Search

Currently, most men with infertility cannot be given an aetiology, which reflects a lack of knowledge around gamete production and how it is affected by genetics and the environment. A failure to recognize the burden of male infertility and its potential as a biomarker for systemic illness exists. The absence of such knowledge results in patients generally being treated as a uniform group, for whom the strategy is to bypass the causality using medically assisted reproduction (MAR) techniques. In doing so, opportunities to prevent co-morbidity are missed and the burden of MAR is shifted to the woman. To advance understanding of men's reproductive health, longitudinal and multi-national centres for data and sample collection are essential. Such programmes must enable an integrated view of the consequences of genetics, epigenetics and environmental factors on fertility and offspring health. Definition and possible amelioration of the consequences of MAR for conceived children are needed. Inherent in this statement is the necessity to promote fertility restoration and/or use the least invasive MAR strategy available. To achieve this aim, protocols must be rigorously tested and the move towards personalized medicine encouraged. Equally, education of the public, governments and clinicians on the frequency and consequences of infertility is needed. Health options, including male contraceptives, must be expanded, and the opportunities encompassed in such investment understood. The pressing questions related to male reproductive health, spanning the spectrum of andrology are identified in the Expert Recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Fertility preservation is an important healthcare focus in the paediatric and adolescent population when gonadotoxic treatments are required. Ovarian stimulation (OS) resulting in oocyte cryopreservation is a well-established fertility preservation option in the adult population. It's utility, however, is little known in young patients. The purpose of this review was to synthesise the available literature on OS in patients ≤18 years old, to identify gaps in current research and provide suggestions for future research directions. METHODS: Using PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed for all relevant full-text articles published in English in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases. The search strategy used a combination of subject headings and generic terms related to the study topic and population. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Characteristics of the studies, objectives and key findings were extracted and summarised in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Database search and manual review identified 922 studies, 899 were eliminated based on defined exclusion criteria. Twenty-three studies were included and comprised 468 participants aged ≤18 years who underwent OS (median 15.2, range 7-18 years old). Only three patients were premenarchal, and four patients were on treatment to suppress puberty. Patients had OS for a broad range of indications including oncology treatment, transgender care and Turner syndrome. A total of 488 cycles of OS were completed, with all but 18 of these cycles (96.3%) successfully resulting in cryopreserved mature oocytes (median 10 oocytes, range 0-35). Fifty-three cycles (9.8%) were cancelled. Complications were rare (<1%). One pregnancy was reported from a female who had OS aged 17 years old. CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates that OS and oocyte cryopreservation is achievable in young

Fingerprints are complex and individually unique patterns in the skin. Established prenatally, the molecular and cellular mechanisms that guide fingerprint ridge formation and their intricate arrangements are unknown. Here we show that fingerprint ridges are epithelial structures that undergo a truncated hair follicle developmental program and fail to recruit a mesenchymal condensate. Their spatial pattern is established by a Turing reaction-diffusion system, based on signaling between EDAR, WNT, and antagonistic BMP pathways. These signals resolve epithelial growth into bands of focalized proliferation under a precociously differentiated suprabasal layer. Ridge formation occurs as a set of waves spreading from variable initiation sites defined by the local signaling environments and anatomical intricacies of the digit, with the propagation and meeting of these waves determining the type of pattern that forms. Relying on a dynamic patterning system triggered at spatially distinct sites generates the characteristic types and unending variation of human fingerprint patterns.

PURPOSE: As a further step to elucidate the actual diverse spectrum of oncofertility practices for breast cancer around the globe, we present and discuss the comparisons of oncofertility practices for breast cancer in limited versus optimum resource settings based on data collected in the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II. METHODS: We surveyed 39 oncofertility centers including 14 in limited resource settings from Africa, Asia & Latin America (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I), and 25 in optimum resource settings from the United States, Europe, Australia and Japan (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part II). Survey questions covered the availability of fertility preservation and restoration options offered to young female patients with breast cancer as well as the degree of utilization. RESULTS: In the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, responses for breast cancer and calculated oncofertility scores showed the following characteristics: (1) higher oncofertility scores in optimum resource settings than in limited resource settings especially for established options, (2) frequent utilization of egg freezing, embryo freezing, ovarian tissue freezing, GnRH analogs, and fractionation of chemo- and radiotherapy, (3) promising utilization of oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM), (4) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, and stem cells reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings, (5) recognition that technical and ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and innovative oncofertility options. CONCLUSIONS: We presented a plausible oncofertility best practice model to guide oncofertility teams in optimizing care for breast cancer patients in various resource settings.

