share my passion for this new field and help young women with cancer protect their future reproductive health. Fertility preservation in the cancer setting lacked a concerted effort to bridge the disciplines in an organized manner. In early 2015, I was delighted to deliver a presentation for the Society for Reproduction and Fertility titled 'Sex in Three Cities', where I gave an update on the oncofertility movement, a remarkable cross-disciplinary, global collaboration created to address the fertility preservation needs of young cancer patients. During my tour of the UK, I was impressed by the interest among the society and its members to engage colleagues outside the discipline as well as the public in a dialogue about cutting-edge reproductive science. In this invited review, I will describe the work of the Oncofertility Consortium to provide fertility preservation options in the cancer setting and accelerate the acceptance of this critical topic on a global scale. I hope that one day this word and field it created will change the world for women who had been left out of the equation for far too long.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Teresa K Woodruff
- The Thomas J Watkins Professor of Obstetrics and GynecologyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E Superior Street, Lurie 10-250, Chicago, Illinois 60611, USA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Dahhan T, Mol F, Kenter GG, Balkenende EME, de Melker AA, van der Veen F, Dancet EAF, Goddijn M. Fertility preservation: a challenge for IVF-clinics. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 194:78-84. [PMID: 26342681 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.08.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2015] [Revised: 05/08/2015] [Accepted: 08/13/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Acute fertility preservation for women is an interdisciplinary treatment that requires adequate information provision and early referral. This quality management project aimed to improve fertility preservation care by using a practical tool: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis. STUDY DESIGN Quality management project was executed between May 2011 and July 2013. This project has been executed in a university affiliated IVF-clinic in cooperation with two oncological sites and used a four-step strategy: (1) monitoring baseline referral process, (2) exploring baseline fertility preservation program by Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats' (SWOT)-analysis, (3) setting up a new fertility preservation program and (4) evaluating the new fertility preservation program by means of SWOT-analysis. RESULTS During the three-months monitoring period, fertility preservation was requested for a total of 126 women. The mean age of the women was 33.8 years old (range 1-42 years old). Most requests came from women who wanted to cryopreserve oocytes because of age-related decline of fertility (n=90; 71%). Most requests for acute fertility preservation concerned women with breast cancer (n=16; 57%). Information leaflets and pre-consultation questionnaires for women improved the quality of first fertility preservation consultation as evaluated by final SWOT-analysis. Collaboration with oncological centres and information about fertility preservation improved the referral process. CONCLUSIONS SWOT-analysis proved useful for setting up a new fertility preservation-program and can be recommended as a tool to improve the management and organisation of new types of reproductive care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taghride Dahhan
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Femke Mol
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gemma G Kenter
- Centre for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eva M E Balkenende
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Annemieke A de Melker
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Fulco van der Veen
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eline A F Dancet
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mariëtte Goddijn
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Furui T, Takenaka M, Makino H, Terazawa K, Yamamoto A, Morishige KI. An evaluation of the Gifu Model in a trial for a new regional oncofertility network in Japan, focusing on its necessity and effects. Reprod Med Biol 2015; 15:107-113. [PMID: 29259426 DOI: 10.1007/s12522-015-0219-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2015] [Accepted: 07/29/2015] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose We evaluated our 2-year experience of the regional oncofertility network in Gifu Prefecture (GPOFS) in order to establish a more sophisticated regional oncofertility networking model in Japan. Methods Questionnaires were distributed twice in January 2013 to 57 departments in 35 hospitals that provide cancer treatment in Gifu Prefecture, before the establishment of the regional oncofertility network. The number and type of disease of the referred adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients who visited the oncofertility clinic in Gifu University Hospital via the GPOFS were analyzed. Results The majority of regional oncologists are aware of the need to provide information about oncofertility to their patients, but they cannot provide sufficient information due to their lack of knowledge about reproductive medicine. Eighty-one AYA patients were referred to our clinic for oncofertility counseling in the first 2 years after the establishment of the GPOFS. Conclusions The GPOFS as the first regional oncofertility network in Japan has just started and may be working to help both AYA cancer patients and their oncologists. The nationwide establishment of the regional oncofertility network model could help both AYA cancer patients and oncologists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tatsuro Furui
