Real-world anticancer medications for reproductive-age women with breast cancer by using a claims database in Japan.

Aim: To describe real-world breast cancer medications among reproductive-age women. Patients & methods: Using data from a Japanese claims database, anticancer prescriptions were classified into seven categories of amenorrhea risk based on fertility preservation guidelines. Results: We identified 2999 women with records of breast cancer and anticancer prescription from 2005 to 2018. The proportions of prescriptions were as follows: high, 4.1-12.9%; intermediate: 6.0-16.3%; low: 0.4-2.3%; very low/no: 0.3-12.2%; unknown: 33.9-45.5%; unlisted combination: 12.2-23.4%; and unlisted drug: 12.5-26.7%. The common drugs in the unknown category were trastuzumab (n = 1527), docetaxel (n = 1014), and paclitaxel (n = 995). For medications unlisted in the guidelines, various drugs and drug combinations were observed. Conclusion: Numerous anticancer drugs are currently being prescribed with insufficient evidence regarding amenorrhea risk.

Lay abstract The ability to have children for breast cancer patients is one of the key issues of cancer survivorship, especially because recent progress in anticancer treatments has enabled patients to achieve longer survival. The fertility preservation guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2006) introduce some anticancer treatments that carry potential risks to future fertility. In this study, the anticancer prescriptions of 2999 patients with breast cancer aged between 15 and 49 years were examined. Results showed that several medications are prescribed despite the lack of information on the risk of infertility. This suggests that further research is required to fill the evidence gap, and that decision aid through adequate counseling should be undertaken.

Planned oocyte cryopreservation (Planned OC): systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-efficiency and patients' perspective.

BACKGROUND: Advances in vitrification techniques have enabled planned oocyte cryopreservation ('Planned OC'). OBJECTIVES: To explore the cost-efficiency and utilisation of planned OC, as well as patients' perspectives on the process. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database and PsychINFO, for all relevant studies published between January 2007 and December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: The protocol followed PRISMA guidelines in PECO format, and was registered with PROSPERO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers evaluated all manuscripts for inclusion eligibility. Authors were contacted for missing data. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and for heterogeneity. Weighted effects were measured and plotted. MAIN RESULTS: The search yielded 12 545 records, of which 43 were included. Planned OC is cost-efficient at 35, assuming 60% utilisation; and at 37 assuming utilising donor sperm when necessary. At 38 it is cost-efficient to defer planned OC in favour of undergoing 2 IVF cycles. Currently, utilisation of banked-oocytes within 22-58 months, is up to 15%. Nine percent of warmed banked oocytes result in life births. Online resources and treating physicians are equally important sources of information regarding planned OC. Most patients think planned OC is ideal before age 35 and are not fully aware of what the process entails and tend to overestimate the success rates. The main barrier to wider endorsement of planned OC is being wary of potential health implications or of limited success. CONCLUSION: Planned OC is an adequate method for preserving fertility. However, knowledge gaps result in under-utilisation leading to reduced cost-efficiency. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Identifying facilitators and barriers for wider adoption of banking oocytes can enhance the cost-efficiency of this modality.

Awareness of fertility preservation among Chinese medical students.

INTRODUCTION: The fertility preservation (FP) services offered in Hong Kong are underutilised. There have been no previous studies on Chinese medical students to investigate the underlying reasons for this underutilisation in terms of awareness, knowledge, and attitudes towards FP and age-related fertility. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey among Chinese medical students in Hong Kong. RESULTS: The majority of participants (77.8%) were not familiar with any clinics or specialists who provide FP services. The vast majority (88.1%) underestimated female infertility at age 45 years, and 89.8% overestimated the age of male fertility decline. The students' FP knowledge was mainly acquired from electronic media (58.4%) and medical school (57.6%). Medical students showed overwhelming support towards FP for medical reasons (97.9%) but had mixed responses about FP for elective reasons related to career development in women (58.8%). Of the participants, 80.2% agreed that the government should subsidise FP services for patients with medical reasons. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the limited awareness and knowledge of FP among Chinese medical students. There is a strong worldwide need to increase education about and exposure to FP in the medical curriculum and improve medical students' knowledge.

Trends in guideline-adherent fertility-sparing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer before and after the Affordable Care Act.