BACKGROUND: Detailed toxicity data are routinely collected in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials. However, ovarian toxicity is infrequently assessed, despite the adverse impacts on fertility and long-term health from treatment-induced ovarian insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To determine the barriers to and facilitators of ovarian toxicity assessment in BC trials of anti-cancer drugs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected stakeholders from multiple countries involved in BC clinical trials (clinicians, consumers, pharmaceutical company representatives, members of drug-regulatory agencies). Participants were asked to describe the perceived benefits and barriers to evaluating ovarian toxicity. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded in NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Saturation of the main themes was reached and the final sample size included 25 participants from 14 countries (9 clinicians, 7 consumers, 5 members of regulatory agencies, 4 pharmaceutical company representatives); half were female. The main reported barrier to ovarian toxicity assessment was that the issue was rarely considered. Reasons included that these data are less important than survival data and are not required for regulatory approval. Overall, most participants believed evaluating the impact of BC treatments on ovarian function is valuable. Suggested strategies to increase ovarian toxicity assessment were to include it in clinical trial design guidelines and stakeholder advocacy. CONCLUSION: Lack of consideration about measuring ovarian toxicity in BC clinical trials that include premenopausal women suggest that guidelines and stronger advocacy from stakeholders, including regulators, would facilitate its more frequent inclusion in future trials, allowing women to make better informed treatment decisions.

STUDY QUESTION: We aim to develop, disseminate and implement a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future male infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Research into male infertility can be challenging to design, conduct and report. Evidence from randomized trials can be difficult to interpret and of limited ability to inform clinical practice for numerous reasons. These may include complex issues, such as variation in outcome measures and outcome reporting bias, as well as failure to consider the perspectives of men and their partners with lived experience of fertility problems. Previously, the Core Outcome Measure for Infertility Trials (COMMIT) initiative, an international consortium of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with fertility problems, has developed a core outcome set for general infertility research. Now, a bespoke core outcome set for male infertility is required to address the unique challenges pertinent to male infertility research. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, scientists, researchers and people with fertility problems, will be invited to participate. Formal consensus science methods will be used, including the modified Delphi method, modified Nominal Group Technique and the National Institutes of Health's consensus development conference. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: An international steering group, including the relevant stakeholders outlined above, has been established to guide the development of this core outcome set. Possible core outcomes will be identified by undertaking a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male factor infertility. These outcomes will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Repeated reflection and re-scoring should promote convergence towards consensus outcomes, which will be prioritized during a consensus development meeting to identify a final core

PURPOSE: Today, male and female adult and pediatric cancer patients, individuals transitioning between gender identities, and other individuals facing health extending but fertility limiting treatments can look forward to a fertile future. This is, in part, due to the work of members associated with the Oncofertility Consortium. METHODS: The Oncofertility Consortium is an international, interdisciplinary initiative originally designed to explore the urgent unmet need associated with the reproductive future of cancer survivors. As the strategies for fertility management were invented, developed or applied, the individuals for who the program offered hope, similarly expanded. As a community of practice, Consortium participants share information in an open and rapid manner to addresses the complex health care and quality-of-life issues of cancer, transgender and other patients. To ensure that the organization remains contemporary to the needs of the community, the field designed a fully inclusive mechanism for strategic planning and here present the findings of this process. RESULTS: This interprofessional network of medical specialists, scientists, and scholars in the law, medical ethics, religious studies and other disciplines associated with human interventions, explore the relationships between health, disease, survivorship, treatment, gender and reproductive longevity. CONCLUSION: The goals are to continually integrate the best science in the service of the needs of patients and build a community of care that is ready for the challenges of the field in the future.

