A call to action: unified clinical practice guidelines for oncofertility care.

By 2030, WHO estimates that 1.4 million reproductive-aged women will be diagnosed with cancer annually. Fortunately, cancer is no longer considered an incurable disease in many cases. From 2008-2014, 85% of women under the age of 45 years diagnosed with cancer survived. This increase in survival rate has shifted attention from focusing exclusively on preserving life to focusing on preserving quality of life after treatment. One aspect of this is preserving the ability to have a biological family. Oncofertility, the field that bridges oncology and reproductive endocrinology with the goal of preserving fertility, offers these patients hope. Though it is clear that ASCO and ASRM recognize the importance of fertility preservation as an aspect of comprehensive oncology care, there are not yet unified guidelines for oncologists and fertility specialists for treating oncofertility patients. First, we identify the need for reproductive counseling prior to cancer treatment, as many patients report that their fertility preservation concerns are not addressed adequately. We then delineate multi-modal fertility preservation options that are available and appropriate for different patients with corresponding outcomes using different treatments. We discuss the unique challenges and considerations, including ethical dilemmas, for delivering timely and comprehensive care specifically for oncofertility patients. Finally, we address the multidisciplinary team that includes oncologists, reproductive endocrinologists, surgeons as well as their staff, nurses, genetic counselors, mental health professionals, and more. Since oncofertility patient care requires the coordination of both physician teams, one set of unified guidelines will greatly improve quality of care.

Immune Dysregulation in Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Introduction: Neutralizing antibodies have been shown to develop rapidly following SARS-CoV-2 infection, specifically against spike (S) protein, where cytokine release and production is understood to drive the humoral immune response during acute infection. Thus, we evaluated the quantity and function of antibodies across disease severities and analyzed the associated inflammatory and coagulation pathways to identify acute markers that correlate with antibody response following infection. Methods: Blood samples were collected from patients at time of diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing between March 2020-November 2020. Plasma samples were analyzed using the MesoScale Discovery (MSD) Platform using the COVID-19 Serology Kit and U-Plex 8 analyte multiplex plate to measure anti-alpha and beta coronavirus antibody concentration and ACE2 blocking function, as well as plasma cytokines. Results: A total of 230 (181 unique patients) samples were analyzed across the 5 COVID-19 disease severities. We found that antibody quantity directly correlated with functional ability to block virus binding to membrane-bound ACE2, where a lower SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike/anti-RBD response corresponded with a lower antibody blocking potential compared to higher antibody response (anti-S1 r = 0.884, P < 0.001; anti-RBD r = 0.75, P < 0.001). Across all the soluble proinflammatory markers we examined, ICAM, IL-1ß, IL-4, IL-6, TNFα, and Syndecan showed a statistically significant positive correlation between cytokine or epithelial marker and antibody quantity regardless of COVID-19 disease severity. Analysis of autoantibodies against type 1 interferon was not shown to be statistically significant between disease severity groups. Conclusion: Previous studies have shown that proinflammatory markers, including IL-6, IL-8, IL-1ß, and TNFα, are significant predictors of COVID-19 disease severity, regardless of demographics or comorbidities. Our study demonstrated that not only are these proinflammatory markers, as well as IL-4, ICAM, and Syndecan, correlative of disease severity, they are also correlative of antibody quantity and quality following SARS-CoV-2 exposure.