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine 1-6-1 Yanagido 501-1194 Gifu Gifu Japan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Gifu University Hospital Gifu Japan
| | - Motoki Takenaka
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Gifu University Hospital Gifu Japan
| | - Hiroshi Makino
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Gifu University Hospital Gifu Japan
| | - Keiko Terazawa
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Gifu University Hospital Gifu Japan
| | - Akio Yamamoto
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Gifu University Hospital Gifu Japan
| | - Ken-Ichiro Morishige
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine 1-6-1 Yanagido 501-1194 Gifu Gifu Japan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Gifu University Hospital Gifu Japan
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
|
41
|
Baysal Ö, Bastings L, Beerendonk C, Postma S, IntHout J, Verhaak C, Braat D, Nelen W. Decision-making in female fertility preservation is balancing the expected burden of fertility preservation treatment and the wish to conceive. Hum Reprod 2015; 30:1625-34. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2014] [Accepted: 04/29/2015] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
|
42
|
Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Prospectively assessing risk for premature ovarian senescence in young females: a new paradigm. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2015; 13:34. [PMID: 25906823 PMCID: PMC4407846 DOI: 10.1186/s12958-015-0026-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2014] [Accepted: 04/04/2015] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Approximately 10% of women suffer from premature ovarian senescence (POS), ca. 9% as occult primary ovarian insufficiency (OPOI, also called premature ovarian aging, POA) and ca. 1% as primary ovarian insufficiency (POI, also called premature ovarian failure, POF). In a large majority of cases POS is currently only diagnosed at advanced clinical stages when women present with clinical infertility. METHODS We here, based on published evidence, suggest a new diagnostic paradigm, which is based on identifying young women at increased risk for POS at much earlier stages. RESULTS Risk factors for POS are known from the literature, and can be used to identify a sub-group of young women at increased risk, who then are followed sequentially with serial assessments of functional ovarian reserve (FOR) until a diagnosis of POS is either reached or refuted. At approximately 25% prevalence in general U.S. populations (and somewhat different prevalence rates in more homogenous Asian and African populations), so-called low (CGGn<26) mutations of the fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) gene, likely, represents the most common known risk factor, including history-based risk factors from medical, genetic and family histories. CONCLUSIONS Women so affirmatively diagnosed with POS at relative young ages, then have the opportunity to reconsider their reproductive planning and/or choose fertility preservation via oocyte or ovarian tissue cryopreservation at ages when such procedures are clinically much more effective and, therefore, also more cost-effective. Appropriate validation studies will have to precede widespread utilization of this paradigm.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Norbert Gleicher
- The Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
- The Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
| | - Vitaly A Kushnir
- The Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
| | - David H Barad
- The Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
- The Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Shaw PH, Reed DR, Yeager N, Zebrack B, Castellino SM, Bleyer A. Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology in the United States: A Specialty in Its Late Adolescence. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2015; 37:161-9. [PMID: 25757020 DOI: 10.1097/mph.0000000000000318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Over the last 30 years, it has become apparent that oncology patients ages 15 to 39 have not reaped the same rewards of improved survival that we have seen in younger and older patients. As a result, in 2006 the Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology Progress Review Group convened and examined the factors that impact the care of the 70,000 new cases per year (approximately 7% of all new cases) in the United States and published their findings. The reasons for inferior survival gains are of course multiple and include the settings in which patients are cared for, clinical trial enrollment, insurance coverage, varied treatment of sarcomas, varied treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the psychosocial impact of cancer and cancer survivorship. A new area of a yet-to-be completely defined subspecialty was born out of this meeting: AYA oncology. As a medical community we realized that these patients do not fit neatly into the pediatric nor adult world and, therefore, require a unique approach which many individuals, oncology centers, advocacy groups, and cooperative trial groups have started to address. This group of dedicated providers and advocates has made strides but there is still much work to be done on the local, national, and international level to make up for shortcomings in the medical system and improve outcomes. We review key components of AYA cancer care in 2015 that all providers should be aware of, how far we have come, where this movement is headed, and the obstacles that continue to stand in the way of better cure rates and quality of life after cure for this unique group of patients. Like an adolescent maturing into adulthood, this movement has learned from the past and is focused on moving into the future to achieve its goals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter H Shaw