Female patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer are at increased risk for fertility impairment when treatment adversely affects the function of reproductive organs. Patients and their families desire biological children but substantial variations in clinical practice guidelines reduce consistent and timely implementation of effective interventions for fertility preservation across institutions. As part of the PanCareLIFE Consortium, and in collaboration with the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group, we reviewed the current literature and developed a clinical practice guideline for fertility preservation in female patients who were diagnosed with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer at age 25 years or younger, including guidance on risk assessment and available methods for fertility preservation. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to grade the available evidence and to form the recommendations. This clinical practice guideline leverages existing evidence and international expertise to develop transparent recommendations that are easy to use to facilitate the care of female patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who are at high risk for fertility impairment. A complete review of the existing evidence, including a quality assessment, transparent reporting of the guideline panel's decisions, and achievement of global interdisciplinary consensus, is an important result of this intensive collaboration.

Male infertility is a global health issue; yet to a large extent, our knowledge of its causes, impact and consequence is largely unknown. Recent data indicate that infertile men have an increased risk of somatic disorders such as cancer and die younger compared to fertile men. Moreover, several studies point to a significant adverse effect on the health of the offspring. From the startling lack of progress in male contraception combined with the paucity of improvements in the diagnosis of male infertility, we conclude there is a crisis in male reproductive health. The Male Reproductive Health Initiative has been organized to directly address these issues (www.eshre.eu/Specialty-groups/Special-Interest-Groups/Andrology/MRHI). The Working Group will formulate an evidence-based strategic road map outlining the ways forward. This is an open consortium desiring to engage with all stakeholders and governments.

Female childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes related to their cancer- or treatment-associated sequelae. Optimal care for childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors can be facilitated by clinical practice guidelines that identify specific adverse pregnancy outcomes and the clinical characteristics of at-risk subgroups. However, national guidelines are scarce and vary in content. Here, the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group offers recommendations for the counseling and surveillance of obstetrical risks of childhood, adolescent, and young adult survivors. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE database (through PubMed) to identify all available evidence published between January 1990 and December 2018. Published articles on pregnancy and perinatal or congenital risks in female cancer survivors were screened for eligibility. Study designs with a sample size larger than 40 pregnancies in childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors (diagnosed before the age of 25 years, not pregnant at that time) were eligible. This guideline from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group systematically appraised the quality of available evidence for adverse obstetrical outcomes in childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology and formulated recommendations to enhance evidence-based obstetrical care and preconception counseling of female childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors. Healthcare providers should discuss the risk of adverse obstetrical outcomes based on cancer treatment exposures with all female childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors of reproductive age, before conception. Healthcare providers should be aware that there is no evidence to support an increased risk of giving b

Fertility preservation in the cancer setting, known as oncofertility, is a field that requires cross-disciplinary interaction between physicians, basic scientists, clinical researchers, ethicists, lawyers, educators, and religious leaders. Funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Oncofertility Consortium (OC) was formed to be a scientifically grounded, transparent, and altruistic resource, both intellectual and monetary, for building this new field of practice capable of addressing the unique needs of young patients with cancer. The OC has expanded its attention to include other nonmalignant conditions that can threaten fertility, and the work of the OC now extends around the globe, involving partners who together have created a community of shared effort, resources, and practices. The OC creates materials that are translated, disseminated, and amended by all participants in the field, and local programs of excellence have developed worldwide to accelerate the pace and improve the quality of oncofertility research and practice. Here we review the global oncofertility programs and the capacity building activities that strengthen these research and clinical programs, ultimately improving patient care.

INTRODUCTION: As cancer treatments may impact on fertility, a high priority for young patients with breast cancer is access to evidence-based, personalised information for them and their healthcare providers to guide treatment and fertility-related decisions prior to cancer treatment. Current tools to predict fertility outcomes after breast cancer treatments are imprecise and do not offer individualised prediction. To address the gap, we are developing a novel personalised infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for premenopausal patients with breast cancer that considers current reproductive status, planned chemotherapy and adjuvant endocrine therapy to determine likely post-treatment infertility. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of implementing this FoRECAsT tool into clinical practice by exploring the barriers and facilitators of its use among patients and healthcare providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional exploratory study is being conducted using semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with 15-20 participants each from the following groups: (1) premenopausal patients with breast cancer younger than 40, diagnosed within last 5 years, (2) breast surgeons, (3) breast medical oncologists, (4) breast care nurses (5) fertility specialists and (6) fertility preservation nurses. Patients with breast cancer are being recruited from the joint Breast Service of three affiliated institutions of Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia-Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital, and clinicians are being recruited from across Australia. Interviews are being audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and imported into qualitative data analysis software to facilitate data management and analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee, Australia (HREC number: 2017.163). Confidentiality and privacy are maintain

