Search

Once unimaginable, fertility management is now a nationally established part of cancer care in institutions, from academic centers to community hospitals to private practices. Over the last two decades, advances in medicine and reproductive science have made it possible for men, women and children to be connected with an oncofertility specialist or offered fertility preservation soon after a cancer diagnosis. The Oncofertility Consortium's National Physicians Cooperative is a large-scale effort to engage physicians across disciplines - oncology, urology, obstetrics and gynecology, reproductive endocrinology, and behavioral health - in clinical and research activities to enable significant progress in providing fertility preservation options to children and adults. Here, we review the structure and function of the National Physicians Cooperative and identify next steps.

Few studies have examined the distinct reproductive concerns (RC) of men and women in the adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patient population. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore and differentiate the RC of AYAs. Participants completed the Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC) scale and participated in a semistructured interview. Interviews were deductively coded based on an analytic schema derived from the RCAC. After identifying participants through the electronic health record, 27 younger AYAs, ages 12–25, enrolled in the study. Four inductive themes emerged and differed by gender. These include differential temporality, acceptance, and openness to alternatives, partner influence, and parental/guardian influence. AYA men reported fewer RC (M = 49.4, SD = 9.6) compared to AYA women (M = 56.8, SD = 8.4). Oncofertility care providers are advised to account for short- and long-ranging concerns based on AYAs' gender. Future evaluations of patient-reported outcome measures specific to AYA RC are recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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: 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]

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]

Objective: To compare long-term outcomes of cancer patients who pursued fertility preservation (FP) with those who did not and compare random-start (RS) and menstrual cycle-specific (CS) protocols for FP.Design: Retrospective cohort.Setting: Single urban academic institution.Patient(s): Oncology patients who contacted the FP patient navigator, 2005-2015.Intervention(s): None.Main Outcome Measure(s): Time to cancer treatment, disease-free survival, and reproductive outcomes in FP versus no-FP patients and cycle outcomes for RS versus CS protocols. Data were analyzed by χ2 and logistic regression.Result(s): Of 497 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 41% elected FP. The median number of days to cancer treatment was 33 and 19 days in the FP and no-FP groups, respectively. There was no difference in cancer recurrence or mortality. There were no differences in stimulation parameters, outcomes, or days to next cancer treatment in RS versus CS protocols. Twenty-one patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, resulting in 16 live births. Eight of 21 returning patients used a gestational carrier. Thirteen FP (6.4%) and 16 no-FP (5.5%) patients experienced a spontaneous pregnancy.Conclusion(s): FP is both safe and efficacious for eligible cancer patients. Only 10% of patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, and almost half used a gestational carrier, suggesting the need for further research into reproductive decision-making in cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]