Female fertility preservation: practical and ethical considerations of an underused procedure

Non-physician's challenges in sexual and reproductive health care provision for women of reproductive age with cancer: a scoping review of barriers and facilitators

PURPOSE

The American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice guidelines recommend that non-physicians such as nurses, social workers, and psychologists should be prepared to discuss fertility and sexual concerns with patients. However, literature showed that the utilization rate of sexual and reproductive care for women with cancer remained low. We conducted a scoping review to describe non-physicians' roles, barriers, and facilitators providing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care to women of reproductive age with cancer.

METHODS

We searched six databases for articles that met the following criteria: (1) English language; (2) original research; (3) non-physician providers; (4) women with cancer under age 50. We categorized barriers and facilitators at the system-, individual-, and clinical encounter-levels from providers' and patients' perspectives.

RESULTS

We included 27 studies from 3451 retrieved articles. The majority of studies have a focus on fertility preservation or sexuality (n = 25). At the system level, the main barriers for non-physicians were lack of SRH care guidelines and collaborating experts. Concerns for patients included socioeconomic and geographic constraints in obtaining care. At the encounter level, providers and patients lacked experience discussing SRH. At the individual level, providers' lack of knowledge in SRH treatment options and interprofessional collaboration and patients' lack of awareness about treatment effects hindered SRH discussions. Facilitators include the availability of SRH programs and specialists, and rapport between providers and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Supporting non-physicians to provide SRH services to women with cancer requires investment in clinical guidelines, interprofessional collaboration, and training in patient communication.

A Systematic Review of Ovarian Tissue Transplantation Outcomes by Ovarian Tissue Processing Size for Cryopreservation

Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) is the only pre-treatment option currently available to preserve fertility for prepubescent girls and patients who cannot undergo ovarian stimulation. Currently, there is no standardized method of processing ovarian tissue for cryopreservation, despite evidence that fragmentation of ovaries may trigger primordial follicle activation. Because fragmentation may influence ovarian transplant function, the purpose of this systematic review was (1) to identify the processing sizes and dimensions of ovarian tissue within sites around the world, and (2) to examine the reported outcomes of ovarian tissue transplantation including, reported duration of hormone restoration, pregnancy, and live birth. A total of 2,252 abstracts were screened against the inclusion criteria. In this systematic review, 103 studies were included for analysis of tissue processing size and 21 studies were included for analysis of ovarian transplantation outcomes. Only studies where ovarian tissue was cryopreserved (via slow freezing or vitrification) and transplanted orthotopically were included in the review. The size of cryopreserved ovarian tissue was categorized based on dimensions into strips, squares, and fragments. Of the 103 studies, 58 fertility preservation sites were identified that processed ovarian tissue into strips (62%), squares (25.8%), or fragments (31%). Ovarian tissue transplantation was performed in 92 participants that had ovarian tissue cryopreserved into strips (n = 51), squares (n = 37), and fragments (n = 4). All participants had ovarian tissue cryopreserved by slow freezing. The pregnancy rate was 81.3%, 45.5%, 66.7% in the strips, squares, fragment groups, respectively. The live birth rate was 56.3%, 18.2%, 66.7% in the strips, squares, fragment groups, respectively. The mean time from ovarian tissue transplantation to ovarian hormone restoration was 3.88 months, 3.56 months, and 3 months in the strips, squares, and fragments groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the time of ovarian function' restoration and the size of ovarian tissue. Transplantation of ovarian tissue, regardless of its processing dimensions, restores ovarian hormone activity in the participants that were reported in the literature. More detailed information about the tissue processing size and outcomes post-transplant are required to identify a preferred or more successful processing method.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk], identifier [CRD42020189120].

Fertility and hormone preservation and restoration for female children and adolescents receiving gonadotoxic cancer treatments: A systematic review

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review by the American Pediatric Surgical Cancer Committee was to summarize evidence from the current medical literature regarding fertility restoration and hormone replacement for female children and adolescents treated with gonadotoxic treatments.

