A minority of women of childbearing potential are tested for pregnancy before chemoimmunotherapy: an Australian cancer centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is potentially harmful to a developing foetus, and there are limited data on the foetal impact of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). Therefore, determining pregnancy status prior to initiation of CIT should be standard of care. AIMS: To determine how many women of childbearing age are tested for pregnancy prior to immunochemotherapy administration. METHODS: A retrospective chart review at a large Australian metropolitan cancer referral centre, including 304 women aged 18-51 years with a diagnosis of cancer receiving outpatient-based CIT between 1 May 2015 and 12 June 2020. We assessed the uptake of pregnancy screening and contraception counselling prior to and during first-line CIT. RESULTS: Only 17.3% of CIT cycles (n = 416) screened patients for pregnancy no more than 90 days prior to administration, and the median time between pregnancy screening and treatment was approximately 3 weeks. One patient with early breast cancer had a spontaneous miscarriage estimated at 3-4 weeks' gestation, and neither the patient nor the treating oncologist was aware of this event. This was also the only patient who had a pregnancy test beyond the first cycle of CIT during their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight a concerningly low rate of pregnancy screening in women of childbearing age receiving CIT. The implication of missing a positive pregnancy test in this group of women could result in foetal complications, accidental miscarriage, potential bleeding risks and avoidable psychosocial stress. This highlights the urgent need for guidelines to mandate pregnancy testing in women of childbearing age receiving CIT and evidence-based implementation tools.

Immunochemotherapy for life-threatening haematological malignancies in pregnancy: a systematic review of the literature and cross-sectional analysis of clinical trial eligibility.

The management of potentially life-threatening malignancies in pregnancy is complicated by a lack of robust safety and efficacy evidence. This data shortage stems from a historical exclusion of women of childbearing potential from prospective clinical trials due to concerns around potential teratogenicity and toxicity of investigational agents. We conducted a systematic review of published data on immunochemotherapeutic treatment of life-threatening haematological malignancies in pregnancy between 2010 and 2022, and the maternal and neonatal outcomes. We then performed a cross-sectional observational study of clinical trial protocols on ClinicalTrials.gov, between 2016 and 2022, recruiting women of childbearing potential with potentially life-threatening haematological malignancies, collecting trial demographic data, and documenting whether pregnant or lactating women were explicitly excluded, along with the type and duration of contraception required for women of childbearing potential. We included 17 studies for analysis in our systematic review. A total of 595 women were treated with immunochemotherapy during pregnancy, with a median age of 29 years (range 14-48). Of these, 81 women (14%) were treated in the first trimester, and 514 (86%) were treated in the second and third trimesters collectively. In total, 68 trials for acute myeloid leukaemia, acute lymphocytic leukaemia, high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma (40%, 26%, 21%, and 13%, respectively) were included in our ClinicalTrials.gov analysis. Most protocols (66 [97%]) explicitly excluded pregnant women, with 40 (69%) not providing a rationale for exclusion. The potential harm to the fetus from anti-cancer therapy has historically been given greater moral precedence than a pregnant woman's autonomy. This pattern is reflected in the lack of rigorous evidence for immunochemotherapy in pregnancy and a universal exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from clinical trial protocols in this study. Nonetheless, the administration of systemic chemotherapy in the second and third trimesters was not associated with an increased rate of congenital malformations or perinatal mortality in our systematic review cohort, with maternal outcomes broadly comparable to those of the non-pregnant population.

Rates of Menstrual History-Taking and Counseling With Anticancer Treatments Are Low: People Who Menstruate Deserve Gender-Specific Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy predisposes people who menstruate to abnormal uterine bleeding that can be life-threatening and may also damage ovaries, resulting in premature menopause. The purpose of this study was to explore the incidence of menstrual history documentation and counseling before, during, and after cancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The medical charts of 137 consecutive females (self-reported) aged 18 to 49 years receiving anticancer treatment at a major tertiary metropolitan hospital in Australia between 2017 and 2020 were reviewed. Data collected included primary diagnosis, stage of cancer, treatment(s) received, rates of remission or progression, documentation of involvement of a specialist gynecologist, reproductive history, menstrual disturbances, menstruation counseling or intervention offered, and diagnosis of early ovarian failure. RESULTS: Only 16.1% of patients had their menstrual history documented at the initial consult, and 49.6% had their menstrual history documented at a subsequent consult with their treating oncologist or hematologist. Most (82.4%) patients with a menstrual history documented experienced menstrual disturbance posttreatment, most commonly amenorrhea (48.0%), followed by menopause or menopause symptoms (20.6%), irregular menstrual bleeding (16.7%), menorrhagia (13.7%), dysmenorrhea (3.9%), and iron deficiency from bleeding (2.9%). Menopause/Menopausal symptoms and iron deficiency were more likely to be treated than other disturbances. CONCLUSIONS: Menstruation disturbance is a common side effect of cancer treatment. Menstrual care should be integral to cancer care for people who menstruate, and higher engagement could be achieved through education of medical and allied health staff, information technology systems automating prompts and referral pathways, regular audits to ensure compliance, better alliances between cancer and fertility specialists, and the creation of accessible patient information to promote awareness and facilitate discussion.

