Search

Introduction: Turner syndrome (TS) is associated with a high risk of primary ovarian insufficiency. Current guidelines recommend early fertility counseling for affected youth and their families. This study assessed clinical providers’ (MD, NP, or PA) fertility counseling practices for girls with TS. Methods: TS providers were invited to complete a survey via the Pediatric Endocrine Society listserv. Descriptive statistics summarized variables of interest. Correlations were used to identify associations between barriers/practice characteristics and fertility preservation (FP) referral. Thematic analysis was used to examine qualitative responses. Results: 119 providers completed the survey. Seventy percent reported discussing fertility implications of TS routinely in pediatric care. Fifty-six percent reported often or always referring patients with spontaneous menarche to FP specialists, whereas only 19% reported often or always referring their patients without spontaneous menarche (p < 0.001). Barriers associated with FP referral frequency included unfamiliarity with FP options, belief that FP is not a possible goal for their patients, and absence of a local reproductive endocrinologist. Qualitatively, four referral barrier themes were identified: (1) questionable utility of referral, (2) lack of perceived interest among patients/families, (3) provider barriers (e.g., lack of knowledge), (4) logistical/structural barriers to accessing fertility-related care. Discussion/Conclusion: Pediatric endocrinology providers report inconsistently discussing fertility implications of TS. The frequency of referral to an FP specialist and factors/barriers affecting the decision to refer remain variable. Future research should focus on expanding provider education, addressing barriers to high-quality fertility counseling and referral for patients with TS, and investigating FP outcomes in TS.

Fertility navigators (FNs) are important in communicating infertility risk and fertility preservation (FP) options to patients receiving gonadotoxic therapies. This retrospective study examined electronic medical records of patients with fertility consults at a large pediatric institution (2017-2019), before and after hiring a full-time FN. Of 738 patient encounters, 173 consults were performed pre-navigator and 565 post-navigator. Fertility consults for long-term follow-up cancer survivors increased most substantially: pre-navigator (n = 7) and post-navigator (n = 387). Across diagnoses, females had a larger increase in consults compared to males (χ

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of male childhood cancer survivors experience fertility impairment, which can cause psychological distress. Sperm banking remains underutilized among adolescent males with cancer. Parent recommendation influences banking decisions, yet multi-informant studies have not been conducted to examine fertility preservation (FP) communication and decision-making in this population. This study explored FP-communication among mothers, fathers, and their male adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer. PROCEDURE: Thirty-three male adolescents, 32 mothers, and 22 fathers completed semi-structured interviews one-to-two-months after cancer diagnosis addressing this question: Tell me more about conversations you had about fertility preservation/sperm banking with your health care providers, parents/son, other family members, or anyone else. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Five process themes emerged: (1) reliance on healthcare team and social support networks to facilitate FP decisions (only parents); (2) withholding parental opinion and deferring the decision to the adolescent; (3) ease of communication (primarily adolescents); (4) communication barriers/facilitators; (5) not being present or not remembering details of FP conversations with healthcare providers (primarily fathers and adolescents). Four content themes included: (1) preference for biological (grand)parenthood; (2) consideration of adolescent’s future partner’s desire for biological parenthood (primarily parents); (3) banking while it is a viable option; (4) openness to alternative parenthood options (e.g.,adoption/fostering, primary parents). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding variation in what family members discuss and consider relevant when making FP decisions is an important step towards improving pediatric oncofertility care. Interventions are needed to facilitate family FP-related conversations and optimize decisional satisfaction over time.