OBJECTIVE: To assess trends in guideline-adherent fertility-sparing surgery (GA-FSS) for early-stage cervical cancer relative to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation. METHODS: National Cancer Database patients treated for Stage IA1-IB1 cervical cancer from 2004 to 2016 were included. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determined trends in GA-FSS relative to the ACA and identify patient factors independently associated with GA-FSS. RESULTS: Odds of GA-FSS increased in the post- compared to pre-ACA cohort (aOR = 1.65; 95%CI: 1.34-2.03). Decreasing age, Asian/Pacific Islander race, higher education and income levels, more recent treatment year, and lower clinical stage were independently associated with increased odds of receiving GA-FSS. In the pre- and post-ACA samples, decreasing age (per 1 year age increase; pre-ACA aOR = 0.87, 95%CI:0.85-0.90; post-ACA aOR = 0.85, 95%CI:0.83-0.87), higher education level (top vs. lowest education quartile; pre-ACA aOR = 2.08, 95%CI:1.19-3.65; post-ACA aOR = 2.00, 95%CI:1.43-2.80), and lower clinical stage (stages IA2 [pre-ACA aOR = 0.19, 95%CI:0.09-0.41; post-ACA aOR = 0.29, 95%CI:0.19-0.45] and IB1 [pre-ACA aOR = 0.06, 95%CI:0.06-0.16; post-ACA aOR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.12-0.20] relative to stage IA1) were independently associated with increased odds of GA-FSS receipt. After the ACA, Asian/Pacific Islander race (aOR = 2.81, 95%CI: 1.81-4.36) and more recent treatment year (Spearman's ρ = 0.0348, p-value = 0.008) were also independently associated with increased odds of GA-FSS receipt. When adjusted for the pre- vs. post-ACA treatment periods, Medicaid patients were less likely to undergo GA-FSS than privately-insured patients (aOR = 1.65; 95%CI:1.34-2.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients were more likely to receive GA-FSS post-ACA. Though the proportion of publicly-insured women increased after ACA implementation, women on Medicaid remained less likely to receive GA-FSS than women with private insurance.

Installing oncofertility programs for common cancers in limited resource settings (Repro-Can-OPEN Study): An extrapolation during the global crisis of Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

PURPOSE: The state of limited resource settings that Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has created globally should be taken seriously into account especially in healthcare sector. In oncofertility, patients should receive their fertility preservation treatments urgently even in limited resource settings before initiation of anticancer therapy. Therefore, it is very crucial to learn more about oncofertility practice in limited resource settings such as in developing countries that suffer often from shortage of healthcare services provided to young patients with cancer. METHODS: As an extrapolation during the global crisis of COVID-19 pandemic, we surveyed oncofertility centers from 14 developing countries (Egypt, Tunisia, Brazil, Peru, Panama, Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Nigeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and India). Survey questionnaire included questions on the availability and degree of utilization of fertility preservation options in case of childhood cancer, breast cancer, and blood cancer. RESULTS: All surveyed centers responded to all questions. Responses and their calculated oncofertility scores showed different domestic standards for oncofertility practice in case of childhood cancer, breast cancer, and blood cancer in the developing countries under limited resource settings. CONCLUSIONS: Medical practice in limited resource settings has become a critical topic especially after the global crisis of COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the resources necessary to provide oncofertility treatments is important until the current COVID-19 pandemic resolves. Lessons learned will be valuable to future potential worldwide disruptions due to infectious diseases or other global crises.

Effectiveness of social egg freezing: protocol for systematic review and meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Social egg freezing is storing egg for the purpose of preserving fertility and delayed childbearing. Currently, little is known about the utilisation and effectiveness of this approach. This review aims to determine (1) the proportion of women who used their stored eggs, and (2) the egg survival rate through vitrification, and the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate per 100 women partaking in the procedure, and among women who stored their eggs for medical reasons. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This systematic review will be done according to the items listed in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Library and Health Technology Assessment databases will be searched to identify eligible studies published since 2012. Two reviewers will independently appraise the eligibility and quality of the studies based on preset checklists and extract the data using a data extraction template. Outcomes of interest are proportion of women who used their stored eggs, egg survival rate, pregnancy rate and live birth rates. We will determine the presence heterogeneity among studies using the Cochrane's Q test. The percentage of total variation across studies, which is due to statistical heterogeneity, will be calculated using the I2 statistics. Outcomes of interest will be pooled together using metaprop programme STATA V.14. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For this review, ethical committee approval is not required. We will use publically available data from previously published studies. The final report of the review will be disseminated through publication on national or international journal, and it will be presented on different scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018114254.

[Regional state-of-the-art of the access to oncofertility consultation for young women with breast cancer]. / État des lieux régional de l'accès à une consultation d'oncofertilité chez les femmes jeunes ayant un cancer du sein.

