RESUMEN
These NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management discuss the identification and treatment of psychosocial problems in patients with cancer. All patients experience some level of distress associated with a cancer diagnosis and the effects of the disease and its treatment regardless of the stage of disease. Clinically significant levels of distress occur in a subset of patients, and identification and treatment of distress are of utmost importance. The NCCN Distress Management Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe updates to the NCCN Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List, and to the treatment algorithms for patients with trauma- and stressor-related disorders.
RESUMEN
Purpose: A complication of cancer-directed therapy that often goes undiscussed is infertility. Although guidelines recommend addressing the possibility of infertility and fertility preservation approaches before initiating treatment, an internal review at our institution showed only 49% of female patients had infertility risk counseling documented. As a result, a fertility assessment communication was added into all oncology treatment plans to improve rates of fertility discussion and documentation. Methods: This retrospective observational study included newly diagnosed patients of childbearing potential who initiated cancer-directed therapy between January 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021. Patients who were no longer of childbearing potential due to age or surgery were excluded. Patients were divided into pre- and post-implementation groups to assess the impact of the fertility assessment communication implemented on November 1, 2020. Results: A total of 152 patients met inclusion criteria, with 80 patients in the pre-implementation group and 72 patients in the post-implementation group. The primary outcome of documentation of infertility risk discussion was 47.5% in the pre-implementation group and 86.1% in the post-implementation group (p < 0.0001). Discussion of fertility preservation options was documented in 28.7% of the pre-implementation group and 43.1% in the post-implementation group (p = 0.13). In the pre-implementation group, 5% underwent fertility preservation versus 27.8% in the post-implementation group (p = 0.0001). Of the 27 patients who received fertility preservation, 13 received hormonal therapy, 11 sperm banking, and 3 egg harvesting. Conclusion: This intervention significantly increased rates of infertility risk discussion and fertility preservation approaches received. There are opportunities to help patients receive fertility preservation, especially sperm banking and egg harvesting.