METHODS

Using PRISMA guidelines, questions were addressed by searching Medline, Cochrane, Embase Central and National clearing house databases using relevant search terms. Eligible studies included those that addressed ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC), oocyte harvest, ovarian transposition, and ovarian tissue auto-transplantation for females under the age of 20. Four reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Study outcomes were summarized in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Two thousand two hundred seventy-six studies were identified by database search and manual review and 2185 were eliminated based on defined exclusion criteria. Ninety-one studies served as the basis for the systematic review. There were 1019 patients who underwent OTC with ages ranging from 0.4 to 20.4 years old, with 298 under the age of 13. Twenty patients aged 13-20 years old underwent successful oocyte harvest. Thirty-seven children underwent ovarian transposition as a means of fertility preservation. Eighteen patients underwent auto-transplantation of thawed ovarian cortical tissue that was harvested before the age of 21 years resulting in 10 live births.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically accepted and experimental fertility preservation options such as OTC, oocyte cryopreservation, and ovarian transposition are available to females aged 20 years and younger who are at risk for premature ovarian insufficiency and infertility due to gonadotoxic treatments. There is a large cohort of pediatric-aged patients, with a wide variety of diagnoses and treatments, who have undergone fertility preservation. Currently, fertility and hormone restoration experience for patients who were 20- years of age or younger at the time of fertility preservation remains limited.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Use of fertility preservation services in female reproductive-aged cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to determine the rates and predictors of fertility preservation services among reproductive-aged women with common cancers in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

We used the MarketScan database to identify women 18-45 years of age with lung, breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer who underwent surgery and chemotherapy from 2009 through 2016. Services from 3 months before to 3 months after chemotherapy for evaluation for fertility preservation, laboratory testing for fertility evaluation, and fertility-preserving procedures were captured. Multivariable models were used to assess the factors associated with the use of fertility-preservation services.

RESULTS

A total of 18,781 women, including 386 cervical, 1372 colorectal, 246 lung, and 16,777 with breast cancer, were identified. In women 18-35 years old, 11.7% underwent evaluation for fertility preservation, 13.7% underwent laboratory testing, and 6.3% pursued fertility-preserving procedures. The rates of office evaluation, laboratory testing, and performance of procedure were 3.3%, 7.5%, and 1.9 % in women aged 36-40 years and 0.5%, 7.2%, and 0.3% in those aged 41-45 years, respectively. The rate of fertility preservation evaluation rose from 1.0% in 2009 to 5.5% in 2016 (risk ratio, 4.66, 95% confidence interval, 2.38-9.11) while use of fertility-preserving procedures increased from 1.0% to 4.6% (risk ratio, 3.84, 95% confidence interval, 1.94-7.59) during the same time period. In a multivariable model, use of any fertility-preserving interventions were more common in patients with breast cancer (adjusted risk ratio, 2.30, 95% confidence interval, 1.30-4.06), those in the Northeast (adjusted risk ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40), and in younger women (18-35 years) (adjusted risk ratio, 2.59, 95% confidence interval, 2.32-2.89).

CONCLUSION

Although limited by lack of information regarding cancer stage and desire for future fertility, only a small fraction of reproductive-aged female cancer patients receiving chemotherapy are evaluated in a nationwide sample for fertility preservation or undergo fertility-preserving procedures.

A review of reported surgical techniques in fertility preservation for prepubertal and adolescent females facing a fertility threatening diagnosis or treatment

BACKGROUND

Ovarian tissue cryopreservation is increasing as a preferred option for fertility preservation for prepubertal and young adolescent females facing a fertility threatening diagnosis or treatment.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed searches for terms related to ovarian tissue removal for fertility preservation revealed there is no current consensus on operative technique for surgical ovarian cortical tissue removal in adult females. Additionally, there are limited published reports of surgical approach and outcomes in the pediatric population. In total, 22 publications were reviewed for their operative approach, ovarian tissue harvesting techniques, complications and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported operative approaches and techniques for ovarian tissue cryopreservation for pediatric and adolescent patients are variable. Further investigations into operative technique and tissue harvesting that maintains healthy ovarian follicles for transplant will help establish standard technical principles for surgery in pediatric and adolescent females undergoing fertility preservation.

Adolescent oncofertility discussions: Recommendations from a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Increasing cancer incidence and survivorship rates have made late-term effects, such as effects on fertility, a salient issue for adolescent cancer patients. While various barriers make it difficult for health care professionals to discuss oncofertility with adolescents and their parents, there are numerous reasons to hold such discussions, based on professional obligations and the ethical principles of respect for autonomy and beneficence. This systematic literature review presents and critically examines recommendations for adolescent oncofertility discussions.