PURPOSE: In the accompanying article, "Analysis of Fertility Preservation Options Available to Patients With Cancer Around the Globe," we showed that specific fertility preservation services may not be offered at various sites around the world because of cultural and legal barriers. We assessed global and regional experiences as well as the legal status of third-party reproduction and adoption to serve as a comprehensive international data set and resource for groups that wish to begin oncofertility interventions. METHODS: We provide data on the legalities of third-party assisted reproductive technologies and other family-building options in the 28 oncofertility-practicing countries surveyed. RESULTS: We found regional and country differences that will be important in the development of tailored resources for physicians and for patient brochures that are sensitive to these local restrictions and cultural norms. CONCLUSION: Because many patients first consult Web-based materials, the formal assessment of the availability of these options provides members of the global oncofertility community with data to which they might otherwise not have ready access to better serve their patients.

Background: Despite international evidence about fertility preservation (FP), several barriers still prevent the implementation of equitable FP practice. Currently, oncofertility competencies do not exist. The aim of this study was to develop an oncofertility competency framework that defines the key components of oncofertility care, develops a model for prioritizing service development, and defines the roles that health care professionals (HCPs) play. Materials and Method: A quantitative modified Delphi methodology was used to conduct two rounds of an electronic survey, querying and synthesizing opinions about statements regarding oncofertility care with HCPs and patient and family advocacy groups (PFAs) from 16 countries (12 high and 4 middle income). Statements included the roles of HCPs and priorities for service development care across ten domains (communication, oncofertility decision aids, age-appropriate care, referral pathways, documentation, oncofertility training, reproductive survivorship care and fertility-related psychosocial support, supportive care, and ethical frameworks) that represent 33 different elements of care. Results: The first questionnaire was completed by 457 participants (332 HCPs and 125 PFAs). One hundred and thirty-eight participants completed the second questionnaire (122 HCPs and 16 PFAs). Consensus was agreed on 108 oncofertility competencies and the roles HCPs should play in oncofertility care. A three-tier service development model is proposed, with gradual implementation of different components of care. A total of 92.8% of the 108 agreed competencies also had agreement between high and middle income participants. Conclusion: FP guidelines establish best practice but do not consider the skills and requirements to implement these guidelines. The competency framework gives HCPs and services a structure for the training of HCPs and implementation of care, as well as defining a model for prioritizing oncofertility service development

© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. BACKGROUND: Fertility preservation (FP) is an important quality of life issue for cancer survivors of reproductive age. Despite the existence of broad international guidelines, the delivery of oncofertility care, particularly amongst paediatric, adolescent and young adult patients, remains a challenge for healthcare professionals (HCPs). The quality of oncofertility care is variable and the uptake and utilization of FP remains low. Available guidelines fall short in providing adequate detail on how oncofertility models of care (MOC) allow for the real-world application of guidelines by HCPs. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the components of oncofertility care as defined by patient and clinician representatives, and identify the barriers, facilitators and challenges, so as to improve the implementation of oncofertility services. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic scoping review was conducted on oncofertility MOC literature published in English between 2007 and 2016, relating to 10 domains of care identified through consumer research: communication, oncofertility decision aids, age-appropriate care, referral pathways, documentation, training, supportive care during treatment, reproductive care after cancer treatment, psychosocial support and ethical practice of oncofertility care. A wide range of electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, AEIPT, Education Research Complete, ProQuest and VOCED) were searched in order to synthesize the evidence around delivery of oncofertility care. Related citations and reference lists were searched. The review was undertaken following registration (International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42017055837) and guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRI

Purpose Oncofertility focuses on providing fertility and endocrine-sparing options to patients who undergo life-preserving but gonadotoxic cancer treatment. The resources needed to meet patient demand often are fragmented along disciplinary lines. We quantify assets and gaps in oncofertility care on a global scale. Methods Survey-based questionnaires were provided to 191 members of the Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network, a National Institutes of Health–funded organization. Responses were analyzed to measure trends and regional subtleties about patient oncofertility experiences and to analyze barriers to care at sites that provide oncofertility services. Results Sixty-three responses were received (response rate, 25%), and 40 were analyzed from oncofertility centers in 28 countries. Thirty of 40 survey results (75%) showed that formal referral processes and psychological care are provided to patients at the majority of sites. Fourteen of 23 respondents (61%) stated that some fertility preservation services are not offered because of cultural and legal barriers. The growth of oncofertility and its capacity to improve the lives of cancer survivors around the globe relies on concentrated efforts to increase awareness, promote collaboration, share best practices, and advocate for research funding. Conclusion This survey reveals global and regional successes and challenges and provides insight into what is needed to advance the field and make the discussion of fertility preservation and endocrine health a standard component of the cancer treatment plan. As the field of oncofertility continues to develop around the globe, regular assessment of both international and regional barriers to quality care must continue to guide process improvements.

BACKGROUND:Fertility preservation (FP) is an important quality of life issue for cancer survivors of reproductive age. Despite the existence of broad international guidelines, the delivery of oncofertility care, particularly amongst paediatric, adolescent and young adult patients, remains a challenge for healthcare professionals (HCPs). The quality of oncofertility care is variable and the uptake and utilization of FP remains low. Available guidelines fall short in providing adequate detail on how oncofertility models of care (MOC) allow for the real-world application of guidelines by HCPs.OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE:The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the components of oncofertility care as defined by patient and clinician representatives, and identify the barriers, facilitators and challenges, so as to improve the implementation of oncofertility services.SEARCH METHODS:A systematic scoping review was conducted on oncofertility MOC literature published in English between 2007 and 2016, relating to 10 domains of care identified through consumer research: communication, oncofertility decision aids, age-appropriate care, referral pathways, documentation, training, supportive care during treatment, reproductive care after cancer treatment, psychosocial support and ethical practice of oncofertility care. A wide range of electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, AEIPT, Education Research Complete, ProQuest and VOCED) were searched in order to synthesize the evidence around delivery of oncofertility care. Related citations and reference lists were searched. The review was undertaken following registration (International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42017055837) and guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).OUTCOMES:A total of 846 potentially relevant studies were identified after the removal of duplicates. All titles and abstra

Background: Fertility preservation (FP) is an important quality of life issue for cancer survivors of reproductive age. Despite the existence of broad international guidelines, the delivery of oncofertility care remains a challenge for healthcare professionals (HCPs), particularly amongst paediatric, adolescent and young adult patients. The quality of oncofertility care is variable and the uptake and utilisation of FP remains low. Available guidelines fall short in providing adequate detail on how oncofertility models of care allow for the real-world application of guidelines by HCPs. Objective and rationale: To systematically review the literature on the components of oncofertility care as defined by patient and clinician representatives, and identify the barriers, facilitators and challenges so as to improve the implementation of oncofertility services. Search methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted on oncofertility models of care (MOC) literature published in English between 2007-2016, relating to ten domains of care identified through consumer research (communication, oncofertility decision aids, age appropriate care, referral pathways, documentation, training, supportive care during treatment, reproductive care after cancer treatment, psychosocial support and ethical practice of oncofertility care). A wide range of electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, AEIPT, Education Research Complete, ProQuest and VOCED) were searched in order to synthesise the evidence around delivery of oncofertility care. Related citations and reference lists were searched. The review was undertaken following registration (International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42017055837) and guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).Outcomes: A total of 846 potentially relevant studies were identified after the removal of duplicates. All titles and abstracts were scre

INTRODUCTION: The increasing survival of girls and young women after cancer has led to a rapid growth in research into assessment of ovarian function after treatment. AREAS COVERED: This aim of this review is to discuss normal ovarian function over time, the impact of cancer treatment on ovarian function, the assessment of ovarian reserve after treatment, and pretreatment predictors of ovarian recovery. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Ovarian function damage after chemotherapy and radiotherapy will impact on fertility and reproductive lifespan, but with great variability. Age at menopause has implications for the duration of estrogen deficiency, with its own adverse health consequences. This has led to identification of the key treatment and patient factors at the time of treatment, notably age and ovarian reserve that impact on post-treatment ovarian function. However, most studies have used outcome measures such as ongoing menses, or biomarkers such as anti-mullerian hormone (AMH), with few reporting on fertility or age at menopause.

