A review of factors affecting patient fertility preservation discussions & decision-making from the perspectives of patients and providers

"I wanna know what to expect" - Care needs regarding sexual and reproductive health after cancer in adolescence and young adulthood (AYA) and recommendations for providers

PURPOSE

To assess care needs related to sexual and reproductive health of patients and survivors diagnosed with cancer during adolescence and young adulthood (AYA).

METHODS

Participants (N = 190) were predominantly female (87.4%) and diagnosed with cancer between age 12-39 years. Common diagnoses included breast cancer (37.1%) or leukemia/lymphoma (27.2%). Cancer patients/survivors completed an online survey, which assessed care needs regarding sexual health and fertility/reproductive health. They provided written open answers, which were qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

Care needs related to sexual health varied and included a need for more information about possible effects on sexual health, which will enable patients/survivors to better anticipate (physical and mental) side effects of cancer on sexual health. AYA patients/survivors need support from providers who normalize the topic of sex, who offer guidance in coping with numerous questions, who provide resources and practical tips and tricks, and who refer to specialists if needed. Participants would like providers to initiate conversations and communicate openly and honestly without taboo, bias, or shame. Care needs regarding reproductive health included needing support in navigating reproduction after cancer, while unmet information needs were central. This included needing information about fertility status and assessment options, reproduction/contraceptives, the safety of pregnancies, and the (im)possibility of alternatives to biological parenthood.

CONCLUSION

Communication is key in informing and supporting AYA cancer patients and survivors regarding their sexual and reproductive health. Providers should assess individual patients'/survivors' needs and tailor information that is tangible accordingly. Additional recommendations for healthcare providers are presented.

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge, Attitude and Current Behaviours towards Female Fertility Preservation Services within the UK

(1) Background: This study aims to establish the knowledge, attitudes and current behaviours towards female fertility preservation (FP) services amongst healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the UK. (2) Methods: An online survey was advertised publicly on the social media platform Instagram between 25 February 2021 and 11 March 2021. (3) Results: In total, 415 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the survey. The majority of HCPs discussed FP techniques either never 39.5% (n = 164), once a year 20.7% (n = 86) or once a month 17.8% (n = 74). The majority rated their knowledge of each type of FP method as 'very poor' or 'poor' and strongly disagreed 14.2% (n = 59) or disagreed 42.2% (n = 175) with the statement they 'felt confident to counsel a patient on FP'. The majority either agreed 37.8% (n = 157) or strongly agreed 22.2% (n = 92) that it was their responsibility to discuss FP and 38.1% (n = 158) agreed or strongly agreed 19.5% (n = 81) they considered the desire for future fertility when planning treatment. The majority 87.2% (n = 362) had not experienced formal training on FP. (4) Conclusions: Discrepancies in knowledge remain regarding techniques of FP, referral pathways, awareness of facilities offering services and existing educational resources. Many HCPs recognise the importance of FP and their responsibility to initiate discussions. The knowledge that FP may not delay the treatment of cancer has also improved; however, training in FP is scarce.

Pre-treatment fertility preservation and post-treatment reproduction in long-term survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer

PURPOSE

To describe recall of fertility-related consultations and cryopreservation and to examine reproductive goals and reproduction post-treatment in long-term survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) (age, 18-39 years) cancer.

METHODS

This study included n = 1457 male and n = 2112 female long-term survivors (Mage = 43-45 years; 5-22 years from diagnosis) who provided self-report. Clinical data were supplied by the Netherlands Cancer Registry.

RESULTS

Most male survivors (72.7%) recalled fertility-related consultations and 22.6% completed sperm cryopreservation. Younger age (OR = 2.8; 95%CI [2.2-3.6]), not having children (OR = 5.0; 95%CI [3.2-7.7]), testicular cancer or lymphoma/leukemia (OR = 2.8/2.5 relative to "others"), and more intense treatments (OR = 1.5; 95%CI [1.1-2.0]) were associated with higher cryopreservation rates. Time since diagnosis had no effect. Of men who cryopreserved, 12.1% utilized assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Most men (88.5%) felt their diagnosis did not affect their reproductive goals, but 7.6% wanted no (additional) children due to cancer. Half of female survivors (55.4%; n = 1171) recalled fertility-related consultations. Rates of cryopreservation were very low (3.6%), but increased after 2013 when oocyte cryopreservation became non-experimental. Of women who cryopreserved, 13.2% successfully utilized ART. Most women (74.8%) experienced no effects of cancer on reproductive goals, but 17.8% wanted no (additional) children due to cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Cryopreservation in men varied by patient/clinical factors and was very low in women, but data of more recently treated females are needed. Utilizing cryopreserved material through ART was rare, which questions its cost-effectiveness, but it may enhance survivors' well-being.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The extent to which cryopreservation positively affects survivors' well-being remains to be tested. Moreover, effects of cancer on reproductive goals require further attention, especially in women who refrain from having children due to cancer.