METHODS

Conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, this systematic literature review includes English, French, and German articles published up until December 31, 2014. Articles were sought via a combination of search terms in four databases.

RESULTS

Eighty of 96 articles included in this review address recommendations for improving adolescent oncofertility discussions. These recommendations deal with how, when, what, and with whom professionals ought to have these discussions, as well as various systemic barriers and ways to address them.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the principles of beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice, we endorse several recommendations for oncofertility discussions with adolescents and their parents, including having a specific professional on the health care team initiate these discussions with all newly diagnosed patients; regularly doing so before, during, and after treatment; allowing adolescents to decide for themselves whom they wish to include in such discussions; employing various forms of communication; obtaining both adolescent assent and parental consent for fertility preservation (FP) procedures, especially at each stage (e.g., procurement and use); properly educating and training professionals to discuss oncofertility; promoting interdisciplinary collaboration; creating and implementing guidelines and policies; and ensuring equity of access to FP.

New Promising Strategies in Oncofertility

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 70,000 adolescent and young adults (AYA) are diagnosed with cancer each year. While advancements in treatment have led to improved prognosis and survival for patients, these same treatments can adversely affect AYA reproductive capacity. Localized treatments such as surgery and radiation therapy may affect fertility by removing or damaging reproductive organs, and systemic therapies such as chemotherapy can be toxic to gonads, (ovaries and testicles), thus affecting fertility and/or endocrine function. This can be traumatic for AYA with cancer as survivors often express desire to have genetic children and report feelings of regret or depression as a result of infertility caused by cancer treatments.

AREAS COVERED

Emerging technologies in the field of assisted reproductive technology offer new promise for preserving the reproductive capacity of AYA cancer patients prior to treatment as well as providing alternatives for survivors. The following review revisits contemporary approaches to fertility preservation as well newly developing technologies.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

There are several advances in ART that hold promise for patients and survivors. However there are challenges that inhibit uptake including poor communication between providers and patients about risks and fertility preservation options; high costs; and lack of insurance coverage for fertility preservation services.

Priorities in Fertility Decisions for Reproductive-Aged Cancer Patients: Fertility Attitudes and Cancer Treatment Study

PURPOSE

The Fertility Attitudes and Cancer Treatment Study (FACTS) aims at better understanding the reasons and priorities of young adult cancer patients making decisions for fertility preservation (FP). Identifying the factors that center around a patient's fertility decisions will support the development of educational tools for providers and improve clinical care to meet patients' reproductive needs.

METHODS

An exploratory qualitative study was conducted of 27 newly diagnosed male and female cancer patients who had presented for an oncofertility consultation. Interviews lasted ∼30 minutes and were transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was conducted to explore the factors driving decisions for future fertility. Themes were grouped to address the following topics: reasons for/against FP, patient priorities, informational needs, support, wellness, and satisfaction with information. Strength of the theme was determined by examining the frequency of a response.

RESULTS

Patients who chose FP versus those who did not choose FP and men versus women proved to be more similar than different in their reasoning, priorities, and informational needs for FP decisions. Patients who chose FP identified a "concern for future fertility" as a top reason to do so and "parenthood" as a top priority. For those who did not choose FP, "cancer treatment" was identified as their top priority. For patients identifying financial barriers, 50% of them were able to overcome this to pursue FP.

CONCLUSIONS

Reproductive-aged patients diagnosed with a new cancer should be referred to a reproductive specialist and provided the opportunity to come to a fertility decision on their own before initiating cancer treatment.

The Role of Oncofertility Clinics in Facilitating Access to Reproductive Specialists

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of the establishment of a dedicated oncofertility clinic on the frequency of patient referrals for fertility preservation (FP) consultation and the time from patient referral to consultation.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all women aged 21 to 44 years with an active cancer diagnosis who were referred for FP consultation from 2011 to 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 6895 female patients eligible for FP were seen at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Cancer Center. Of those eligible, a total of 209 patients were referred for FP consultation with 150 included in the final analysis. Since the establishment of the oncofertility clinic, the mean time to nonemergent consultation with a reproductive endocrinologist decreased by 27%, from 10.4 to 7.6 days (P = .03). Furthermore, the proportion of reproductive-aged females seen at the MGH Cancer Center referred for FP consultation increased from 1.7% to 3.0% (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

A dedicated oncofertility clinic increases physician referrals for FP and decreases the mean time to consultation, improving access to FP consultation for reproductive-aged women with cancer.

