Published in

American Society of Clinical Oncology, JCO Oncology Practice, 3(18), p. e325-e333, 2022

DOI: 10.1200/op.21.00275

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

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

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

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.