- *Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA †Sarcoma Program, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL ‡Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Nationwide Children's Hospital, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH §University of Michigan School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI ∥Department of Pediatrics, Section on Hematology and Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC ¶Quality Department, St Charles Health System, Bend, OR
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Salih SM, Elsarrag SZ, Prange E, Contreras K, Osman RG, Eikoff JC, Puccetti D. Evidence to incorporate inclusive reproductive health measures in guidelines for childhood and adolescent cancer survivors. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2015; 28:95-101. [PMID: 25850590 PMCID: PMC4390617 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpag.2014.05.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2014] [Revised: 05/30/2014] [Accepted: 05/31/2014] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Female childhood cancer survivors are at an increased risk of reproductive health impairment. We compared reproductive health outcomes with the recommended standard in a cohort of childhood cancer survivors. STUDY DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS A retrospective chart review of 222 female childhood cancer survivors aged 21 years or younger that presented to a tertiary referral center between 1997-2008 was initiated. The main outcome measures were the compliance with the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for childhood cancer survivor management of reproductive health. In particular, we evaluated menstrual cycle regularity, fertility preservation counseling, and endocrine profile, as defined by follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) levels as surrogate markers for ovarian reserve. Secondary outcomes were to study the contribution of survivor clinics in enforcing these guidelines. RESULTS Of 136 patients older than 13 years at their last visit, 58 patients (43%) had FSH data available and none had AMH data. Patients were stratified into 3 groups according to FSH levels. Forty of 58 patients (69%) have normal ovarian reserve (FSH level < 10), 10 of 58 patients (17%) have decreased ovarian reserve (FSH levels 10-40), and 8 of 58 patients (14%) have premature menopause, defined as FSH > 40. Most patients with amenorrhea have elevated FSH levels indicating primary ovarian insufficiency, while 3 patients (2.2%) have low FSH levels consistent with hypothalamic amenorrhea. None of the patients were counseled on fertility preservation. CONCLUSIONS Reproductive health follow-up in children with cancer, including FSH and AMH measurement when indicated, should be established and strictly adhered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sana M Salih
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
| | - Sarah Z Elsarrag
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | | | - Karli Contreras
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | - Radya G Osman
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | - Jens C Eikoff
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | - Diane Puccetti
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Blumenfeld Z, Evron A. Preserving fertility when choosing chemotherapy regimens - the role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2015; 16:1009-20. [PMID: 25826240 DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2015.1031654] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The late effects of cancer treatment have recently gained a worldwide ubiquitous interest among reproductive endocrinologists, oncologists, and all health care providers. Despite many publications on this subject, there are many equivocal issues necessitating summary. The case for and against using GnRH-agonist for fertility preservation is summarized with the rationale that preventing ovarian failure may be better than treating it. AREAS COVERED We searched Medline in the last 10 years using terms: 'fertility preservation', 'female chemotherapy', 'Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues', 'GnRH agonists' 'gonadotoxicity', and 'cancer treatment'. We included mainly publications from the past 7 years, but did not exclude previous, commonly referenced publications. Here, we summarize the various methods available for fertility preservation and minimizing chemotherapy induced gonadotoxicity. EXPERT OPINION Until now, 20 studies (15 retrospective and 5 randomized controlled trial) have reported on 2038 patients treated with GnRH-a in parallel to chemotherapy, showing a significant decrease in premature ovarian failure (POF) rate in survivors versus 8 studies