Do Patient Characteristics Decide if Young Adult Cancer Patients Undergo Fertility Preservation?

PURPOSE

The Fertility Attitudes and Cancer Treatment Study (FACTS) is a two-phase research initiative aimed to understand factors involved with decision making for future fertility. The FACTS will improve services and utilization of fertility preservation (FP) before cancer treatment. Phase-I examined patient characteristics as associated with FP decision.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 108 reproductive-aged (18-45 years) males and females who received a fertility consultation before cancer treatment from January 1, 2012 to April 30, 2014 was conducted. Chi-square, student's t-test, and logistic regression were conducted to examine associations with FP decision.

RESULTS

The utilization rate of FP following fertility consultation was 49%. Gender was the most significant factor contributing to FP decision; 74% of those who choose FP were male (odds ratio = 12.5; 95% confidence interval 5.1-31.4). Those who opted for FP were more likely to be Caucasian (p = 0.042), have a solid tumor (p = 0.03), and have a shorter time from diagnosis to fertility consultation (29.5 vs. 58.8 days; p = 0.017). Age, relationship, tumor location, treatment plan, and parity were not significant predictors of FP.

CONCLUSIONS

Current perceptions about patient demographics do not predict FP utilization by young adult cancer patients. Providing patients an informed fertility consultation has demonstrated an increase in FP utilization to nearly one-half of patients. Despite gender being a significant factor in choosing FP, the study did not provide reasons as to why. The phase-II study will explore patients' reasons for FP decision in a qualitative design to understand these differences.

Feasibility and effects of a decision aid about fertility preservation

This paper reports on the feasibility and preliminary effects of a decision aid (DA) about female fertility preservation (FP). We conducted a pilot multicentre randomized controlled trial of women with breast cancer aged 18-40 who were randomized to brochures or the DA. Over 18 months, 62 women were eligible, of which 42 were invited by their healthcare provider (74%) to participate in the study. A total of 36 women signed up for participation and 26 (72%) were randomized to brochures (n = 13) or the DA (n = 13). In both groups, many women (87%) read the brochures and eight women used all available brochures. In the intervention group, 7/13 women logged in to the DA. Women who received brochures had slightly less decisional conflict, whereas knowledge improved in both groups. Our results indicate that both brochures about FP and a detailed DA have beneficial effects with regard to knowledge, but the DA seemed to introduce slightly more decisional conflict (DC) than the brochures. Although we encountered challenges with recruitment, our design and measurements seem feasible and the effects of the information materials seem promising, hence justifying conducting a larger study.

A Review of the Oncology Patient's Challenges for Utilizing Fertility Preservation Services

PURPOSE

The American Society of Clinical Oncology issued practice guidelines in 2006 to provide critical information about fertility impact to adolescents and young adults (AYA) at the time of cancer diagnosis. Survivors continue to express concerns about their long-term reproductive health after cancer therapy even as treatment options for fertility preservation evolve. An underutilization of fertility preservation methods by cancer patients continues to persist. A review of the literature cites barriers and challenges that limit fertility information and preservation options for AYA cancer patients.

METHODS

A review of medical literature was conducted to examine current practice for patients receiving fertility information and the barriers to patients receiving fertility preservation services.

RESULTS

A total of 69 publications were included in this review. The review summarizes (1) patient experiences with receiving fertility information and (2) patient desires, barriers, and challenges to utilizing fertility preservation services.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advances in fertility preservation, there are challenges for patients to utilizing fertility preservation services. Barriers include the following: urgency to initiate treatment, inadequate information, clinic time constraints, and perceptions around patients' gender, age, cost, parity, race, relationship, and sociodemographic status influence whether patients receive fertility preservation consultation. Patients report a lack of adequate information to make informed fertility decisions.