Fertility preserving techniques in neuro-oncology patients: A systematic review

Background

Advancements in cancer treatments have enhanced survival rates and quality of life for patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors. There is growing recognition of the significance of fertility preservation methods. Currently, techniques, including oocyte cryopreservation and sperm cryopreservation are established. Nevertheless, oncologists may exhibit reluctance when referring patients to reproductive specialists. This review aimed to assess the best evidence for fertility preservation techniques used in patients with CNS cancers and evaluate outcomes relating to their success and complications.

Methods

Two reviewers performed a search of Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Papers were included if they reported at least 1 fertility preservation technique in a neuro-oncology patient. Non-English studies, editorials, animal studies, and guidelines were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model.

Results

Sixteen studies containing data from 237 participants (78.8% female) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, of whom 110 (46.4%) underwent fertility preservation techniques. All patients (100%) successfully underwent fertility preservation with 1 participant (2.9%) returning to rewarm their oocytes, embryos or sperm. On average, 17.8 oocytes were retrieved with 78%, ultimately being cryopreserved. Five (6.0%) patients successfully conceived 9 healthy-term children after utilizing their cryopreserved sperm, embryos, or oocytes. Moreover, 6 patients successfully conceived naturally or using intrauterine insemination, resulting in 7 healthy-term children.

Conclusions

Fertility preservation techniques could offer a safe and effective way for neuro-oncology patients to deliver healthy-term babies following treatment. However, further studies concerning risks, long-term pregnancy outcomes, and cost-effectiveness are needed.

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient Experiences in Fertility Preservation: A Systematic Review of the Literature on Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) with Cancer

With better survival rates for patients diagnosed with cancer, more attention has been focused on future risks, like fertility decline due to gonadotoxic treatment. In this regard, the emphasis during counselling regarding possible preservation options is often on the treatment itself, meaning that the medical and emotional needs of patients regarding counselling, treatment, and future fertility are often overlooked. This review focuses on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient experiences regarding fertility preservation (FP)-among adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. A systematic review of the literature, with a systematic search of online databases, was performed, resulting in 61 selected articles. A quality assessment was performed by a mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). Based on this search, three important topics emerged: initiating discussion about the risk of fertility decline, acknowledging the importance of future fertility, and recognizing the need for more verbal and written patient-specific information. In addition, patients value follow-up care and the opportunity to rediscuss FP and their concerns about future fertility and use of stored material. A clear FP healthcare pathway can prevent delays in receiving a referral to a fertility specialist to discuss FP options and initiating FP treatment. This patient-centered approach will optimize FP experiences and help to establish a process to achieve long-term follow up after FP treatment.

The Usage of Cryopreserved Reproductive Material in Cancer Patients Undergoing Fertility Preservation Procedures

BACKGROUND

Many cancer treatment methods can affect fertility by damaging the reproductive organs and glands that control fertility. Changes can be temporary or permanent. In order to preserve the fertility of cancer patients and protect the genital organs against gonadotoxicity, methods of fertility preservation are increasingly used. Considering that some patients ultimately decide not to use cryopreserved reproductive material, this review analysed the percentage of post-cancer patients using cryopreserved reproductive material, collected before treatment as part of fertility preservation.