PURPOSE: Oncofertility focuses on providing fertility and endocrine-sparing options to patients who undergo life-preserving but gonadotoxic cancer treatment. The resources needed to meet patient demand often are fragmented along disciplinary lines. We quantify assets and gaps in oncofertility care on a global scale. METHODS: Survey-based questionnaires were provided to 191 members of the Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network, a National Institutes of Health-funded organization. Responses were analyzed to measure trends and regional subtleties about patient oncofertility experiences and to analyze barriers to care at sites that provide oncofertility services. RESULTS: Sixty-three responses were received (response rate, 25%), and 40 were analyzed from oncofertility centers in 28 countries. Thirty of 40 survey results (75%) showed that formal referral processes and psychological care are provided to patients at the majority of sites. Fourteen of 23 respondents (61%) stated that some fertility preservation services are not offered because of cultural and legal barriers. The growth of oncofertility and its capacity to improve the lives of cancer survivors around the globe relies on concentrated efforts to increase awareness, promote collaboration, share best practices, and advocate for research funding. CONCLUSION: This survey reveals global and regional successes and challenges and provides insight into what is needed to advance the field and make the discussion of fertility preservation and endocrine health a standard component of the cancer treatment plan. As the field of oncofertility continues to develop around the globe, regular assessment of both international and regional barriers to quality care must continue to guide process improvements.

STUDY QUESTION: Do women with ITALIC! BRCA1 or ITALIC! BRCA2 mutations have reduced ovarian reserve, as measured by circulating anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentration? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women with a germline mutation in ITALIC! BRCA1 have reduced ovarian reserve as measured by AMH. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The DNA repair enzymes encoded by ITALIC! BRCA1 and ITALIC! BRCA2 are implicated in reproductive aging. Circulating AMH is a biomarker of ovarian reserve and hence reproductive lifespan. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a cross-sectional study of AMH concentrations of 693 women at the time of enrolment into the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for research in the Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab) cohort study (recruitment from 19 August 1997 until 18 September 2012). AMH was measured on stored plasma samples between November 2014 and January 2015 using an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay platform. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible women were from families segregating ITALIC! BRCA1 or ITALIC! BRCA2 mutations and had known mutation status. Participants were aged 25-45 years, had no personal history of cancer, retained both ovaries and were not pregnant or breastfeeding at the time of plasma storage. Circulating AMH was measured for 172 carriers and 216 non-carriers from families carrying ITALIC! BRCA1 mutations, and 147 carriers and 158 non-carriers from families carrying ITALIC! BRCA2 mutations. Associations between plasma AMH concentration and carrier status were tested by linear regression, adjusted for age at plasma storage, oral contraceptive use, body mass index and cigarette smoking. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Mean AMH concentration was negatively associated with age ( ITALIC! P < 0.001). Mutation carriers were younger at blood draw than non-carriers ( ITALIC! P ≤ 0.031). ITALIC! BRCA1 mutation carriers had, on average, 25% (95% CI: 5%-41%, ITALIC! P = 0.02) lower AMH concentrations than non-carriers and were more l

Fertility preservation in the cancer setting, known as oncofertility, is a field that requires cross-disciplinary interaction between physicians, basic scientists, clinical researchers, ethicists, lawyers, educators, and religious leaders. Funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Oncofertility Consortium (OC) was formed to be a scientifically grounded, transparent, and altruistic resource, both intellectual and monetary, for building this new field of practice capable of addressing the unique needs of young patients with cancer. The OC has expanded its attention to include other nonmalignant conditions that can threaten fertility, and the work of the OC now extends around the globe, involving partners who together have created a community of shared effort, resources, and practices. The OC creates materials that are translated, disseminated, and amended by all participants in the field, and local programs of excellence have developed worldwide to accelerate the pace and improve the quality of oncofertility research and practice. Here we review the global oncofertility programs and the capacity building activities that strengthen these research and clinical programs, ultimately improving patient care.