OBJECTIVES: According to the 2004 Bioethics Act, oncofertility counselling must be systematically offered to all women of childbearing age before they are exposed to potentially gonadotoxic treatment. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the proportion of women under 40 years of age treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer in Midi-Pyrénées who have received an oncofertility consultation. A secondary objective was to assess practitioners' knowledge on the subject. METHODS: A cross-reference was made between the databases of the oncology network in Midi-Pyrénées and the two approved centres for the preservation of fertility in the region. A computerized practitioner questionnaire was sent to all surgeons and oncologists who could manage these patients. RESULTS: From 2012 and 2017, 667 women aged≤40 years received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy treatment: only 156 (23.4%) had access to an oncofertility consultation and 58 (8.7%) received preservation. This rate (23.4%) varied according to the age of the patients, ranging from 56.9% for those aged 25-29 to 13.4% for those aged 35-39 and the managing institution. Of the 85 practitioners surveyed, 45 (55%) responded to the questionnaire, and of these 20 (44%) knew that ovarian stimulation treatment could be used even in hormone-dependent breast cancer situations and 13 (29%) of practitioners believed that the time required to preserve fertility was more than 1 month. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed a significant disparity in access to oncofertility consultation. It is essential to set up information and awareness-raising actions on the subject.

Professionals' barriers in female oncofertility care and strategies for improvement.

STUDY QUESTION: What are healthcare professionals' barriers and strategies for improvement in female oncofertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER: Professionals perceived barriers in knowledge, attitude and organization of oncofertility care and suggested strategies to improve oncofertility care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The potential loss of fertility is one of the most important undesirable side effects of cancer treatment in women of reproductive age. Unfortunately, despite guideline recommendations, not all patients are informed about their fertility risks and referred for fertility preservation (FP) counselling. Insight into barriers for discussing FP and appropriate referral is necessary before improvements can be made. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The aim of this was study was to identify barriers and gather improvement suggestions through semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted with 24 professionals working in oncofertility care. Subsequently, an expert panel meeting was held to reach consensus on a set of improvement strategies. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Oncological professionals were recruited from the three Dutch expertise hospitals for female FP and their affiliated hospitals. The expert panel consisted of six healthcare professionals, five survivors and two researchers. In the Dutch setting, financial aspects do not play a role in oncofertility care. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Barriers were identified and categorized into the patient level (e.g. focus on surviving cancer), the professional level (e.g. lack of awareness, knowledge, time, and attitude), or the organizational level (e.g. unavailable written information, disagreement on who is responsible for discussing infertility risks). The expert panel reached consensus on essential elements for a multifaceted improvement programme: development of information materials (leaflets, online decision aid), education of professionals, a role for specialized oncology nurses in informing patients and patient navigators at the fertility department to facilitate referral and counselling, medical record reminders, standard consultations with a gynaecologist and agreement on responsibility. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Selection bias could have occurred because it is likely that only professionals with interest in oncofertility care participated. However, this would mean that the barriers were underestimated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study forms the basis for the development of a multifaceted oncofertility programme, which is essential to increase adherence to the national clinical guideline. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the Radboud university medical center. The authors have declared no competing interests. Prof. Dr Braat reports unrestricted grants from Ferring BV, Serono and Goodlife, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Survivorship needs of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: a concept mapping analysis.

PURPOSE: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer are known to have complex medical and psychosocial needs throughout treatment; however, information is lacking about the challenges AYA survivors face after treatment has ended. Focus groups were conducted using a concept mapping framework to better understand the most important issues these patients face in transitioning to survivorship and how prepared they felt to face them. METHODS: AYAs diagnosed between 18 and 39 years old and at least 2 years post-treatment participated in one of six focus groups based on age group and follow-up status. Using a concept mapping design, participants provided important issues during the transition to survivorship and appraised them on three core areas of interest. RESULTS: Analyses revealed salient themes shared across age and follow-up group status, particularly related to the psychosocial, emotional, and cognitive effects of treatment. Differential concerns included those related to patients' developmental concerns-namely, finding a new identity, financial burden of treatment, and fertility concerns after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: AYA cancer survivors continue to have a myriad of issues beyond the immediate treatment phase. Despite a complex list of challenges, these issues largely remained unaddressed by their oncology provider and left patients feeling overwhelmingly ill-prepared to manage their transition to survivorship. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: AYA cancer survivors have many unaddressed concerns as they transition out of active cancer treatment, largely related to developmental issues they are facing. Survivorship care for these patients would benefit from care planning that takes these unique concerns into account.

