Search

Purpose: To characterize how employer coverage of planned oocyte cryopreservation (POC) might impact medical career decision-making. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to all medical students at two large academic programs in December 2022 to better understand attitudes towards childbearing, POC, and how employer coverage of POC might influence future career decisions. Results: Of the 630/1933 (32.6%) medical students who participated, 71.8% identified as women and 28.1% as men. More women (89.2%) than men (75.1%, P < 0.001) felt pressure to delay childbearing. Regarding childbearing, women more than men were concerned about the physical demand of residency (76.5% vs. 50.8%, P < 0.001), stigma in residency hiring practices (41.2% vs. 9.0%, P < 0.001), and parental leave interfering with team dynamics (49.6% vs. 20.9%, P < 0.001). Respondents were more likely to pursue POC if it were covered by residency employer health insurance (60.0% vs. 11.6%, P < 0.001). Women were more likely than men to state that employer-sponsored POC would influence their residency ranking (46.0% vs. 23.7%, P < 0.001), pursuit of additional degrees (50.9% vs. 30.5%, P < 0.001), and pursuit of fellowship training (50.9% vs. 30.5%, P < 0.001). Additionally, 25.4% of women and 19.8% of men felt their choice in medical specialty would be impacted by employer-sponsored POC. Conclusions: Medical students, particularly women, feel pressure to delay childbearing during medical training and are concerned about future fertility. Both male and female students were interested in employer-sponsored POC and more likely to pursue it with financial coverage. Further research is needed to determine the full impact of employer-sponsored POC on medical career decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The main objective of Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part 2 is to learn more about oncofertility practices in optimum resource settings to provide a roadmap to establish oncofertility best practice models. Methods: As an extrapolation for oncofertility best practice models in optimum resource settings, we surveyed 25 leading and well-resourced oncofertility centers and institutions from the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan. The survey included questions on the availability and degree of utilization of fertility preservation options in case of childhood cancer, breast cancer, and blood cancer. Results: All surveyed centers responded to all questions. Responses and their calculated oncofertility scores showed three major characteristics of oncofertility practice in optimum resource settings: (1) strong utilization of sperm freezing, egg freezing, embryo freezing, ovarian tissue freezing, gonadal shielding, and fractionation of chemo- and radiotherapy; (2) promising utilization of GnRH analogs, oophoropexy, testicular tissue freezing, and oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM); and (3) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, in vitro spermatogenesis, and stem cell reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings. Proper technical and ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and experimental oncofertility options to patients. Conclusions: Our Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part 2 proposed installing specific oncofertility programs for common cancers in optimum resource settings as an extrapolation for best practice models. This will provide efficient oncofertility edification and modeling to oncofertility teams and related healthcare providers around the globe and help them offer the best care possible to their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study is to describe the multidisciplinary approach and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) outcomes in adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients (ages 13–21) who underwent oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation (FP). Methods: Multi-site retrospective cohort was performed from 2007 to 2018 at Northwestern University and Michigan University. Data were analyzed by chi-square test, t-test, and logistic regression. Results: Forty-one patients began COH of which 38 patients successfully underwent oocyte retrieval, with mature oocytes obtained and cryopreserved without any adverse outcomes. To treat this group of patients, we use a multidisciplinary approach with a patient navigator. When dividing patients by ages 13–17 vs. 18–21, the median doses of FSH used were 2325 and 2038 IU, the median number of mature oocytes retrieved were 10 and 10, and median number frozen oocytes were 11 and 13, respectively. Median days of stimulation were 10 for both groups. There was no statistical difference in BMI, AMH, peak E2, FSH dosage, days stimulated, total oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes retrieved, and oocytes frozen between the two groups. Three patients were canceled for poor response. Conclusion: COH with oocyte cryopreservation is a feasible FP option for AYAs who may not have other alternatives when appropriate precautions are taken, such as proper counseling and having a support team. These promising outcomes correspond to similar findings of recent small case series, providing hope for these patients to have genetically related offspring in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To explore the attitudes of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) and maternal–fetal medicine (MFM) subspecialists regarding the necessity and appropriateness of body mass index (BMI) cutoffs for women seeking fertility treatment. Methods: Members of the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (SREI) and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM) were invited to participate in a survey querying their knowledge of existing institutional or clinic BMI policies and personal opinions regarding upper and lower BMI cutoffs for a range of fertility treatments, including oral ovulation agents, gonadotropins, and in vitro fertilization. Results: Respondents included 398 MFMs and 201 REIs. The majority of REI and MFM providers agreed with upper limit BMI cutoffs (72.5% vs 68.2%, p = 0.29), but REIs were twice as likely to support lower limit BMI restrictions compared to MFMs (56.2% vs 28.4%, p < 0.0001). Those who supported upper BMI restrictions were more likely to be female and report existing institutional BMI cutoffs. The majority of respondents (99.3%) believed that an official statement to guide clinicians should be issued by a national professional organization. Conclusions: Although practice patterns widely vary, the majority of REIs and MFMs believe that there should be a BMI cutoff above which women should not be offered immediate fertility treatment. Furthermore, there is a reported need for a written statement by a national professional organization to guide clinical practice and to ensure that OB/GYN subspecialists are providing consistent, fair, and safe recommendations to infertile women at the extremes of BMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Fertility preservation (FP) for adolescents prior to