The role of in-depth reproductive health counseling in addressing reproductive health concerns in female survivors of nongynecologic cancers

The purpose of this study was to characterize reproductive concerns among female cancer survivors and determine the role of targeted counseling in improving overall reproductive quality of life (QOL). A survey was administered to women from the California Cancer Registry, ages 18-40, with nongynecologic cancers diagnosed from 1993 to 2007, who received fertility-compromising treatments. In total, 356 women completed the survey, which included questions regarding their reproductive health counseling history and the reproductive concerns scale (RCS), a validated reproductive QOL tool. Factors independently associated with higher RCS scores included a desire for children at the time of diagnosis, posttreatment infertility, treatment with chemoradiation or bone marrow transplant, and income less than $100,000 per year at diagnosis. Among the highest reported reproductive concerns were those related to loss of control over one's reproductive future and concerns about the effect of illness on one's future fertility. Across our population and independent of age, in-depth reproductive health counseling prior to cancer treatment was associated with significantly lower RCS scores. Our findings highlight the importance of early counseling and targeting high-risk groups for additional counseling after completion of cancer treatment. This approach may be an effective strategy for optimizing long-term reproductive QOL in this vulnerable population.

Referral for fertility preservation counselling in female cancer patients

STUDY QUESTION

What changes can be detected in fertility preservation (FP) counselling (FPC) over time and what are the determinants associated with the referral of newly diagnosed female cancer patients, aged 0-39 years, to a specialist in reproductive medicine for FPC?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Although the absolute number of patients receiving FPC increased over time, only 9.8% of all potential patients (aged 0-39 years) were referred in 2011 and referral disparities were found with respect to patients' age, cancer diagnosis and healthcare provider-related factors.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Referral rates for FPC prior to the start of gonadotoxic cancer treatment are low. Determinants associated with low referral and referral disparities have been identified in previous studies, although there are only scarce data on referral practices and determinants for FPC referral in settings with reimbursement of FP(C).

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We conducted a retrospective observational and questionnaire study in a Dutch university hospital. Data on all female cancer patients counselled for FP in this centre (2001-2013), as well as all newly diagnosed female cancer patients aged 0-39 years in the region (2009-2011) were collected.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Data were retrieved from medical records (FPC patients), cancer incidences reported by the Dutch Cancer Registry (to calculate referral percentages) and referring professionals (to identify reasons for the current referral behaviour).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In 2011, a total of 9.8% of the patients were referred for FPC. Patients aged 20-29 years or diagnosed with breast cancer or lymphoma were referred more frequently compared with patients under the age of 20 years or patients diagnosed with other malignancies. The absolute numbers of patients receiving FPC increased over time. Healthcare provider-related determinants for low referral were not starting a discussion about fertility-related issues, not knowing where to refer a patient for FPC and not collaborating with patients' associations.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Actual referral rates may slightly differ from our estimation as there may have been patients who did not wish to receive FPC. Sporadically, patients might have been directly referred to other regions or may have received ovarian transposition without FPC. By excluding skin cancer patients, we will have underestimated the group of women who are eligible for FPC as this group also includes melanoma patients who might have received gonadotoxic therapy.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The low referral rates and referral disparities reported in the current study indicate that there are opportunities to improve referral practices. Future research should focus on the implementation and evaluation of interventions to improve referral practices, such as information materials for patients at oncology departments, discussion prompts or methods to increase the awareness of physicians and patients of FP techniques and guidelines.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This work was supported by the Radboud university medical center and the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest with respect to this work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Use of Titanium Spiral Tacks for Long-term Oophoropexy Before Pelvic Irradiation

Background

Ovarian transposition before planned pelvic irradiation can preserve ovarian function in young patients with pelvic malignancies. The transposed ovaries are fixed to the posterolateral abdominal wall. We described the use of a titanium spiral tack as a fixation device and compared it with other methods of oophoropexy.

Methods

Medical and surgical records of all consecutive patients who underwent oophoropexy in our institution between 2007 and 2013 were reviewed. Demographic and clinical data were summarized; follicle-stimulating hormone values, recorded; and imaging scans, reviewed.

Results

Oophoropexy was performed in 30 patients: 28 with cervical carcinomas and 2 with pelvic sarcomas. The procedure was done through laparoscopy in 13 patients and through laparotomy in 17. Titanium spiral tack was used for ovarian fixation in 14 patients, Vicryl suturing in 14, and in 2 cases the ovaries were pulled up through a retroperitoneal tunnel and fixed to the peritoneum with sutures. Titanium spiral tack fixation took a few seconds to perform. There were no immediate intraoperative or postoperative complications. Ovarian function was preserved in 15 patients (7/14 with spiral tack, 6/14 with sutures, and in both patients with retroperitoneal tunneling). Postoperative imaging results showed that all ovaries retained their extrapelvic location for a median period of 11.6 months (range, 2.3–63 months).

