Beyond fertility preservation: role of the oncofertility unit in the reproductive and gynecological follow-up of young cancer patients.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there reasons that motivate young cancer survivors to ask for follow-up visits at an oncofertility unit? SUMMARY ANSWER: Cancer survivors request oncofertility follow-up visits for the management of treatment-related side effects or ovarian reserve evaluation, even if not (or not yet) wishing for a pregnancy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Personalised oncofertility counselling before gonadotoxic therapies is considered standard of care for young women with newly diagnosed cancer. However, the long-term follow-up of these patients in an oncofertility unit is not described in the literature other than for the use of cryopreserved material. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We retrospectively examined rates and reasons for the first follow-up visits of 154 consecutive young female cancer patients (age range: 18-40 years) who underwent a pre-treatment consultation between January 2012 and June 2017. Demographic and clinical data were collected, as well as information about the chosen fertility preservation method, if any. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Rates and reasons for follow-up visits were collected and expressed as percentages. Different reasons were examined in the whole cohort and stratified for type of malignancy. Possible predictive factors for return to the follow-up visit (age, nulliparity, presence of a partner, neoplasm, having cryopreserved material) were investigated through logistic regression. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 154 patients, 74 returned to the oncofertility unit (48.1%) for a follow-up visit. The first visit was requested mostly at the end of anticancer therapies (51.3% versus 40.5% during therapies and 8.1% after cancer relapse). Among these patients, only 10.8% returned for the first time because they were actively desiring a pregnancy. For the others, the most common reasons for consultations were management of gynecological adverse effects of therapies (29.7%) and evaluation of ovarian reserve not linked to an immediate desire for a pregnancy (39.2%). Other patients asked for contraception (4.1%), menopause counselling (5.4%), or new fertility preservation counselling because of cancer relapse (10.8%). None of the examined factors were significantly predictive of return to the oncofertility unit. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: These findings represent the experience of a single centre. A longer duration of follow-up would be needed to provide more precise information on this regard. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: The role of an oncofertility unit should not be limited to proposing fertility preservation procedures. In the management of young adult cancer patients, the reproductive medical specialist should be considered a key figure not only before but also during and after anticancer treatments to explore salient aspects of gynecological and reproductive health. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research did not receive any specific funding. M.L. served as a consultant for Teva and received honoraria from Theramex outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N.A.

Attitudes on fertility issues in breast cancer patients: an Italian survey.

BACKGROUND: Fertility issues should be discussed with young women before the start of any anticancer treatment. The study is aimed to investigate the attitude on fertility among Italian oncologists and breast surgeons dealing with BCa, and to report the consensus achieved on specific statements. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-two panelists anonymously expressed an opinion through a web-based platform on 19 statements based on the Delphi method. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of oncologists considered important to discuss with patients about fertility issues and 83% believed estrogens could stimulate the growth of hidden cancer cells in ER(+) tumors. Difficulties in accessing fertility preservation procedures were mainly due to patients' reluctance, but also to lack of coordination with the assisted reproduction specialists. No full consensus was reached on the prognostic role of pregnancy after BCa. Fifty-four percent of oncologists declared that pregnancy does not affect oncologic prognosis. Treatment with GnRHa during chemotherapy was considered the only mean for preserving ovarian function. CONCLUSIONS: Fertility preservation in BCa patients is a well-accepted practice among Italian oncologists. A poor knowledge of this specific issue emerged from the survey, even if a certain degree of agreement was observed on most fertility-related issues.

Pregnancy complications after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cells transplantation: Focus on the placenta.

INTRODUCTION: hematopoietic stem cells transplantation (HSCT) is a treatment option for malignant and non-malignant haematological diseases. Because of the improved survival rates and the more widespread use of reproductive technologies in the last two decades, the number of patients who conceive is increasing while the pathogenesis of some obstetrical complications observed is not yet fully clarified. METHODS: we present complete data about two pregnancies in women who had previously undergone HSTC, with conditioning regimen including total body irradiation. One pregnancy is spontaneous and one after oocytes donation. RESULTS: In both pregnancies we observed relevant intrauterine growth retardation, attributable to a deficit in implantation and placentation. Ultrasound and histological data point to a defective placenta development, possibly sustained by uterine vessel damage caused by irradiation. A deeper understanding of factors influencing placentation post total body irradiation and HSCT, including the possible role of donor's sex and graft versus host disease, is pivotal to improve pregnancy outcomes in this specific population.

Fifteen Year Regional Center Experience in Sperm Banking for Cancer Patients: Use and Reproductive Outcomes in Survivors.

Cancer treatments frequently impair the reproductive ability of patients by damaging spermatogenesis. International guidelines recommend semen cryopreservation to preserve the fertility of oncological adult males and pubertal boys. However, due to the low usage rate of banked samples, not a lot of data on assisted reproductive treatments (ART) success rates in this population and follow-up data for children born are available in the literature. The aims of this study were to report our 15 years of experience, the clinical outcomes of ART as well as neonatal characteristics of babies born. We retrospectively reviewed 682 oncological patients who were referred to our center from 2004 to 2019 for fertility preservation. Over the years, only 26 patients (4%) returned to use their sperm by ART. They were survivors of leukemia and lymphomas (52%), testicular cancer (20%), and other malignant diseases (28%). These couples performed 45 cycles: 34 intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) plus 11 frozen embryo transfers. A total of 13 children were born, with 35% of the cumulative live-birth delivery rate per couple. No stillbirths or malformations were recorded. These successful findings demonstrated that pregnancy could be safely achieved using frozen-thawed sperm of cancer survivors who cryopreserved before gonadotoxic therapies.

Fertility Preservation in Gynecologic Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To review current conservative fertility-sparing options for patients undergoing surgical and medical management of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers. Standard and investigational fertility preservation alternatives using assisted reproductive technologies are described. DATA SOURCES: A review of articles dated 2006-2018 from PubMed. CONCLUSION: While a frequently reported concern among female cancer survivors of childbearing potential, fertility preservation education and procedures continue to be an unmet need for this population. IMPLICATION FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Knowledge of current fertility-sparing options is imperative for nurses to ensure fertility preservation is introduced early, and often, into education for patients from diagnosis, through treatment, and in survivorship.

State of the art on oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients: A critical review of the literature.

During the last decades, important advances in therapeutic options have led to increased survival rates in cancer patients; however, cancer treatments are associated with several potential adverse effects including infertility in those diagnosed during their reproductive years. A proper discussion about fertility preservation options before the use of therapies with potential gonadotoxicity (i.e. oncofertility counseling) is standard of care and should be offered to all patients of childbearing age. Temporary ovarian suppression with LH-RH analogs, oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservation in female cancer patients. Oocyte cryopreservation should be preferred to embryo cryopreservation when this latter is prohibited by law, avoided for ethical or religious issues and in single women refusing sperm donation. Despite the increasing use of this strategy, data are still lacking about the efficacy and safety of the procedure in female cancer patients, with most of the evidence on this regard deriving from infertile non-oncologic women. This article aims at critically review the available evidence about the success of oocyte cryopreservation in female cancer patients with the final goal to further improve the oncofertility counseling of these women.