Fertility Preservation Services for Women With Newly Diagnosed Cancer: A National Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To study the resources available for cancer patients once referred for fertility preservation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study clinics that are members of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology assess support for fertility preservation. RESULTS: Surveys were distributed to a total of 1135 members at 394 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology clinics. Responses were received from 99 individuals representing a total of 84 unique clinics (21.3%). Most clinics (76%) are able to see new cancer patients within 24 to 48 hours after a referral. Clinics most commonly offer oocyte freezing and embryo freezing (96% and 98%, respectively), with a significantly smaller portion of clinics offering ovarian tissue freezing (26%). Although most clinics offer fertility preservation for breast cancer, hematologic cancers and ovarian cancer, only 31% of clinics offer fertility preservation for pediatric premenarchal cancers. Clinics that receive >20 referrals from oncology centers annually are more likely to be in the Northeast and have an academic affiliation. These clinics are more likely to provide support for patients during their cancer treatment, more likely to have long-term follow-up with cancer patients and similarly more likely to have cancer patients return to take advantage of their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant geographic and clinic variations in support for fertility preservation. Clinics overall are able to expeditiously see patients to avoid delays in oncologic treatment. Clinics that provide additional support and long-term care tend to have a larger oncologic volume and have more patients who utilize their fertility treatment upon completion of cancer therapy.

Medical egg freezing: the importance of a patient-centered approach to fertility preservation.

PURPOSE: This binational qualitative study of medical egg freezing (MEF) examined women's motivations and experiences, including their perceived needs for patient-centered care in the midst of fertility- and life-threatening diagnoses. METHODS: Forty-five women who had undertaken MEF were interviewed in the USA (33 women) and in Israel (12 women) between June 2014 and August 2016. Interviews lasted approximately 1 h and were conducted by two senior medical anthropologists, one in each country. Women were recruited from four American IVF clinics (two academic, two private) and two Israeli clinics (both academic) where MEF is being offered to cancer patients and women with other fertility-threatening medical conditions. RESULTS: Women who undertake MEF view their fertility and future motherhood as important components of their identities and recovery and, thus, are grateful for the opportunity to pursue fertility preservation. However, women who undergo MEF have special needs, given that they tend to be a "vulnerable" population of young (age < 30), unmarried, resource-constrained women, who are facing not only fertility loss but also the "double jeopardy" of cancer. Through in-depth, qualitative interviews, these women's MEF stories reveal 10 dimensions of care important to fertility preservation, including five "system factors" (information, coordination and integration, accessibility, physical comfort, cost) and five "human factors" (adolescent issues, male partner involvement, family involvement, egg disposition decisions, emotional support). Together, these dimensions of care constitute an important framework that can be best described as "patient-centered MEF." CONCLUSIONS: Women pursuing MEF have special medical needs and concerns, which require particular forms of patient-centered care. This study outlines 10 dimensions of patient-centered fertility preservation that are appropriate for MEF patients. This approach may help IVF clinics to be better prepared for delivering top-quality care to mostly young, single women facing the daunting prospect of fertility loss and life-threatening medical diagnoses.

Fertility Preservation in Pediatric Subspecialties: A Pilot Needs Assessment Beyond Oncology.

Physicians from 6 non-oncology pediatric subspecialties were surveyed about fertility preservation (FP) to assess education/service needs. Almost all (96%; 25 of 26) reported having patients at risk of infertility; however, only 58% (15 of 26) had discussed FP with patients' families. Most subspecialists (92%; 23 of 25) would like access to an FP program. Our data support exploring the expansion of FP programs beyond oncology.

Prevalence and Predictors of Sperm Banking in Adolescents Newly Diagnosed With Cancer: Examination of Adolescent, Parent, and Provider Factors Influencing Fertility Preservation Outcomes.

Purpose To estimate the prevalence of sperm banking among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer and to identify factors associated with banking outcomes. Patients and Methods A prospective, single-group, observational study design was used to test the contribution of sociodemographic, medical, psychological/health belief, communication, and developmental factors to fertility preservation outcomes. At-risk adolescent males (N = 146; age 13.00 to 21.99 years; Tanner stage ≥ 3), their parents, and medical providers from eight leading pediatric oncology centers across the United States and Canada completed self-report questionnaires within 1 week of treatment initiation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for specified banking outcomes (collection attempt v no attempt and successful completion of banking v no banking). Results Among adolescents (mean age, 16.49 years; standard deviation, 2.02 years), 53.4% (78 of 146) made a collection attempt, with 43.8% (64 of 146) successfully banking sperm (82.1% of attempters). The overall attempt model revealed adolescent consultation with a fertility specialist (OR, 29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P = .007), parent recommendation to bank (OR, 12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P = .007), and higher Tanner stage (OR, 5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P = .003) were associated with an increased likelihood of a collection attempt. Adolescent history of masturbation (OR, 5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P = .025), banking self-efficacy (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P = .012), and parent (OR, 4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P = .010) or medical team (OR, 4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P = .008) recommendation to bank were associated with increased likelihood of sperm banking completion. Conclusion Although findings suggest that banking is underutilized, modifiable adolescent, parent, and provider factors associated with banking outcomes were identified and should be targeted in future intervention efforts.