Conclusions

Spiral tack is a simple, reliable method for oophoropexy before pelvic irradiation. Its efficacy is comparable with that of suture fixation, with the added advantage of ultrashort operative time. It is therefore worth considering as an alternative to suturing.

Sexual dysfunction and infertility as late effects of cancer treatment

Sexual dysfunction is a common consequence of cancer treatment, affecting at least half of men and women treated for pelvic malignancies and over a quarter of people with other types of cancer. Problems are usually linked to damage to nerves, blood vessels, and hormones that underlie normal sexual function. Sexual dysfunction also may be associated with depression, anxiety, relationship conflict, and loss of self-esteem. Innovations in cancer treatment such as robotic surgery or more targeted radiation therapy have not had the anticipated result of reducing sexual dysfunction. Some new and effective cancer treatments, including aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer or chemoradiation for anal cancer also have very severe sexual morbidity. Cancer-related infertility is an issue for younger patients, who comprise a much smaller percentage of total cancer survivors. However, the long-term emotional impact of being unable to have a child after cancer can be extremely distressing. Advances in knowledge about how cancer treatments may damage fertility, as well as newer techniques to preserve fertility, offer hope to patients who have not completed their childbearing at cancer diagnosis. Unfortunately, surveys in industrialised nations confirm that many cancer patients are still not informed about potential changes to their sexual function or fertility, and all modalities of fertility preservation remain underutilised. After cancer treatment, many patients continue to have unmet needs for information about restoring sexual function or becoming a parent. Although more research is needed on optimal clinical practice, current studies suggest a multidisciplinary approach, including both medical and psychosocial treatment options.

Development of a Decision Aid about fertility preservation for women with breast cancer in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

To improve information provision about fertility preservation for breast cancer patients in the Netherlands, a web-based Decision Aid (DA) with additional values clarification exercise was developed according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria. This study reports on development of the DA.

METHODS

Development consisted of four stages: (I) development of a draft DA, (II) acceptability of the draft DA to patients, (III) understanding (knowledge) in healthy populations, (IV) acceptability of the revised DA among patients and physicians. The study population consisted of 185 participants: 20 patients, 17 physicians and 148 healthy volunteers.

RESULTS

The draft DA was considered to be relevant and understandable by patients, physicians and healthy volunteers. The values clarification exercise needed adaptation in explanation and navigation, which was done after stage II. Knowledge scores improved by 18% for lower educated women (from 4.1 (41%) to 5.9 (59%) correct answers), and by 34% for higher educated women after viewing the website (from 3.9 (39%) to 7.3 (73%) correct answers). Design of the DA was evaluated to be clear, but not always very appealing.

CONCLUSIONS

The DA was regarded as a relevant source of information that seemed coherent and understandable.

Oncologists' practice and attitudes regarding fertility preservation in female cancer patients: a pilot study in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess oncologists' practice and attitudes regarding treatment-related infertility and fertility preservation in female cancer patients of reproductive age.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Recruitment letters with a 7-item questionnaire were sent to 454 oncologists.

RESULTS

Two hundred and six of the 454 physicians (45%) responded and 96 questionnaires were used for analysis. The sample included 28 (29%) gynaecologists, 22 (23%) medical oncologists, 19 (20%) surgeons, 16 (17%) radiotherapists and 11 (12%) haematologists. Sixty-two percent of the physicians took action to protect ovarian function before or during gonadotoxic therapy. The most important reason for not offering fertility preservation was "factors concerning the disease". About one-third of the oncologists did not discuss fertility issues. Nearly half of the physicians (43%) would offer fertility preservation options, if they were standardized. High importance was given by almost all physicians (96%) to quality of life in general after gonadotoxic therapy and to the provision of information about fertility preservation options (81%). However, when asked about the importance of infertility after a malignancy, a smaller majority of the physicians (59%) gave it high importance.

CONCLUSION

Most physicians considered infertility to be a major issue to be discussed, and most intended to take action to protect ovarian function before or during gonadotoxic therapy.