METHODS

A systematic search of studies was carried out in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, based on a previously prepared research protocol. The search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID), and the Cochrane Library. In addition, a manual search was performed for recommendations/clinical practice guidelines regarding fertility preservation in cancer patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included in the review discussed the results of cryopreservation of oocytes, embryos, ovarian tissue, and semen. In 10 studies, the usage rate of cryopreserved semen ranged from 2.6% to 21.5%. In the case of cryopreserved female reproductive material, the return/usage rate ranged from 3.1% to 8.7% for oocytes, approx. 9% to 22.4% for embryos, and 6.9% to 30.3% for ovarian tissue. In studies analysing patients' decisions about unused reproductive material, continuation of material storage was most often indicated. Recovering fertility or death of the patient were the main reasons for rejecting cryopreserved semen in the case of men.

CONCLUSION

Fertility preservation before gonadotoxic treatment is widely recommended and increasingly used in cancer patients. The usage rate is an important indicator for monitoring the efficacy of these methods. In all of the methods described in the literature, this indicator did not exceed 31%. It is necessary to create legal and organizational solutions regulating material collection and storage and to create clear paths for its usage in the future, including by other recipients.

The Impact of Cancer-Related Financial Toxicity on Reproductive Concerns and Family-Building Decision-Making in Post-Treatment Survivorship

Purpose: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors are at-risk for cancer-related financial difficulties (i.e., financial toxicity [FT]). Family building after cancer often requires reproductive medicine or adoption with high costs; AYAs experience financial barriers to family building. This study evaluated the relationships among cancer FT, reproductive concerns, and decision-making processes about family building after cancer. Methods: AYA female (AYA-F) cancer survivors completed a cross-sectional survey including measures of FT, reproductive concerns, decisional conflict about family building, and decision-making self-efficacy. Differences across FT subgroups (i.e., no/mild, moderate, and severe FT) were tested. Linear regression evaluated the relationships between FT and reproductive concerns and decision-making processes. Results: Participants (N = 111) averaged 31.0 years (standard deviation [SD] = 5.49), 90% were nulliparous, and 84% were employed full/part-time. The overall FT levels were in the "moderate" range (M = 20.44, SD = 9.83); 48% worried quite a bit or very much about financial problems because of cancer. AYA-Fs reporting severe FT (24% of sample) experienced higher levels of reproductive concerns compared with those reporting no/mild and moderate FT. Those reporting moderate FT (46% of sample) reported greater decisional conflict about family-building options, compared with the no/mild FT subgroup. Both moderate and severe FT subgroups reported lower decision-making self-efficacy compared with the no/mild FT subgroup. In separate models controlling for covariates, greater FT related to higher levels of reproductive concerns (B = -0.39, p < 0.001), greater decisional conflict about family building (B = -0.56, p = 0.02), and lower decision-making self-efficacy (B = 0.60, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Given the high costs of reproductive medicine and adoption, fertility counseling pre- and post-treatment must address survivors' financial concerns and barriers.

Long term pregnancy outcomes of women with cancer following fertility preservation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

As cancer survivorship increases, there is higher uptake of fertility preservation treatments among affected women. However, there is limited evidence on the subsequent use of preserved material and pregnancy outcomes in women who underwent fertility preservation (FP) before cancer treatments. We aimed to systematically review the long-term reproductive and pregnancy outcomes in this cohort of women.

PATIENTS

Women who underwent any type of the following FP treatments: embryo cryopreservation (EC), oocyte cryopreservation (OC) and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC)) before any planned cancer treatment.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and HTA) from inception until May 2021 for all observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We extracted data on reproductive and pregnancy outcomes in duplicate and assessed the risk of bias in included studies using the ROBINS-I tool. We pooled data using a random-effects model and reported using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary outcome was live birth rate and other important reproductive and pregnancy outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 5405 citations, we screened 103 and included 26 observational studies (n = 7061 women). Hematologic malignancy was the commonest cause for seeking FP treatments, followed by breast and gynecology cancers. Twelve studies reported on OTC (12/26, 46 %), eight included EC (8/26, 30 %), and twelve reported on OC (12/26, 46 %). The cumulative live birth rate following any FP treatment was 0.046 (95 %CI 0.029-0.066). Only 8 % of women returned to use their frozen reproductive material (558/7037, 8.0 %), resulting in 210 live births in total, including assisted conceptions following EC/OC/OTC and natural conceptions following OTC. The odds for live birth was OR 0.38 (95 %CI 0.29-0.48 I² 83.7 %). The odds for live birth was the highest among women who had EC (OR 0.45, 95 %CI 0.14-0.76, I² 95.1 %), followed by the OTC group (OR 0.37, 95 %CI 0.22-0.53, I² 88.7 %) and OC group (OR 0.31, 95 %CI 0.15-0.47, I² 78.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Fertility preservation treatments offered good long-term reproductive outcomes for women with cancer with a high chance to achieve a live birth. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term pregnancy and offspring outcomes in this cohort.