reporting on 509 patients, with negative results. Patients treated with GnRH-a in parallel to chemotherapy preserved their cyclic ovarian function in 91% of cases as compared to 41% of controls, with a pregnancy rate of 19 - 71% in the treated patients. Furthermore, over 10 recent meta-analyses have concluded that GnRH-a are beneficial and may decrease the risk of POF in survivors. Because most of the methods involving ovarian or egg cryopreservation are not yet clinically established and unequivocally successful, these young patients deserve to be informed with all the various modalities to minimize gonadal damage and preserve ovarian function and future fertility. Combining the various modalities for a specific patient may increase the odds of preservation of future fertility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zeev Blumenfeld
- Reproductive Endocrinology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, The Rappaport Faculty of Medicine , 8 Ha'Aliyah St, Haifa, 31096 , Israel +972 4 7772577 ; +972 4 7773243 ; ;
| | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Nass SJ, Beaupin LK, Demark-Wahnefried W, Fasciano K, Ganz PA, Hayes-Lattin B, Hudson MM, Nevidjon B, Oeffinger KC, Rechis R, Richardson LC, Seibel NL, Smith AW. Identifying and addressing the needs of adolescents and young adults with cancer: summary of an Institute of Medicine workshop. Oncologist 2015; 20:186-95. [PMID: 25568146 DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0265] [Citation(s) in RCA: 200] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer is the leading disease-related cause of death in adolescents and young adults (AYAs). This population faces many short- and long-term health and psychosocial consequences of cancer diagnosis and treatment, but many programs for cancer treatment, survivorship care, and psychosocial support do not focus on the specific needs of AYA cancer patients. Recognizing this health care disparity, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the Institute of Medicine convened a public workshop to examine the needs of AYA patients with cancer. Workshop participants identified many gaps and challenges in the care of AYA cancer patients and discussed potential strategies to address these needs. Suggestions included ways to improve access to care for AYAs, to deliver cancer care that better meets the medical and psychosocial needs of AYAs, to develop educational programs for providers who care for AYA cancer survivors, and to enhance the evidence base for AYAs with cancer by facilitating participation in research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharyl J Nass
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Lynda K Beaupin
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Karen Fasciano
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Patricia A Ganz
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Brandon Hayes-Lattin
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Melissa M Hudson
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Brenda Nevidjon
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Kevin C Oeffinger
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Ruth Rechis
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Lisa C Richardson
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Nita L Seibel
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Ashley W Smith
- Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: School of Medicine & Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Oncology Nursing Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; LIVESTRONG Foundation, Austin, Texas, USA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Symptoms: Menopause, Infertility, and Sexual Health. ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 2015; 862:115-41. [PMID: 26059933 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16366-6_9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
By 2022, the number of survivors is expected to grow to nearly 18 million. Therefore, addressing acute and chronic negative sequelae of a cancer diagnosis and its treatments becomes a health imperative. For women with a history of breast cancer, one of the common goals of treatment and prevention of recurrence is to reduce circulating concentrations of estradiol, especially in women with hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Hormone deprivation after a diagnosis of breast cancer impacts physiological targets other than in the breast tissue and can result in unwanted side effects, all of which can negatively impact quality of life and function and cause distress. Symptoms that are most strongly linked by evidence to hormone changes after cancer diagnosis and treatment include hot flashes, night sweats, sleep changes, fatigue, mood changes, and diminishing sexual function, including vaginal atrophy (decreased arousal, dryness and dyspareunia), infertility, decreased desire and negative self-image. Weight gain and resulting body image changes are often concomitants of the abrupt onset of treatment-induced menopause. The purpose of this chapter is to briefly review what is known about the advent of premature menopause in women treated for breast cancer, menopausal symptoms that are exacerbated by endocrine treatments for breast cancer, and the associated concerns of hot flashes and related menopausal symptoms, sexual health and fertility issues. We will discuss limitations in the current research and propose strategies that address current limitations in order to move the science forward.