Women's experiences with information provision and deciding about fertility preservation in the Netherlands: 'satisfaction in general, but unmet needs'

OBJECTIVE

It is not well-known how women receiving counselling consultation about fertility preservation (FP) in the Netherlands perceive the information provision about and referral for FP in the oncology setting. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore women's experiences with the (process of) information provision about the gonadotoxic effects of cancer treatment and about FP and the decision-making process and to obtain their recommendation for improvements.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with female patients with cancer who had received a counselling consultation on FP (at 18-40 years of age).

RESULTS

Thirty-four interviews were held (response rate 64%). Information provision was considered to be important. Overall, women were satisfied with the timing and the content of the information, but women were less positive about the need to be assertive to get information, and the multiplicity of decisions and actions to be carried out in a very short time frame.

CONCLUSIONS

Information provision on gonadotoxic effects of cancer treatment and about FP was overall deemed sufficient, timely and important. Women recommended standardization of the information provision, improvement of communication among clinicians and medical centres, and availability of FP-specific patient information materials to improve future information provision processes.

A Delphi consensus study among patients and clinicians in the Netherlands on the procedure of informing young breast cancer patients about Fertility Preservation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to obtain feedback from, and reach consensus among different experts who are or have been involved in information provision about FP, regarding the (procedure of) information provision about Fertility Preservation (FP) and use of a web-based decision aid (DA) about FP to create optimal conditions for the implementation of the DA-website, as we prepare to implement a DA about FP in the Netherlands.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A two round Delphi study in which experts (patients and clinicians) rated their (dis)agreement with a list of statements (Rounds 1, 2), and additional online forum to discuss dissensus (Round 3). We assessed opinions about FP, web-based DAs, and about the procedure of informing patients. Answer categories ranged from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Consensus was considered significant when at least 80% of the experts scored either the lowest or the highest two categories.

RESULTS

Experts reached rapid consensus on all five statements about the use of a DA (5/5; 100%), and all eight statements about which patients should be offered information about FP (8/8; 100%). However opinions about FP (4/11 statements; 36%), and procedural aspects such as who should inform the patient (6/10 statements; 60%) and when (3/10 statements; 30%) remained for discussion in round 3. In the online discussion some level of agreement was reached for these statements after all.

CONCLUSION

It was deemed important that FP options exist. Every eligible patient should receive at least some (general) information about FP, soon after diagnosis. Detailed information should be provided by a fertility expert at a later moment. Exact timing and amount of information should be adjusted to patient's needs and situational context. A DA-website can offer a fair contribution to this.

Patient perceptions of reproductive health counseling at the time of cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study of female California cancer survivors

PURPOSE

We sought to determine what women recall about reproductive health risks (RHR) from cancer therapy at the time of cancer diagnosis in order to identify barriers to reproductive health counseling (RHC) and fertility preservation (FP).

METHODS

Data were obtained by surveying 1,041 female cancer survivors from the California Cancer Registry. Inclusion criteria included women age 18-40 with a diagnosis of leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, breast or GI cancer diagnosed between 1993 and 2007. Women were asked to respond to an open-ended question: "what did your doctor tell you about how cancer treatment could affect your ability to get pregnant?" Framework analysis was used to identify themes surrounding patient perceptions of RHC.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 51.8 % (361 out of 697) recalled receiving reproductive health counseling and 12.2 % (85 out of 697) recalled receiving FP counseling. Of the patients, 45.3 % (277 out of 612) reported that uncertain prognosis, risk of recurrence or vertical transmission, age, parity, or uncertain desire may have prevented them from receiving timely and essential information on RHRs. Communication barriers included omission of information, failure to disclose RHRs, and presentation of incorrect information on FP.

DISCUSSION

In a sample of women diagnosed with cancer of reproductive age, almost half did not recall counseling on RHRs and few recalled FP counseling. Communication barriers between physicians and patients regarding fertility may lead to uninformed (reproductive health) RH decisions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Many women may not receive adequate information about RHRs or FP at the time of cancer diagnosis. Advancements in reproductive technology and emerging organizations that cover financial costs of FP have dramatically changed what options women have to preserve their fertility. Routine and thoughtful RHR and FP counseling, as well as collaborative cancer care will help ensure that women diagnosed with cancer are provided with the services and information they need to make an informed choice about their reproductive future.

