How can fertility counseling be implemented for every newly diagnosed pediatric patient facing gonadotoxic treatment?-A single-center experience.

Since the survival rates of pediatric patients undergoing cancer treatment or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) have increased rapidly in recent decades, the late effects of treatment are now an important focus of patient care. Access to fertility preservation (FP) procedures as well as their financing differs considerably across Europe. However, some countries in Europe have recently changed the legal basis for financing FP procedures; therefore, the implementation of structures is mandatory to give patients access to FP. In this prospective cohort study, we characterized the process for establishing pediatric fertility counseling, including the development of an in-house standard procedure for recommendations regarding FP with potentially gonadotoxic treatment and valuating data from all FP counseling sessions. All data concerning patient characteristics (pubertal status, disease group) and recommendation of FP measures were prospectively collected and adoption of FP measures analyzed. Prior to the establishment of a structured process for FP in our pediatric oncology and stem cell transplantation center, there was no standardized FP counseling. We demonstrate that with the establishment of an inhouse standard procedure, it is possible to give consistent yet individualized FP counseling to approximately 90% of our patients facing gonadotoxic treatment, counseling over 200 patients between 2017 and 2019. This pilot study could potentially be adapted in other pediatric hematology, oncology, and stem cell transplantation centers to allow a more standardized handling of FP counseling for all patients facing gonadotoxic treatment.

Condition, disease, disability: how the label used to describe infertility may affect public support for fertility treatment coverage.

PURPOSE: To assess public attitudes towards fertility treatment coverage and whether attitudes are influenced by infertility labels. METHODS: Cross-sectional, web survey-based experiment using a national sample of 1226 United States adults. Participants read identical descriptions about infertility, with the exception of random assignment to infertility being labeled as a "condition," "disease," or "disability." Participants then responded to questions measuring their beliefs and attitudes towards policies related to the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. We measured public support for infertility policies, public preference for infertility labels, and whether support differed by the randomly assigned label used. We also queried associations between demographic data and support for infertility policies. RESULTS: Support was higher for insurance coverage of infertility treatments (p=.014) and fertility preservation (p=.017), and infertility public assistance programs (p=.036) when infertility was described as a "disease" or "disability" compared to "condition." Participants who were younger, were planning or trying to conceive, had a family member or friend with infertility, and/or had a more liberal political outlook were more likely to support infertility policies. A majority of participants (78%) felt the term "condition" was the best label to describe infertility, followed by "disability" (12%). The least popular label was "disease" (10%). Those preferring "condition" were older (p<.001), more likely to be non-Hispanic White (p=.046), and less likely to have an infertility diagnosis (p<.001). CONCLUSION: While less commonly identified as the best descriptors of infertility, labeling infertility as a "disease" or "disability" may increase support for policies that improve access to infertility care.

Oocyte cryopreservation versus ovarian tissue cryopreservation for adult female oncofertility patients: a cost-effectiveness study.

PURPOSE: In December 2019, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine designated ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) as no longer experimental and an alternative to oocyte cryopreservation (OC) for women receiving gonadotoxic therapy. Anticipating increased use of OTC, we compare the cost-effectiveness of OC versus OTC for fertility preservation in oncofertility patients. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model to compare OC versus OTC was built from a payer perspective. Costs and probabilities were derived from the literature. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved live birth. Strategies were compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). All inputs were varied widely in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, the estimated cost for OC was $16,588 and for OTC $10,032, with 1.56% achieving live birth after OC, and 1.0% after OTC. OC was more costly but more effective than OTC, with an ICER of $1,163,954 per live birth. In sensitivity analyses, OC was less expensive than OTC if utilization was greater than 63%, cost of OC prior to chemotherapy was less than $8100, cost of laparoscopy was greater than $13,700, or standardized discounted costs were used. CONCLUSIONS: With current published prices and utilization, OC is more costly but more effective than OTC. OC becomes cost-saving with increased utilization, when cost of OC prior to chemotherapy is markedly low, cost of laparoscopy is high, or standardized discounted oncofertility pricing is assumed. We identify the critical thresholds of OC and OTC that should be met to deliver more cost-effective care for oncofertility patients.

The Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Horizon Study: An AYA Cancer Survivorship Cohort.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, >45,000 adolescent and young adult (AYA) women are diagnosed with cancer annually. Reproductive issues are critically important to AYA cancer survivors, but insufficient information is available to address their concerns. The AYA Horizon Study was initiated to contribute high-quality, contemporary evidence on reproductive outcomes for female cancer survivors in the United States. METHODS: The study cohort includes women diagnosed with lymphoma, breast, melanoma, thyroid, or gynecologic cancer (the five most common cancers among women ages 15-39 years) at three study sites: the state of North Carolina and the Kaiser Permanente health systems in Northern and Southern California. Detailed information on cancer treatment, fertility procedures, and pregnancy (e.g., miscarriage, live birth) and birth (e.g., birth weight, gestational length) outcomes are leveraged from state cancer registries, health system databases and administrative insurance claims, national data on assisted reproductive technology procedures, vital records, and survey data. RESULTS: We identified a cohort of 11,072 female AYA cancer survivors that includes >1,200 African American women, >1,400 Asian women, >1,600 Medicaid enrollees, and >2,500 Hispanic women using existing data sources. Active response to the survey component was low overall (N = 1,679), and notably lower among minority groups compared with non-Hispanic white women. CONCLUSIONS: Passive data collection through linkage reduces participant burden and prevents systematic cohort attrition or potential selection biases that can occur with active participation requirements. IMPACT: The AYA Horizon study will inform survivorship planning as fertility and parenthood gain increasing recognition as key aspects of high-quality cancer care.

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.

Transgender and non-binary Australians' experiences with healthcare professionals in relation to fertility preservation.

While transitioning gender historically precluded many transgender people from conceiving (more) children, there is now the option to undertake fertility preservation. However, the uptake of this option to date has been low. In order to extend existing limited research on the topic, this paper draws on responses to a questionnaire survey provided by 409 transgender and non-binary adults in Australia, which explored their experiences related to fertility preservation. The paper specifically focuses on the experiences of 295 participants who responded to open-ended questions about their experiences with, and views of, healthcare professionals in regard to fertility preservation. A thematic analysis indicated that healthcare professionals undertake a range of roles with regard to fertility preservation, some viewed positively (e.g. as providers of information), and some viewed negatively (e.g. as potential gatekeepers). The paper concludes by arguing that professionals need to ensure that transgender and non-binary people are provided with enough information, support and opportunity to make an informed decision about fertility preservation. The discussion includes a consideration of interweaving factors, particularly costs, and recommendations for further research that may inform clinical guidelines and training.

Financial Assistance for Fertility Preservation Among Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients: A Utilization Review of the Sharing Hope/LIVESTRONG Fertility Financial Assistance Program.

Purpose: Fertility preservation (FP) is a critical component of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer care that remains inadequately delivered. Prohibitive cost due to a lack of insurance coverage remains a barrier. Since 2004 Sharing Hope/LIVESTRONG Fertility has assisted AYA cancer patients through discounted FP rates and access to free medications. Methods: Demographics, cancer diagnoses, and dollars saved by patients who used the Sharing Hope/LIVESTRONG Fertility program from 2004 to 2011 were retrospectively reviewed and reported using descriptive statistics. Utilization of financial services for the most common diagnoses was compared with the rate of diagnosis among AYAs. Results: One thousand one hundred fifty men and 1301 women received assistance between 2004 and 2011. Median age was 24 years (range, 12-67) for men and 30 years (range, 13-49) for women. Breast cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and genitourinary cancers were the most common diagnoses among females; testicular cancer and HL were most common among males. Recipients represented 1245 cancer centers across the United States. Average cost savings was $6587 per female and $386 per male. Program utilization/diagnosis ranged from 0.8% to 2.7%. Conclusion: Utilization of financial assistance for FP was low despite literature pointing to the need for such assistance. Costs for FP for women far exceed those for men. State-specific insurance initiatives are beginning to mandate coverage for FP. As insurance coverage expands, further studies are needed to determine the true financial burden to patients, the degree to which lack of resources prevent FP in this population, and the impact that insurance coverage has on the provision of these services.

Factors Affecting Fertility Decision-Making Among Transgender Adolescents and Young Adults.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify factors affecting transgender adolescents' and young adults' (AYA) decisions to pursue fertility preservation (FP). METHODS: Participants completed a semistructured interview between December 2016 and June 2017 to inform improvements in fertility counseling and the development of a fertility decision aid targeted to transgender youth. Interviews included open-ended questions within the following domains: (1) gender-affirming medical care received, (2) knowledge of gender-affirming hormone effects on fertility and FP options, (3) FP decision-making, and (4) how, when, and what information AYA prefer to receive regarding FP. The interviews were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Eighteen transgender AYA (ages 15-24) participated (60% participation rate). The majority was White (61%) and assigned female at birth (67%). Half received specialized FP counseling (50%). Few of the transgender AYA pursued FP (33%). Five key themes reflecting factors affecting transgender AYA's FP decision-making were identified: (1) future parenthood desires, (2) individual experiences of gender dysphoria, (3) family values around biological parenthood, (4) financial considerations, and (5) fertility information provision. CONCLUSIONS: Transgender AYA consider numerous factors in deciding whether to pursue FP. Although individual desires for and family values around biological parenthood influenced whether AYA pursued specialized FP counseling, individual experiences of gender dysphoria and costs of FP were barriers. AYA also identified shortcomings in fertility counseling with providers, highlighting the need to establish standardized counseling protocols and develop patient decision aids.

