Pediatric oncofertility care in limited versus optimum resource settings: results from 39 surveyed centers in Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II.

PURPOSE: As a secondary report to elucidate the diverse spectrum of oncofertility practices for childhood cancer around the globe, we present and discuss the comparisons of oncofertility practices for childhood cancer in limited versus optimum resource settings based on data collected in the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II. METHODS: We surveyed 39 oncofertility centers including 14 in limited resource settings from Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I), and 25 in optimum resource settings from the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part II). Survey questions covered the availability of fertility preservation and restoration options offered in case of childhood cancer as well as their degree of utilization. RESULTS: In the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, responses for childhood cancer and calculated oncofertility scores showed the following characteristics: (1) higher oncofertility scores in optimum resource settings than in limited resource settings for ovarian and testicular tissue cryopreservation; (2) frequent utilization of gonadal shielding, fractionation of anticancer therapy, oophoropexy, and GnRH analogs; (3) promising utilization of oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM); and (4) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, in vitro spermatogenesis, and stem cells reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings. CONCLUSIONS: Based on Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, we presented a plausible oncofertility best practice model to help optimize care for children with cancer in various resource settings. Special ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and innovative oncofertility options to children.

A synopsis of global frontiers in fertility preservation.

Since 2007, the Oncofertility Consortium Annual Conference has brought together a diverse network of individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and professional levels to disseminate emerging basic and clinical research findings in fertility preservation. This network also developed enduring educational materials to accelerate the pace and quality of field-wide scientific communication. Between 2007 and 2019, the Oncofertility Consortium Annual Conference was held as an in-person event in Chicago, IL. The conference attracted approximately 250 attendees each year representing 20 countries around the world. In 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this paradigm and precluded an in-person meeting. Nevertheless, there remained an undeniable demand for the oncofertility community to convene. To maintain the momentum of the field, the Oncofertility Consortium hosted a day-long virtual meeting on March 5, 2021, with the theme of "Oncofertility Around the Globe" to highlight the diversity of clinical care and translational research that is ongoing around the world in this discipline. This virtual meeting was hosted using the vFairs ® conference platform and allowed over 700 people to participate, many of whom were first-time conference attendees. The agenda featured concurrent sessions from presenters in six continents which provided attendees a complete overview of the field and furthered our mission to create a global community of oncofertility practice. This paper provides a synopsis of talks delivered at this event and highlights the new advances and frontiers in the fields of oncofertility and fertility preservation around the globe from clinical practice and patient-centered efforts to translational research.

Fertility-related knowledge and reproductive goals in childhood cancer survivors: short communication.

STUDY QUESTION: Do young adult survivors of childhood cancer know their fertility status, in the context of their parenthood goals and screening for gonadal functioning? SUMMARY ANSWER: While 80% of survivors (who were without children) wanted children in the future, most did not know their fertility status, and screening for gonadal functioning was underutilized. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Survivors of childhood cancer are at risk for infertility, but fertility counseling and assessment are underutilized. Separate studies indicated that survivors' fertility-related knowledge is poor and that they often wanted to have children. Yet, studies have not investigated the intersection of both issues, as well as potential distress if parenthood goals are not met. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Young adult male and female survivors of childhood cancer (N = 149) completed cross-sectional surveys, and data for those without children (n = 105, 70.5%) are presented here. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were 20-40 years old (M = 26.5), diagnosed 5-33 years prior to study participation, and completed questionnaires online. Knowledge of fertility status, parenthood goals, and potential distress if survivors were unable to have children were assessed. Medical records were reviewed for hormone levels as indicators of screening for gonadal functioning. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Most survivors (n = 81; 77.1%) did not know their fertility status, while over 80% (n = 89) wanted children (neither aspect varied by socio-demographic/cancer-specific factors). Two-thirds of survivors indicated they would be distressed if parenthood goals remained unfulfilled; especially female (versus male, t = 2.64; P = 0.01) or partnered (versus single, t = -3.45; P < 0.001) survivors. Forty survivors (38.1%) had documented assessments of gonadal functioning, of which 33 (82.5%) reported not knowing their fertility status. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Relevant risk factors may have not been identified owing to limited sample size and missing treatment information. The underutilization of screening for gonadal functioning needs further exploration in other pediatric centers. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Most adult childhood cancer survivors want to become parents, but do not know their fertility status, which could cause significant psychological distress. Healthcare providers should continuously address fertility among survivors, but more research is needed on how to implement routine fertility counseling and/or testing. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by the Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital (V.L.) and Dutch Cancer Society (RUG2009-4442, M.A.T.). All authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8.