Fertility-related information received by young women and men with cancer - a population-based survey

BACKGROUND

Infertility is a well-known sequela of cancer treatment. Despite guidelines recommending early discussions about risk of fertility impairment and fertility preservation options, not all patients of reproductive age receive such information.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate young adult cancer patients' receipt of fertility-related information and use of fertility preservation, and to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with receipt of information.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A population-based cross-sectional survey study was conducted with 1010 young adults with cancer in Sweden (response rate 67%). The inclusion criteria were: a previous diagnosis of breast cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, brain tumor, lymphoma or testicular cancer between 2016 and 2017, at an age between 18 and 39 years. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A majority of men (81%) and women (78%) reported having received information about the potential impact of cancer/treatment on their fertility. A higher percentage of men than women reported being informed about fertility preservation (84% men vs. 40% women, p < .001) and using gamete or gonadal cryopreservation (71% men vs. 15% women, p < .001). Patients with brain tumors and patients without a pretreatment desire for children were less likely to report being informed about potential impact on their fertility and about fertility preservation. In addition, being born outside Sweden was negatively associated with reported receipt of information about impact of cancer treatment on fertility. Among women, older age (>35 years), non-heterosexuality and being a parent were additional factors negatively associated with reported receipt of information about fertility preservation.

CONCLUSION

There is room for improvement in the equal provision of information about fertility issues to young adult cancer patients.

Attitudes and practices about fertility preservation discussions among young adults with cancer treated at a comprehensive cancer center: patient and oncologist perspectives

BACKGROUND

Young adults (YAs, ages 18-39) diagnosed with cancer face multiple challenges that affect their health-related quality of life, including the potential for cancer-related infertility. Providing information about the risk of infertility and options to maintain fertility is critical for YAs who are newly diagnosed. However, barriers to effective communication exist for oncologists and their patients. The purpose of this study was to interview medical oncologists and YAs from the same cancer center to examine attitudes and practices about fertility preservation.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with medical oncologists (N=12) and YAs within 2 years post-treatment (N=24), representing the most common cancers affecting YAs. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using qualitative methodologies with the analysis software NVivo 10.

RESULTS

Twelve oncologists (50% female, 67% <50 years) and 24 YAs (67% female, M=29 years) completed interviews. Common themes across oncologist and YA interviews were the roles of cancer type or stage and patient interest or parity in influencing the decision. The most important factor for YAs was to receive accurate, in-depth information. Unique themes for oncologists focused on clinical aspects of their patient's disease. For YAs, they shared about the emotional impact of cancer-related infertility and desire for support from trusted others.

CONCLUSIONS

Results provide a better understanding of the attitudes and practices about fertility preservation discussions among YAs. Given the common factors affecting fertility preservation decisions, models of shared decision-making may be ideal for YAs and oncologists. Future interventions should explore tailored applications of this approach for YAs newly diagnosed with cancer.

Communication and ethical considerations for fertility preservation for patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer: recommendations from the PanCareLIFE Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group

Patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who will be treated with gonadotoxic therapies are at increased risk for infertility. Many patients and their families desire biological children but effective communication about treatment-related infertility risk and procedures for fertility preservation does not always happen. The PanCareLIFE Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group reviewed the literature and developed a clinical practice guideline that provides recommendations for ongoing communication methods for fertility preservation for patients who were diagnosed with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer at age 25 years or younger and their families. Moreover, the guideline panel formulated considerations of the ethical implications that are associated with these procedures. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to grade the evidence and recommendations. In this clinical practice guideline, existing evidence and international expertise are combined to develop transparent recommendations that are easy to use to facilitate ongoing communication between health-care providers and patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who might be at high risk for fertility impairment and their families.