Factors influencing fertility-sparing treatment for gynecologic malignancies: A survey of Society of Gynecologic Oncology members.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine practice patterns of gynecologic oncologists (GO) regarding fertility-sparing treatments (FST) for gynecology malignancies and explores attitudes toward collaboration with reproductive endocrinologists (RE). METHODS: An anonymous 23-question survey was sent to 1087 GO with a 14.0% completion rate. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, and Chi-square tests were used for data analysis. RESULTS: The majority of GOs offer FST for gynecologic malignancies. Providers seeing larger numbers of reproductive age women were more likely to consider cancer prognosis (p<0.03) and cancer stage (p<0.01) as key factors. Providers in the Midwestern US considered socioeconomic status more often when offering FST than those in the South (p<0.04). Those practicing in urban settings were more likely to feel that collaborating with a RE prior to treatment could improve treatment planning for women considering FST (p<0.02). Finally, providers in urban or suburban areas more often felt collaboration with a RE improves pregnancy outcomes in women who pursue FST (p<0.01, p<0.02) compared to rural practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: While FST offers women the chance to pursue pregnancy after cancer, there are minimal data on factors that influence whether FST is offered and if collaboration with a RE is sought in the management of these patients. The number of reproductive age women seen, geographic location, and practice setting are important variables that may influence current practice. Understanding these factors can help identify opportunities to improve oncologic and reproductive outcomes of this patient population.

A national study of the provision of oncofertility services to female patients in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to gain a better understanding of the fertility preservation services provided by Canadian fertility clinics to women with cancer. METHODS: We invited a total of 76 fertility clinics across Canada to complete a mailed questionnaire related to the availability, accessibility, affordability, and utilization of fertility preservation services for oncology patients. RESULTS: The total response rate was 59.2%: 72.4% for IVF clinics and 51.1% for fertility centres without on-site IVF. Not all the responding IVF centres accepted oncology referrals for women. Six clinics without on-site IVF accepted cancer patients for consultation. The medical consultation fees are covered by public health insurance in all provinces. The majority of respondents expedited the referrals to schedule an initial medical appointment within three days. Despite that, the referral volume reported by respondents was markedly low for all except two facilities. With over 4000 young women of reproductive age given a diagnosis of cancer each year in Canada, the findings suggest that cancer patients are severely under-served by fertility clinics. CONCLUSION: There is a need to develop a stronger partnership between the fields of oncology and reproductive medicine to further improve access of patients with cancer to fertility preservation services. Development of evidence-based practice guidelines covering medical, clinical, psychosocial, ethical, and legal aspects geared to the Canadian health care system would help to avoid ambiguity relating to the roles and responsibilities in the provision of fertility preservation services. Such processes would ensure optimization of services so that all young cancer patients would receive the best care in protecting their fertility.

Treatment outcomes and quality-of-life assessment in a university-based fertility preservation program: results of a registry of female cancer patients at 2 years.

PURPOSE: To explore patient goals and quality of life (QOL) via a prospective registry and compare fertility preservation (FP) outcomes before, during, and after cancer therapy. METHODS: Of 35 patients entering the registry from 3/2008 to 3/2010, 29/35 completed the study survey and agreed to follow-up, and 31/35 completed treatment. Survey results and FP outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Most patients rated the impact of cancer treatment on fertility of highest importance at baseline and 1-year follow-up. QOL scores were overall positive at both intervals. Patients naïve to any cancer treatment (n = 12) had more gametes frozen than patients with prior cancer treatment (n = 19) with no difference in age or gonadotropin dosage. For patients awaiting cancer treatment, the median time from consultation to oocyte retrieval was 25 days. Cancer treatment sequalae posed challenges to optimal FP outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Fertility preservation remains a significant issue for cancer patients. With early reproductive endocrinologist referral, cancer treatment delay is minimized and FP outcomes are optimized.