potentially gonadotoxic therapies is not accessible for all patients. Current literature acknowledges multiple barriers to FP, but research surrounding disparities for accessing these services is limited. We aimed to identify inequities in receiving FP services among adolescents undergoing gonadotoxic therapy.A retrospective chart review was performed at a single academic medical center for patients aged 0–21 referred for FP counseling prior to gonadotoxic therapy. Exclusions included referral after treatment, prior to gender-affirming therapy, or for fertility discussion due to a genetic condition. Minority patients were defined as non-White race and/or Hispanic ethnicity. Non-minority patients were defined as White, non-Hispanic. Analyses to assess differences in receiving FP based on minority identity and insurance status were performed via logistic regression, with receiving desired care as the outcome variable.Our cohort included 136 patients—38 minority and 98 non-minority. Forty-six (33.8%) patients had Medicaid, which did not differ between minority and non-minority (42.1% vs. 38.8%, P = .73). Most patients (83.1%) had a cancer diagnosis. Similar proportions of minority and non-minority patients had gonadotoxic treatment starting urgently (52.6% vs. 55.1%, P = .80), while more minority than non-minority patients desired FP (89.5% vs .77.5%, P = .10). When controlling for insurance type and age, minority participants were 12.8% less likely to receive desired FP (marginal effect =  − .128, P = .05).This study identified significant inequities for minority populations in accessing FP. Further research is needed to determine how to make FP services more accessible to all patients, regardless of minority status.Methods: Fertility preservation (FP) for adolescents prior to potentially gonadotoxic therapies is not accessible for all patients. Current literature acknowledges multiple barriers to FP, but research surrounding disparities for accessing these services is limited. We aimed to identify inequities in receiving FP services among adolescents undergoing gonadotoxic therapy.A retrospective chart review was performed at a single academic medical center for patients aged 0–21 referred for FP counseling prior to gonadotoxic therapy. Exclusions included referral after treatment, prior to gender-affirming therapy, or for fertility discussion due to a genetic condition. Minority patients were defined as non-White race and/or Hispanic ethnicity. Non-minority patients were defined as White, non-Hispanic. Analyses to assess differences in receiving FP based on minority identity and insurance status were performed via logistic regression, with receiving desired care as the outcome variable.Our cohort included 136 patients—38 minority and 98 non-minority. Forty-six (33.8%) patients had Medicaid, which did not differ between minority and non-minority (42.1% vs. 38.8%, P = .73). Most patients (83.1%) had a cancer diagnosis. Similar proportions of minority and non-minority patients had gonadotoxic treatment starting urgently (52.6% vs. 55.1%, P = .80), while more minority than non-minority patients desired FP (89.5% vs .77.5%, P = .10). When controlling for insurance type and age, minority participants were 12.8% less likely to receive desired FP (marginal effect =  − .128, P = .05).This study identified significant inequities for minority populations in accessing FP. Further research is needed to determine how to make FP services more accessible to all patients, regardless of minority status.Results: Fertility preservation (FP) for adolescents prior to potentially gonadotoxic therapies is not accessible for all patients. Current literature acknowledges multiple barriers to FP, but research surrounding disparities for accessing these services is limited. We aimed to identify inequities in receiving FP services among adolescents undergoing gonadotoxic therapy.A retrospective chart review was performed at a single academic medical center for patients aged 0–21 referred for FP counseling prior to gonadotoxic therapy. Exclusions included referral after treatment, prior to gender-affirming therapy, or for fertility discussion due to a genetic condition. Minority patients were defined as non-White race and/or Hispanic ethnicity. Non-minority patients were defined as White, non-Hispanic. Analyses to assess differences in receiving FP based on minority identity and insurance status were performed via logistic regression, with receiving desired care as the outcome variable.Our cohort included 136 patients—38 minority and 98 non-minority. Forty-six (33.8%) patients had Medicaid, which did not differ between minority and non-minority (42.1% vs. 38.8%, P = .73). Most patients (83.1%) had a cancer diagnosis. Similar proportions of minority and non-minority patients had gonadotoxic treatment starting urgently (52.6% vs. 55.1%, P = .80), while more minority than non-minority patients desired FP (89.5% vs .77.5%, P = .10). When controlling for insurance type and age, minority participants were 12.8% less likely to receive desired FP (marginal effect =  − .128, P = .05).This study identified significant inequities for minority populations in accessing FP. Further research is needed to determine how to make FP services more accessible to all patients, regardless of minority status.Conclusions: Fertility preservation (FP) for adolescents prior to potentially gonadotoxic therapies is not accessible for all patients. Current literature acknowledges multiple barriers to FP, but research surrounding disparities for accessing these services is limited. We aimed to identify inequities in receiving FP services among adolescents undergoing gonadotoxic therapy.A retrospective chart review was performed at a single academic medical center for patients aged 0–21 referred for FP counseling prior to gonadotoxic therapy. Exclusions included referral after treatment, prior to gender-affirming therapy, or for fertility discussion due to a genetic condition. Minority patients were defined as non-White race and/or Hispanic ethnicity. Non-minority patients were defined as White, non-Hispanic. Analyses to assess differences in receiving FP based on minority identity and insurance status were performed via logistic regression, with receiving desired care as the outcome variable.Our cohort included 136 patients—38 minority and 98 non-minority. Forty-six (33.8%) patients had Medicaid, which did not differ between minority and non-minority (42.1% vs. 38.8%, P = .73). Most patients (83.1%) had a cancer diagnosis. Similar proportions of minority and non-minority patients had gonadotoxic treatment starting urgently (52.6% vs. 55.1%, P = .80), while more minority than non-minority patients desired FP (89.5% vs .77.5%, P = .10). When controlling for insurance type and age, minority participants were 12.8% less likely to receive desired FP (marginal effect =  − .128, P = .05).This study identified significant inequities for minority populations in accessing FP. Further research is needed to determine how to make FP services more accessible to all patients, regardless of minority status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]