Collapse
|
48
|
Comizzoli P, Wildt DE. Mammalian fertility preservation through cryobiology: value of classical comparative studies and the need for new preservation options. Reprod Fertil Dev 2014; 26:91-8. [PMID: 24305181 DOI: 10.1071/rd13259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Human-related fertility preservation strategies have enormous potential for helping sustain and protect other species, especially to assist managing or 'rescuing' the genomes of genetically valuable individuals, including endangered species. However, wider-scale applications are limited by significant physiological variations among species, as well as a lack of fundamental knowledge of basic reproductive traits and cryosensitivity. Systematic and comparative cryopreservation studies (e.g. on membrane biophysical properties and resilience to freezing temperatures) are required to successfully recover gametes and gonadal tissues after thawing and eventually produce healthy offspring. Such data are currently available for humans and a few laboratory and livestock animals, with virtually all other species, including wildlife, having gone unstudied. Interestingly, there also are commonalities among taxa that allow a protocol developed for one species to provide useful information or guidance for another. However, when a rare animal unexpectedly dies there is no time for a prospective understanding of that species' biophysical traits. Because the odds of success will be much lower in such instances, it is essential that more fundamental studies be directed at more species. But also worthwhile is thinking beyond these systematic characterisations to consider the potential of a 'universal preservation protocol' for animal biomaterials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pierre Comizzoli
- Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, PO Box 37012 MRC 5502, Washington, DC 20013, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Blough K, Mansfield C, Kondapalli LA. Seamless integration of clinical care and research in an innovative fertility preservation program: the Colorado Oncofertility Program model. J Cancer Surviv 2014; 8:533-8. [PMID: 24806262 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-014-0362-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2014] [Accepted: 04/06/2014] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to describe a model of care for fertility preservation (FP) that integrates clinical care and research through the establishment of the Colorado Oncofertility Program's (COP) patient registry. METHODS To integrate research and clinical care, the COP developed a multidisciplinary organizational structure and established a prospective registry of demographic information and clinical data of patients who agree to participate in future studies. RESULTS The patient registry allows for the integration of clinical care and research as well as streamlined data collection. Since the program launch in January 2012, over 285 patients have been evaluated and >95% of approached patients have agreed to participate in the registry. Data collected are used for research, systematic program evaluation, and utilization of services. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS As one of the fastest growing oncofertility programs in the country, there is great potential for the COP's registry to contribute to expanding the limited body of literature on the late effects of cancer treatment on fertility and reproductive health in the adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology population. With the use of web-based bioinformatics, objective data are captured for clinical care, future studies, program evaluation, and quality assurance, without compromising patient autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality or the commitment to personalized care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kiara Blough
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Recent advances and prospects in germplasm preservation of rare and endangered species. ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 2014; 753:331-56. [PMID: 25091916 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0820-2_14] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Fertility preservation strategies using cryopreservation have enormous potential for helping sustain and protect rare and endangered species, especially to assist managing or 'rescuing' the genomes of genetically valuable individuals. However, wide-scale applications are still limited by significant physiological variations among species and a sheer lack of fundamental knowledge about basic reproductive traits as well as in germplasm cryobiology. Cryo-studies have been conducted in more species (mainly vertebrates) in the recent years but a vast majority still remains un-studied. Semen cryopreservation represents the most extensive effort with live births reported in more and more species after artificial insemination. Oocyte freezing remains challenging and unsuccessful in wild species and will require more research before becoming a standard procedure. As an alternative to fully grown gametes, gonadal tissue preservation has become a promising option in vertebrates. Yet, more fertility preservation options are necessary to save species so a change in strategy might be required. It is worthwhile thinking beyond systematic characterizations and considering the application of cutting edge approaches to universally preserve the fertility of a vast array of species.
Collapse
|