Fertility Preservation Practices at Pediatric Oncology Institutions in the United States: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Fertility discussions are an integral part of comprehensive care for pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients newly diagnosed with cancer and are supported by national guidelines. Current institutional practices are poorly understood. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 220 Children's Oncology Group member institutions regarding fertility discussion practices. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. The association between specific practices and selected outcomes on the basis of sex was examined via multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four programs (65.5%) returned surveys. Of these, 65 (45.1%) reported routine discussions of fertility with all female patients and 55 (38.5%) all male patients (P = .25). Ninety-two (63.8%) reported no specific criteria for offering females fertility preservation (FP), compared with 40 (27.7%) for males (P < .001). Program characteristics associated with fertility discussions included reproductive endocrinology and infertility on site (females odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.3), discussion documentation mandate (females OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 5.5; males OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.4 to 8.7), and cumulative institution-based FP infrastructure (which included [1] routine practice of documentation, [2] template for documentation, [3] mandate for documentation, and [4] availability of FP navigation; females OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.3; males OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6 to 3.4). Utilization of practices unsupported by guidelines included offering sperm banking after treatment initiation (39/135 programs; 28.9%), gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs for ovarian suppression/FP (75/144 programs; 52.1%), ovarian tissue cryopreservation at diagnosis for patients with leukemia (19/64 programs; 29.7%), and testicular tissue cryopreservation (23/138 programs; 16.7%) not part of a clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Despite recommended guidelines, fertility discussions with patients/families before treatment initiation are not routine at Children's Oncology Group institutions. Standard criteria to determine which options should be offered to patients are more common for males than females.

Infrastructure of Fertility Preservation Services for Pediatric Cancer Patients: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Fertility preservation (FP) services are part of comprehensive care for those newly diagnosed with cancer. The capacity to offer these services to children and adolescents with cancer is unknown. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent to 220 Children's Oncology Group member institutions regarding institutional characteristics, structure and organization of FP services, and barriers to FP. Standard descriptive statistics were computed for all variables. The association between site-specific factors and selected outcomes was examined using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four programs (65.5%) returned surveys. Fifty-three (36.8%) reported a designated FP individual or team. Sperm banking was offered at 135 (97.8%) institutions, and testicular tissue cryopreservation at 37 (27.0%). Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation were offered at 91 (67.9%) and 62 (46.6%) institutions, respectively; ovarian tissue cryopreservation was offered at 64 (47.8%) institutions. The presence of dedicated FP personnel was independently associated with the ability to offer oocyte or embryo cryopreservation (odds ratio [OR], 4.7; 95% CI, 1.7 to 13.5), ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 6.0), and testicular tissue cryopreservation (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 97.8). Only 26 (18.1%) participating institutions offered all current nonexperimental FP interventions. Barriers included cost (70.9%), inadequate knowledge or training (60.7%), difficulty characterizing fertility risk (50.4%), inadequate staffing (45.5%), and logistics with reproductive specialties (38%-39%). CONCLUSION: This study provides the most comprehensive view of the current landscape of FP infrastructure for children and adolescents with cancer and demonstrates that existing infrastructure is inadequate to offer comprehensive services to patients. We discuss modifiable factors to improve patient access to FP.