Search

Purpose: Financial concern is a major issue for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients. Furthermore, unaddressed oncofertility challenges (e.g., infertility) are linked to psychological distress and decreased overall quality of life. Little is known about how financial concern in terms of oncofertility (i.e., concern regarding affording fertility preservation [FP] services) impacts AYAs' decision making and experiences. Methods: AYA cancer patients (n = 27) aged 12–25 years whose cancer treatment conferred risk of infertility were recruited through electronic health record query. Participants completed semi-structured interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded for themes related to information needs, knowledge of treatment effects on fertility, and reproductive concerns after cancer. Emergent, inductive themes related to financial concern were identified. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Michigan approved this study (HUM#00157267). Results: Financial concern was a dominant theme across the qualitative data. Emergent themes included (1) varied access to health insurance, (2) presence of parental/guardian support, (3) reliance upon financial aid, (4) negotiating infertility risk, and (5) lack of preparation for long-term costs. AYAs relied heavily upon parents for out-of-pocket and insurance coverage support. Some participants sought financial aid when guided by providers. Several participants indicated that no financial support existed for their circumstance. Conclusions: Financial consequences in terms of oncofertility are a major issue affecting AYA cancer patients. The incidence and gravity of financial concern surrounding affording oncofertility services merits attention in future research (measuring financial resources of AYAs' parental/support networks), clinical practice (strategically addressing short- and long-term costs; tailored psychosocial support), and health care policy (promoting legislation to mandate pre- and post-treatment FP coverage). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) at risk of primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) often request fertility preservation consultation. We report consult/treatment outcomes for 21 cancer survivors and 3 mosaic Turner syndrome (TS) patients (mean age 21.6 at consult, 3 with POI). Ten AYAs (9 survivors, 1 mosaic TS) attempted ovarian stimulation; 4 cancelled for poor response. Of completed cycles, mean 3.8 mature oocytes were retrieved, with mean anti-Müllerian hormone 0.653 ng/mL. Ovarian stimulation for mosaic TS AYA and survivors is possible, even with diminished ovarian reserve. Further study is needed to establish guidelines for patient selection, treatment timing, and stimulation protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]