The dilemma of social oocyte freezing: usage rate is too low to make it cost-effective.

Delayed childbearing in affluent countries and the financial crisis of the Y-generation have contributed to the dramatic decline in birth rate. Social oocyte freezing (SOF) has fuelled the imagination of patients and doctors to offer it as a solution to single, presumably fertile, women to preserve their fertility potential by egg banking at an early age. Some are calling on governments to support large-scale 'fertility preservation', but is it cost-effective? Social oocyte freezing is effectively expensive insurance, where future utilization is unknown. Theoretical studies have suggested that SOF is only cost-effective with a usage rate of 50% or over, and when getting married is not set as a condition. Maximal possible utilization of frozen eggs, however, is much lower. Recent studies have found usage rates of 3.1-9.3%, which sets the cost of each extra live birth between $600,000 and 1,000,000. As IVF is being privatized and business-driven, it is hard for experts to decipher scientific- from business-oriented claims. The cost-effectiveness of SOF for individuals or society unclear. These facts place the burden of responsibility on the treating physician, who should inform patients about the true likelihood of using their eggs, the age at which to freeze and possible alternatives.

Fertility preservation options in pediatric and adolescent patients with cancer.

The incidence of childhood cancer has steadily increased since the 1950s, with approximately 16,000 children diagnosed each year. However, with the advent of more effective multimodal therapies, childhood cancer survival rates have continued to improve over the past 40 years, with >80% of patients now surviving into adulthood. Fertility preservation (FP) has become an important quality-of-life issue for many survivors of childhood cancer. As a result, the therapeutic options have become less gonadotoxic over time and more patients are being offered FP options. This review examines the indications for consultation, male and female FP options both in the prepubertal patient and adolescent patient, and the unique ethical issues surrounding FP in this vulnerable population. Cancer 2018;124:1867-76. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Fertility preservation for men with testicular cancer: Is sperm cryopreservation cost effective in the era of assisted reproductive technology?

INTRODUCTION: Many patients do not cryopreserve sperm before undergoing cancer treatment because of high perceived costs of cryopreservation. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fertility preservation compared to posttherapeutic fertility treatment in testicular cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the PubMed database for the following: risk of azoospermia 12 months after surveillance, chemotherapy, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, and radiation therapy (RT); rates of natural conception, and rates of conception with the use of intrauterine insemination or assisted reproductive technology, with or without microsurgical testicular sperm extraction (microTESE). A decision tree was constructed using the TreePlan add-in for Microsoft Excel (TreePlan Software, San Francisco, California). Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the overall cost of a given management branch, divided by likelihood of pregnancy. Calculations accounted for variable number of years of cryopreservation, and variable costs of microTESE. RESULTS: 1,113 articles were identified; 44 were included in the final analysis. Overall probability of pregnancy was higher among couples who cryopreserved sperm, versus those who did not. In patients undergoing active surveillance or retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, cryopreservation was more cost-effective if storage time was short (<6 years) or microTESE cost was high (>7,000). Cryopreservation prior to chemotherapy was more cost-effective unless microTESE cost was low (<7,000). Cryopreservation prior to RT was more cost-effective in almost all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Sperm cryopreservation prior to undergoing chemotherapy or RT remains the most cost-effective strategy for fertility preservation, across a range of possible costs associated with surgical sperm retrieval and in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Fertility Preservation in Breast Cancer.

As more young women survive breast cancer, fertility preservation (FP) is an important component of care. This review highlights the importance of early pretreatment referral, reviews the risks of infertility associated with breast cancer treatment, and defines existing and emerging techniques for FP. The techniques reviewed include ovarian suppression, embryo cryopreservation, oocyte cryopreservation, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation. The barriers women face, such as not being appropriately referred and the costs of treatment, also are addressed. Multidisciplinary, patient-centered care is essential to discussing FP with patients with breast cancer and ensuring appropriate care that includes quality of life in survivorship.

