Fertility preservation before and after cancer treatment in children, adolescents, and young adults.

Fertility is a top concern for many survivors of cancer diagnosed as children, adolescents and young adults (CAYA). Fertility preservation (FP) treatments are effective, evidence-based interventions to support their family building goals. Fertility discussions are a part of quality oncology care throughout the cancer care continuum. For nearly 2 decades, clinical guidelines recommend counseling patients about the possibility of infertility promptly at diagnosis and offering FP options and referrals as indicated. Multiple guidelines now recommend post-treatment counseling. Infertility risks differ by cancer treatments and age, rendering risk stratification a central part of FP care. To support FP decision-making, online tools for female risk estimation are available. At diagnosis, females can engage in mature oocyte/embryo cryopreservation, ovarian tissue cryopreservation, ovarian suppression with GnRH agonists, in vitro oocyte maturation, and/or conservative management for gynecologic cancers. Post-treatment, several populations may consider undergoing oocyte/embryo cryopreservation. Male survivors' standard of care FP treatments center on sperm cryopreservation before cancer treatment and do not have the same post-treatment indication for additional gamete cryopreservation. In practice, FP care requires systemized processes to routinely screen for FP needs, bridge oncology referrals to fertility, offer timely fertility consultations and access to FP treatments, and support financial navigation. Sixteen US states passed laws requiring health insurers to provide insurance benefits for FP treatments, but variation among the laws and downstream implementation are barriers to accessing FP treatments. To preserve the reproductive futures of CAYA survivors, research is needed to improve risk stratification, FP options, and delivery of FP care.

Theory-Guided Development of Fertility Care Implementation Strategies for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors.

Purpose: Oncofertility care at cancer diagnosis remains underimplemented across oncology and fertility care settings, with limited tools to scale up effective implementation strategies. Using implementation science theory, we systematically assessed factors that influence oncofertility care implementation and mapped scalable strategies, particularly electronic health record (EHR)-enabled ones, that fit adult and pediatric oncology care contexts. Methods: Using purposeful sampling, we recruited health care providers and female, reproductive-aged survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancers (AYA survivors) from a comprehensive cancer center and a freestanding children's hospital to semistructured interviews and focus groups. Using thematic analysis combining inductive codes with deductive codes using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we characterized barriers and facilitators to care and designed responsive strategies. Two coders independently coded each transcript. Results: We recruited 19 oncology and fertility providers and 9 cancer survivors. We identified barriers and facilitators to oncofertility care in the CFIR domains of individual, inner setting, outer setting, and process, allowing us to conceptualize oncofertility care to encompass three core components (screening, referral, and fertility preservation counseling) and map five strategies to these components that fit an adult and a children's context and bridge oncology and fertility practices. The strategies were screening using a best practice advisory, referral order, telehealth fertility counseling, provider audit and feedback, and provider education. All but provider education were EHR tools with embedded efficiencies. Conclusion: An implementation science approach systematically assessed oncofertility care and mapped strategies to provide a theory-based approach and scalable EHR tools to support wider dissemination.