Capturing the lived experiences of women with lymphoma in pregnancy: a qualitative study.

Lymphoma in pregnancy is a rare and challenging diagnosis that complicates ∼1:6000 pregnancies; posing a series of unique therapeutic, social, and ethical challenges to the patient, her family, and the medical professionals involved. These difficulties are compounded by the paucity of real-world data on the management of LIP, and a lack of relevant support systems for women in this setting. We conducted a retrospective multicenter qualitative study, interviewing women aged ≥18 years of age diagnosed with Hodgkin (HL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) during pregnancy or within 12 months postpartum, between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2020 from 13 Australasian sites. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted, recorded, and analyzed using QSR Int NVivo 12 Pro (March 2020, USA) to quantify salient themes. Of the 32 women interviewed, 20 (63%) were diagnosed during pregnancy (16, 34, and 13% in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimesters, respectively), while 12 (37%) were diagnosed post-partum. Women recalled that their chief concerns at diagnosis were the welfare of their child (n = 13, 41%) and a fear of dying (n = 9, 28%). Perceived diagnostic delay attributed to pregnancy was reported by 41% of participants. Other key themes were communication, educational materials, psychosocial supports, and oncofertility issues. To our knowledge this is the first report capturing the lived experiences of survivors of lymphoma during pregnancy, affording a unique opportunity to consider the management, psychosocial supports, and delivery of care to meet the needs of these women.What is the NEW aspect of your work? To our knowledge, this is the first report capturing and analyzing the healthcare experiences of survivors of Lymphoma in Pregnancy (LIP).What is the CENTRAL finding of your work? Women valued clear and empathic communication, provision of tailored educational materials, access to psychosocial supports (particularly childcare and financial supports), and timely oncofertility management in their healthcare journey.What is (or could be) the SPECIFIC clinical relevance of your work? Women's personal accounts of positive and negative experiences of LIP care provide insights into their specific concerns and needs which can shape healthcare policy and development of a specific framework for managing and supporting patients with LIP (and other cancers).

Psychosocial impact of testing human papillomavirus positive in Australia's human papillomavirus-based cervical screening program: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of self-reported human papillomavirus (HPV) test result (HPV negative, HPV positive, HPV result unknown) on a range of psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Women and other people with a cervix in Australia aged 25-74 years who reported having participated in cervical screening since December 2017 were recruited through Facebook and Instagram to complete an online survey. The primary outcome measures were anxiety, emotional distress, and general distress. RESULTS: Nine hundred fifteen participants completed the online survey; 73.2% reported testing HPV negative ('HPV-'), 15% reported testing HPV positive ('HPV+') and 11.8% reported that they did not know/remember their test result ('HPV unknown'). Compared to participants testing HPV-, participants testing HPV+ had higher mean anxiety (41.67 vs. 37.08, p < 0.001) and emotional distress scores (11.88 vs. 7.71, p < 0.001). Concern about test result (34.3% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001), perceived risk compared to average women (55.4% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001), and cancer worry (27.8% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001) were also greater among HPV+ participants than participants testing HPV-. Participants testing HPV+ felt less reassured about their screening result than participants testing HPV- (16% vs. 75.1%, p < 0.001). Participants testing HPV+ had greater knowledge of HPV (11.96 vs. 10.36 out of 16, p < 0.001) and HPV testing (3.94 vs 3.28 out of 5, p < 0.001) than participants who reported testing HPV-. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated levels of anxiety and emotional distress were found in those testing HPV+ compared with those testing HPV-. Future research should examine what strategies should be used to deliver test results and what additional information is provided, in order to alleviate anxiety among individuals testing HPV+.