Racial, socioeconomic, and demographic disparities in access to fertility preservation in young women diagnosed with cancer

BACKGROUND

This study seeks to examine the relation between sociodemographic characteristics and the utilization of fertility preservation services in reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

A total of 1041 women diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 18 and 40 years responded to a retrospective survey on demographic information and reproductive health history. Five cancer types were included: leukemia, Hodgkin disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, breast cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer. Nine hundred eighteen women reported treatment with potential to affect fertility (chemotherapy, pelvic radiation, pelvic surgery, or bone marrow transplant). Student t test, linear regression, and multivariate logistic regression were used where appropriate to determine the relation between sociodemographic characteristics and the odds of using fertility preservation services.

RESULTS

Sixty-one percent of women were counseled on the risk of cancer treatment to fertility by the oncology team. Overall, 4% of women pursued fertility preservation. In multivariate analysis, women who had not attained a bachelor's degree (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.9) were less likely to be counseled. Trends also suggested possible disparities in access to fertility preservation with age older than 35 years (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-1.4) or previous children (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.1) at diagnosis. Disparities in access to fertility preservation based on ethnicity and sexual orientation were also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociodemographic health disparities likely affect access to fertility preservation services. Although awareness of fertility preservation has improved in the past decade, an unmet need remains for reproductive health counseling and fertility preservation in reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer.

Pretreatment fertility counseling and fertility preservation improve quality of life in reproductive age women with cancer

BACKGROUND

The post-treatment quality of life (QOL) impacts of receiving precancer-treatment infertility counseling and of pursuing fertility preservation have not been described in large-scale studies of reproductive age women with cancer.

METHODS

In total, 1041 women who were diagnosed between ages 18 and 40 years responded to a retrospective survey and reported whether they received infertility counseling before cancer treatment and whether they took action to preserve fertility. Five cancer types were included: leukemia, Hodgkin disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, breast cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer. Validated QOL scales were used: the Decision Regret Score, the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), and the brief World Health Organization QOL questionnaire.

RESULTS

Overall, 560 women (61%) who received treatment that potentially could affect fertility were counseled by the oncology team, 45 (5%) were counseled by fertility specialists, and 36 (4%) took action to preserve fertility. Pretreatment infertility counseling by a fertility specialist and an oncologist resulted in lower regret than counseling by an oncologist alone (8.4 vs 11.0; P < .0001). The addition of fertility preservation (6.6 vs 11.0; P < .0001) also was associated with even lower regret scores than counseling by an oncologist alone. Further improvements also were observed in SWLS scores with the addition of fertility specialist counseling (23.0 vs 19.8; P = .09) or preserving fertility (24.0 vs 19.0; P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving specialized counseling about reproductive loss and pursuing fertility preservation is associated with less regret and greater QOL for survivors, yet few patients are exposed to this potential benefit. Women of reproductive age should have expert counseling and should be given the opportunity to make active decisions about preserving fertility.

Underuse of ovarian transposition in reproductive-aged cancer patients treated by primary or adjuvant pelvic irradiation

AIM

To investigate the application status of ovarian transposition (OT) in reproductive-aged cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy.

MATERIAL & METHODS

Between November 1999 and December 2008, 2524 patients had received pelvic irradiation at Seoul National University Hospital. We filtered the patients with the indications of (i) within 12 to 40 years of age, and (ii) receiving primary or adjuvant pelvic irradiation. There were 241 patients within 12 to 40 years of age. After excluding 133 patients with metastatic disease or under palliative radiation treatment, 108 patients were discovered appropriate for OT. We analyzed the application status of OT, surgical types of OT, cancer types and radiation types in those 108 patients.

RESULTS

Cervical cancer was the major indication (n = 68, 62.9%). Another 37.1% of indicated disease were composed of rectal cancer (n = 19), vulvo-vaginal cancer (n = 4), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 3), and other pelvic tumors (n = 14). Among the 108 patients, only 31 (28.7%) patients had received OT before pelvic irradiation. Most of the operations were applied on cervical cancer patients (n = 29) and only two procedures on rectal and endometrial cancer, respectively. OT had been mostly performed during laparotomy. Laparoscopic procedure was applied in only one case with advanced cervical cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Although OT could be a preventive measure of premature ovarian failure from radiation therapy, this procedure has been considerably underused at our institution. This procedure should be applied more widely to preserve the fertility and improve the quality of life in reproductive-aged cancer patients.