Background: Transgender healthcare is a rapidly evolving interdisciplinary field. In the last decade, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number and visibility of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people seeking support and gender-affirming medical treatment in parallel with a significant rise in the scientific literature in this area. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) is an international, multidisciplinary, professional association whose mission is to promote evidence-based care, education, research, public policy, and respect in transgender health. One of the main functions of WPATH is to promote the highest standards of health care for TGD people through the Standards of Care (SOC). The SOC was initially developed in 1979 and the last version (SOC-7) was published in 2012. In view of the increasing scientific evidence, WPATH commissioned a new version of the Standards of Care, the SOC-8. Aim: The overall goal of SOC-8 is to provide health care professionals (HCPs) with clinical guidance to assist TGD people in accessing safe and effective pathways to achieving lasting personal comfort with their gendered selves with the aim of optimizing their overall physical health, psychological well-being, and self-fulfillment. Methods: The SOC-8 is based on the best available science and expert professional consensus in transgender health. International professionals and stakeholders were selected to serve on the SOC-8 committee. Recommendation statements were developed based on data derived from independent systematic literature reviews, where available, background reviews and expert opinions. Grading of recommendations was based on the available evidence supporting interventions, a discussion of risks and harms, as well as the feasibility and acceptability within different contexts and country settings. Results: A total of 18 chapters were developed as part of the SOC-8. They contain recommendations for health care professionals who provide care and treatment for TGD people. Each of the recommendations is followed by explanatory text with relevant references. General areas related to transgender health are covered in the chapters Terminology, Global Applicability, Population Estimates, and Education. The chapters developed for the diverse population of TGD people include Assessment of Adults, Adolescents, Children, Nonbinary, Eunuchs, and Intersex Individuals, and people living in Institutional Environments. Finally, the chapters related to gender-affirming treatment are Hormone Therapy, Surgery and Postoperative Care, Voice and Communication, Primary Care, Reproductive Health, Sexual Health, and Mental Health. Conclusions: The SOC-8 guidelines are intended to be flexible to meet the diverse health care needs of TGD people globally. While adaptable, they offer standards for promoting optimal health care and guidance for the treatment of people experiencing gender incongruence. As in all previous versions of the SOC, the criteria set forth in this document for gender-affirming medical interventions are clinical guidelines; individual health care professionals and programs may modify these in consultation with the TGD person.

Parent perceptions of psychosocial care for children with differences of sex development.

SHORT INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Children affected by differences/disorders of sex development (DSDs) and their families are vulnerable to significant risks across developmental stages that threaten quality of life and psychosocial functioning. Accordingly, both experts in DSD treatment and patient advocacy groups have endorsed the incorporation of psychosocial care into interdisciplinary management of DSD conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed psychosocial needs and received services reported by parents of children with DSD treated at two large US academic medical centers. Specifically, differences in parents' perceptions of psychosocial service needs were compared between those who received or did not receive interdisciplinary care that included psychology/social work professionals. STUDY DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study, sixty-four parents of children with DSD aged 0-19 years attending two major academic centers with interdisciplinary teams completed a questionnaire about their receipt and perception of 12 individual psychosocial services throughout their child's DSD treatment. RESULTS: Receipt of individual psychosocial services ranged from 27 to 81%. Most commonly, parents reported having a psychosocial provider explain medical terms and answer questions after talking with a doctor (81%), assist with words and terms to describe the condition and treatment (69%), and help navigate the hospital system (63%). Families positively endorsed psychosocial services, with 91-100% of services received rated as helpful. Parents of children who received care as part of an interdisciplinary team were significantly more likely to receive psychosocial services than those treated by single providers (e.g., urologists). Specific gaps in psychosocial care were noted in regard to access to mental health providers familiar with DSD, fertility counseling, and support with community advocacy (e.g., arranging for accommodations at the school or advocating on patient's behalf with the insurance company). Among families who had not received them, services most desired were assistance with words and terms to describe condition or treatment; explanation of medical terms and answering questions after meeting with a doctor; connection to resources such as books, pamphlets, websites, and support groups; and a central care coordinator for the medical team. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Families value psychosocial services but are far less likely to receive services if they are not seen in an interdisciplinary clinic visit that includes a psychosocial provider. Families desire but often lack mental health, advocacy, and fertility-related support. This study highlights the need for sustained psychosocial follow-up across development, even in the absence of pressing medical concerns, to provide support and anticipatory guidance as needs and issues evolve.