Ovarian Stimulation Is Safe and Effective for Patients with Gynecologic Cancer

Purpose: To compare long-term outcomes of gynecologic cancer patients who pursued controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for fertility preservation (FP) with those who did not. Methods: Retrospective cohort, COH, and health outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients; data were analyzed by chi-square test, t-tests, and logistic regression. Results: Ninety patients with a gynecologic malignancy contacted the FP patient navigator: 45.6% (n = 41) had ovarian cancer, 25.6% (n = 23) endometrial cancer, 18.9% (n = 17) cervical cancer, 5.6% (n = 5) uterine cancer, and 4.4% (n = 4) multiple gynecologic cancers. From this cohort, 32 underwent COH, 43 did not, and 18 pursued ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC; 3 patients had both COH and OTC). Median age and type of cancer were not significantly different between the groups. COH patients had a range of 1-35 oocytes retrieved. Days to next cancer treatment in the COH group was 36 days; for those who declined COH, it was 22 days (not significant [NS], p > 0.05). There were two recurrences reported in the stimulation group and four in the no stimulation group (NS). Five deaths were reported, two in the stimulation group, none in the no stimulation group, and three in the OTC group (NS); 34% (n = 11) COH patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, of which 45% (n = 5) had a live birth. Conclusion: Although time to next treatment was longer in the group of patients who underwent COH, this did not reach statistical significance. It appears that in selected patients with GYN malignancies, COH for oocyte or embryo cryopreservation is safe, with reasonable stimulation outcomes and no difference in long-term outcomes.

Patient and caregiver perceptions of lymphoma care and research opportunities: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Although the number of lymphoma survivors has increased, the needs and research priorities of survivors and their caregivers rarely are examined and addressed. Determining the needs and priorities for this population requires an assessment of the attitudes and experiences of patients and caregivers. The authors conducted a qualitative study with lymphoma survivors and their caregivers to determine care needs and research priorities.

METHODS

In the first phase, 2 semistructured focus groups were conducted with 15 lymphoma survivors and their caregivers. In phase 2, a total of 19 individual semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with lymphoma survivors and their caregivers. In both phases, participants discussed cancer experiences and research priorities. All interviews were transcribed. MAXQDA software (version 18.0.8) was used for coding and identifying themes.

RESULTS

The majority of participants felt disconnected from their clinical care team due to a lack of communication. Focus group participants noted a lack of information regarding diagnoses, treatment, research, and survivorship care. Participants coped with fear through strong social support and fostering relationships with their clinical care teams. Some caregivers felt completely ignored by clinicians. Participants expressed interest in research, but had difficulty finding relevant studies. Several interviewees desired holistic and survivorship-oriented research and more studies regarding quality of life and mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study identified unmet needs in clinical care and patient-oriented research, including needs for a focus on quality of life after treatment, communication between patients and the scientific community, and emotional well-being. Health care professionals can use these data to provide care delivery, supportive services, and research that meets the needs of lymphoma survivors and their caregivers.

Clinicians' Perspectives on Barriers to Discussing Infertility and Fertility Preservation With Young Women With Cancer

Importance

Infertility can be a devastating adverse effect of cancer treatment for young women. Fertility preservation may be an important and influential factor in treatment decisions. Despite American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommending discussion around potential infertility with patients, nearly 50% of young women with cancer remain uninformed.

Objective

To understand and describe from clinicians' perspectives the barriers to discussing infertility and fertility preservation with young women with cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study used purposeful, maximum variation, and snowball sampling strategies to recruit 22 clinicians from cancer centers and community hospitals in 5 Canadian provinces, 5 practice areas, and 12 practice sites. Eligibility criteria included clinicians who regularly treat young women with cancer who might need fertility preservation. Telephone interviews that lasted between 30 to 75 minutes were conducted between May and November 2014 using a semistructured interview guide. Thematic analysis was used to discern the nature of barriers, and the Cabana framework was used to organize and interpret these findings. Analysis was conducted from May 2014 until May 2015.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinician perspectives on what influences their nonadherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, which recommend discussing fertility preservation with patients.

Results

A total of 22 clinicians were interviewed, including 8 medical oncologists, 4 surgical oncologists, 4 fertility specialists, 3 hematology and oncology specialists, and 3 nurse practitioners or clinician nurse specialists. Seventeen clinicians were women and 5 clinicians were men; the median (range) time in practice was 10 (0.67-37) years. Analysis suggested that clinicians' unfamiliarity with infertility risks, fertility preservation technologies, referral processes, and procedures, as well as environmental factors and their perceptions of fertility preservation, influenced their practices regarding fertility discussions.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this qualitative study suggest that the individual and environmental challenges that clinicians experience might negatively affect their willingness and ability to raise fertility-related issues with young women with cancer. Multiple strategies are needed to address these challenges to improve overall care of young women with cancer.

