Fertility Preservation for Adolescents Receiving Cancer Therapies

Current Status of Fertility Preservation in Pediatric Oncology Patients

Cancer poses significant emotional challenges for children and adolescents, despite improvements in survival rates due to new therapies. However, there is growing concern about the long-term effects, including fertility issues. This review examines recent advancements and future directions in fertility preservation within a pediatric population subjected to oncological therapies. Worldwide, there is variability in the availability of fertility preservation methods, influenced by factors like development status and governmental support. The decision to pursue preservation depends on the risk of gonadotoxicity, alongside factors such as diagnosis, treatment, clinical status, and prognosis. Currently, options for preserving fertility in prepubertal boys are limited compared to girls, who increasingly have access to ovarian tissue preservation. Adolescents and adults have more options available, but ethical considerations remain complex and diverse.

Fertility preservation in adult male patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

Does sperm cryopreservation serve as a feasible and effective method for preserving fertility in adult male patients with cancer?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Sperm cryopreservation is an effective fertility preservation method and may benefit patients with cancer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Sperm cryopreservation is the only way to efficiently preserve male fertility. It is an important procedure in ART. Recently, due to remarkable advances in cancer treatment, an increasing number of studies have reported the outcomes of sperm cryopreservation in patients with cancer.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

We conducted an extensive literature search for relevant studies published through to 31 December 2021, in the following databases: CENTRAL, CNKI, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Web of Science. The search terms used were '(cryopreservation OR freeze OR freezing OR banking OR cryostorage OR storage) AND (sperm OR semen OR spermatozoon) AND (cancer OR tumor OR malignancy OR neoplasm)'.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

We included all studies that reported offering or attempting to cryopreserve sperm before or during cancer treatment in male patients considered at risk of treatment-related fertility impairment. We evaluated the eligibility of all data in each study. The major exclusion criteria were as follows: non-cancer patients; pediatric and adolescent cancer patients; not reporting the use of cryopreserved sperm; use of fresh semen for ART; not reporting the number of patients with cancer offered sperm cryopreservation or attempting to do so before or during treatment; using an experimental fertility preservation technique such as preservation of testicular tissue or spermatogonial stem cells; duplicate data; abstracts, case report, comments, reviews, or editorials; insufficient data reported. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This meta-analysis included 69 non-randomized studies, with 32 234 patients referred for sperm analysis and 23 178 patients cryopreserving at least one sperm sample. The pooled failed-to-cryopreserve rate was 10% (95% CI, 8-12%), and the sperm disposal and sperm use rates were 23% (95% CI, 16-30%) and 9% (95% CI, 8-10%), respectively. The pregnancy, miscarriage, and delivery rates were 28% (95% CI, 22-33%), 13% (95% CI, 10-17%), and 20% (95% CI, 15-25%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed higher pregnancy and delivery rates, as well as a lower failed-to-cryopreserve rate, in recent studies compared to those released a decade ago. The studies from Asia reported higher sperm disposal and pregnancy rates than in other continents. Our analysis showed clinical pregnancy rates per cycle of 34% (27-41%), 24% (14-35%), and 9% (5-15%) and delivery rates per cycle of 23% (17-30%), 18% (11-26%), and 5% (1-9%) for ICSI, IVF, and IUI, respectively.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

As with all meta-analyses, some limitations should be considered. The first limitation of our study is that the data span 36 years. During this time, the World Health Organization has revised its sperm analysis standards, and other important changes have been made. There is also a limitation in that the outcome does not analyze the correlation between the type of cancer and sperm quality. Many of the earlier studies were limited by small sample sizes and a lack of control groups. Furthermore, almost all studies did not consider the severity of the disease, which could potentially have a substantial impact on the results. Consequently, further research should evaluate the effect of the type of cancer and, in particular, the severity of the condition on sperm quality in order to draw more precise conclusions. Similarly, it is inappropriate that most studies failed to differentiate between patients with different types of tumors and instead drew generalized conclusions that are presumed to apply to all patients with cancer. In the present analysis, we did not have in-depth information on patients' disease, and although extensive efforts were made to conduct a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes for patients with various types of tumors, the results must be acknowledged as being subject to bias. However, the use of average results obtained in each study, without the patient-level data, might also represent a source of bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Sperm cryopreservation is an effective fertility preservation method and may benefit patients with cancer. The observed utilization rate of frozen sperm at 9% may underestimate the actual usage, as the short follow-up period is inadequate for obtaining comprehensive data on the use of frozen sperm in young cancer survivors. ART plays an important role in fertility preservation and the achievement of pregnancy, with this meta-analysis showing that ICSI delivers better clinical outcomes than IVF or IUI in patients with cancer undergoing fertility preservation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 82001634, 81960550), and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2019M661521). There are no competing interests to declare.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRID 42022314460.

Evaluating fertility preservation interventions for alignment with ASCO Guidelines for reproductive aged women undergoing cancer treatment: a systematic review

PURPOSE

While cancer treatment advancements have increased the number of reproductive-aged women survivors, they can harm reproductive function. Despite national guidelines, oncofertility service uptake remains low. This review explores interventions for fertility preservation alignment with American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines and consideration of a multilevel framework.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed literature from 2006 to 2022 across four databases. Identified interventions were assessed and scored for quality based on CONSORT and TREND statement checklists. Results were synthesized to assess for intervention alignment with ASCO guidelines and four multilevel intervention framework characteristics: targeted levels of influence, conceptual clarity, methodologic pragmatism, and sustainability.

RESULTS

Of 407 articles identified, this review includes nine unique interventions. The average quality score was 7.7 out of 11. No intervention was guided by theory. Per ASCO guidelines, most (n=8) interventions included provider-led discussions of treatment-impaired fertility. Fewer noted discussions on fertility preservation approaches (n=5) and specified discussion timing (n=4). Most (n=8) referred patients to reproductive specialists, and few (n=2) included psychosocial service referrals. Most (n=8) were multilevel, with five targeting three levels of influence. Despite targeting multiple levels, all analyses were conducted at the individual level. Intervention strategies included: educational components (n=5), decision aids (n=2), and nurse navigators (n=2). Five interventions considered stakeholders' views. All interventions were implemented in real-world contexts, and only three discussed sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies key gaps in ASCO guideline-concordant fertility preservation that could be filled by updating and adhering to standardized clinical practice guidelines and considering multilevel implementation frameworks elements.