RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Fertility preservation was designed to help young patients overcome complications of cancer treatments, but its effectiveness is unknown. We sought to investigate how often patients with cancer are offered fertility preservation and if patients offered fertility preservation are more likely to have offspring. METHODS: We searched Embase (through 2022) and PubMed (through 2022). Our broad computerized search strategy was built upon using the keywords "chemotherapy," "radiation," and "fertility." The search took place on December 1, 2022. We included randomized and observational studies and excluded reviews and case reports/series. RESULTS: Eighty-five articles that answered at least one of the research questions were included. Studies assessing fertoprotective therapies often rely on surrogate markers for fertility. Multiple factors affect these markers of fertility. The median premature ovarian failure rate among the intervention group was 18% (IQR, 12%-20%), and among the control group, it was 25% (IQR, 19%-33%). Five of 11 studies reported a significant benefit from fertoprotective therapy. Pregnancies occurred in a median of 21% (IQR, 6%-52%) of patients in the intervention group and 11% (IQR, 7-44) of patients in the control group, with three of seven studies reporting a higher percentage of pregnancies among the intervention group. CONCLUSION: We reviewed the literature on several questions surrounding fertility preservation and found that there is limited and low-quality research on these therapies in cancer. Hence, there is a strong need for studies, especially randomized studies, that follow patients with cancer who undergo fertility preservation and assess outcomes in which patients are most interested.
RESUMEN
A man in his late 40s with no known past medical history was unresponsive for an unknown period of time. Crushed pills and white residue were found on a nearby table. On presentation he was obtunded and unresponsive to verbal commands but withdrawing to painful stimuli. The initial urine drug screen was negative, but a urine fentanyl screen was subsequently positive with a level of 137.3 ng/mL. MRI of the brain showed reduced diffusivity and fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) hyperintensity symmetrically in the bilateral supratentorial white matter, cerebellum and globus pallidus. Alternative diagnoses such as infection were considered, but ultimately the history and workup led to a diagnosis of fentanyl-induced leukoencephalopathy. Three days after admission the patient became able to track, respond to voice and follow basic one-step commands. The patient does not recall the mechanism of inhalation. While there are case reports of heroin-induced leukoencephalopathy following inhaled heroin use and many routes of fentanyl, this is the first reported case of a similar phenomenon due to fentanyl inhalation.