Modeling of live-birth rates and cost-effectiveness of oocyte cryopreservation for cancer patients prior to high- and low-risk gonadotoxic chemotherapy.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the live-birth rate (LBR) and cost-effectiveness of fertility preservation with oocyte cryopreservation (FP-OC) compared to expectant management in cancer patients age 25-40 based on estimated gonadotoxicity of treatments 5 years after cancer diagnosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: Oocyte cryopreservation prior to cancer treatment is more costly, yet more effective (producing more live births), than not undergoing oocyte cryopreservation but it is most beneficial for patients undergoing high-risk chemotherapy (HRC). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The decision to undergo FP prior to treatment is multifactorial and can be costly and delay treatment. Not all treatments carry the same gonadotoxicity and patients may choose to undergo FP-OC based on the probability of premature ovarian insufficiency, predicted outcomes and cost. A comprehensive model that incorporates age at diagnosis and toxicity of treatment to help guide patients in the decision to undergo FP-OC does not yet exist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE DURATION: This study used a Decision Analysis Model to estimate effectiveness and cost of FP for cancer patients. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Age-based estimates of LBR and cost per live birth were calculated for ages 25-40 years based on gonadotoxicity of treatment. A decision analysis model was constructed using Treeage Pro 2015 with case base probabilities derived from national registries, practice guidelines and medical records from a national network of infertility practices (IntegraMed). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Compared to no FP-OC, FP-OC improved LBRs for women of all ages undergoing either low-risk chemotherapy (LRC) or HRC; however, it was most cost effective for women undergoing LRC at older ages or HRC at younger ages. Although FP-OC results in higher LBRs, it was always more costly. Using donor oocyte IVF can be a successful alternative to autologous FP-OC. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Decision tree results reflect probabilities of certain events and are compiled from multiple reputable sources but are not directly derived from a recruited cohort of patients. Outcomes are based on United States estimates and should be interpreted in the broader context of individual patient diagnoses, treatment care plans and country of origin. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The development of this analytic model will help guide practitioners in their counseling of women from age 25 to 40 years, who are considering FP-OC at the time of cancer diagnosis. It provides a realistic pathway from diagnosis to LB and accounts for the majority of costs and outcome possibilities. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(s): This study was partially funded by a grant from National Institute of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (R01 HD67683) to A.Z.S. There are no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

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.

Fertility preservation in children and adolescents: current options and considerations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to outline current pediatric fertility preservation options, and discuss ethical and financial considerations impacting this rapidly expanding field. RECENT FINDINGS: With the improvement in treatment of pediatric malignancies and medical conditions that threaten fertility, survival rates are increasing. Therefore, minimizing long-term morbidities such as gonadal damage and infertility is of utmost importance. Impaired fertility not only has a significant negative impact on patient's quality of life; in women, gonadal damage puts patients at risk for premature menopause, and increased risk of cardiac, skeletal, and cognitive issues. Fortunately, fertility preservation options exist for both female and male prepubertal and pubertal patients, and discussion of such options with patients and their families prior to the initiation of therapy and/or before further deterioration of gonadal function is crucial. A multidisciplinary approach to fertility counseling, with attention to the patient's goals and cultural beliefs, is ideal. SUMMARY: Although several national organizations support integrating a fertility consultation into routine care, fertility preservation is still underutilized. Continued research is needed to understand barriers for patients/families and reduce the number of missed opportunities for fertility preservation.

A Call for Fertility Preservation Coverage for Breast Cancer Patients: The Cost of Consistency.

In 1998, the passage of the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act required insurance health plans nationwide covering breast cancer treatments to also reimburse for subsequent breast reconstructive surgery and prostheses. In response to low utilization of breast reconstructive services, particularly among racial minorities, plastic surgery interest groups successfully advocated for the passage of the Breast Cancer Patient Education Act, which provides a timely opportunity to reconsider patient accessibility to other equally important quality of life issues for cancer survivors. Currently, the potential threat of infertility as a consequence of cancer therapy does not meet preexisting definitions of infertility, making preemptive fertility preservation elective. Ultimately, cost remains the largest barrier to the pursuit of fertility preservation. In this Commentary, we estimate the potential additive cost of providing fertility preservation coverage for approximately 19 000 eligible women of reproductive age diagnosed with breast cancer based on previously published prevalence and cost data. We determine an upper limit of yearly cost of $126.6 million US dollars assuming 100% participation. Legislation providing mandatory insurance coverage of breast reconstruction surgeries in all 50 states following cancer treatment represents a powerful policy commitment to address existing health disparities in reproductive health services and ensures comprehensive cancer survivorship care. Extending coverage for fertility preservation in the setting of fertility-threatening treatment offers a consistent stance for insurance coverage of iatrogenic sequelae of cancer therapy at a fraction of the cost of breast reconstruction.