The "Begin Exploring Fertility Options, Risks and Expectations" (BEFORE) decision aid: development and alpha testing of a fertility tool for premenopausal breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Premenopausal breast cancer patients are at risk of treatment-related infertility. Many patients do not receive sufficient fertility information before treatment. As such, our team developed and alpha tested the Begin Exploring Fertility Options, Risks, and Expectations decision aid (BEFORE DA).

METHODS

The BEFORE DA development process was guided by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Our team used integrated knowledge translation by collaborating with multiple stakeholders throughout the development process including breast cancer survivors, multi-disciplinary health care providers (HCPs), advocates, and cancer organization representatives. Based on previously conducted literature reviews and a needs assessment by our team - we developed a paper prototype. The paper prototype was finalized at an engagement meeting with stakeholders and created into a graphically designed paper and mirrored online decision aid. Alpha testing was conducted with new and previously engaged stakeholders through a questionnaire, telephone interviews, or focus group. Iterative reviews followed each step in the development process to ensure a wide range of stakeholder input.

RESULTS

Our team developed an 18-page paper prototype containing information deemed valuable by stakeholders for fertility decision-making. The engagement meeting brought together 28 stakeholders to finalize the prototype. Alpha testing of the paper and online BEFORE DA occurred with 17 participants. Participants found the BEFORE DA usable, acceptable, and most provided enthusiastic support for its use with premenopausal breast cancer patients facing a fertility decision. Participants also identified areas for improvement including clarifying content/messages and modifying the design/photos. The final BEFORE DA is a 32-page paper and mirrored online decision aid ( https://fertilityaid.rethinkbreastcancer.com ). The BEFORE DA includes information on fertility, fertility options before/after treatment, values clarification, question list, next steps, glossary and reference list, and tailored information on the cost of fertility preservation and additional resources by geographic location.

CONCLUSION

The BEFORE DA, designed in collaboration with stakeholders, is a new tool for premenopausal breast cancer patients and HCPs to assist with fertility discussions and decision-making. The BEFORE DA helps to fill the information gap as it is a tool that HCPs can refer patients to for supplementary information surrounding fertility.

Fertility counseling and preservation discussions for females with Turner syndrome in pediatric centers: practice patterns and predictors

OBJECTIVE

To examine fertility counseling and fertility preservation (FP) referrals for young women with Turner syndrome (TS) at pediatric centers and identify possible associations with patient demographic and medical characteristics.

DESIGN

Retrospective medical record review.

SETTING

Pediatric academic medical centers.

PATIENT(S)

Four hundred and sixty-nine young women with TS (mean age = 14 years, standard deviation 8.5 years; 77% white) who received care between March 2013 and March 2018.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Standardized form to abstract demographics, medical (karyotype; menarchal status; developmental, neuropsychological, and psychological concerns), and treatment characteristics (duration of care, receipt of multidisciplinary care, documentation of fertility/pregnancy counseling, FP specialist referrals) from medical records.

RESULT(S)

We found that 67% of families had documented fertility counseling, although only 27% of charts documented counseling with patients specifically. Only 10% of patients were referred to a FP specialist; 59% of patients with spontaneous menarche had no referral. Pregnancy risk counseling was documented in 38% of charts. In multivariate analyses, families were more likely to receive counseling if the patients had multidisciplinary care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.82). Greater duration of care (AOR 1.16); mosaic (AOR 47.94), complex (AOR 14.59), or partial deletions karyotypes (AOR 35.69); spontaneous menarche (AOR 4.65); and multidisciplinary care (AOR 4.02) had increased odds of FP specialist referrals. Patients with developmental concerns (AOR 0.08) had decreased odds of referrals.

CONCLUSION(S)

Fertility and pregnancy counseling are not routinely documented among patients with TS, and even patients with a limited window of reproductive potential were infrequently referred to FP specialists. Patients seen in multidisciplinary clinics were more likely to receive recommended counseling.