Experiences in fertility preservation: lessons learned to ensure that fertility and reproductive autonomy remain options for cancer survivors

Fertility after cancer

Both chemotherapy and radiotherapy can cause infertility in a patient undergoing cancer therapy. As both the ovaries and uterus are involved in female patients, the effects are profound. Where cryopreservation is not used or is unavailable, reproductive options include spontaneous conception if fertility returns, donor gametes, adoption, and surrogacy. Semen, oocyte, embryo, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation all offer an opportunity for a pregnancy after cancer cure if natural fertility is not possible. The risks of fertility preservation are significant for women due to the risks of surgical procedures, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and delay of cancer therapy. Pregnancies that establish in women after cancer cure have specific risks including premature labor, cesarean section, congenital anomalies, and the risk of transmitting disease associated with genetic history. Where ovarian reimplantation is considered, the risk of reimplantation of malignant cells must be considered particularly in hematological and breast disease.

Fertility preserving techniques in neuro-oncology patients: A systematic review

Background

Advancements in cancer treatments have enhanced survival rates and quality of life for patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors. There is growing recognition of the significance of fertility preservation methods. Currently, techniques, including oocyte cryopreservation and sperm cryopreservation are established. Nevertheless, oncologists may exhibit reluctance when referring patients to reproductive specialists. This review aimed to assess the best evidence for fertility preservation techniques used in patients with CNS cancers and evaluate outcomes relating to their success and complications.

Methods

Two reviewers performed a search of Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Papers were included if they reported at least 1 fertility preservation technique in a neuro-oncology patient. Non-English studies, editorials, animal studies, and guidelines were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model.

Results

Sixteen studies containing data from 237 participants (78.8% female) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, of whom 110 (46.4%) underwent fertility preservation techniques. All patients (100%) successfully underwent fertility preservation with 1 participant (2.9%) returning to rewarm their oocytes, embryos or sperm. On average, 17.8 oocytes were retrieved with 78%, ultimately being cryopreserved. Five (6.0%) patients successfully conceived 9 healthy-term children after utilizing their cryopreserved sperm, embryos, or oocytes. Moreover, 6 patients successfully conceived naturally or using intrauterine insemination, resulting in 7 healthy-term children.

Conclusions

Fertility preservation techniques could offer a safe and effective way for neuro-oncology patients to deliver healthy-term babies following treatment. However, further studies concerning risks, long-term pregnancy outcomes, and cost-effectiveness are needed.

Live birth rate after use of cryopreserved oocytes or embryos at the time of cancer diagnosis in female survivors: a retrospective study of ten years of experience

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of frozen oocytes or embryos cryopreserved after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) or in vitro maturation (IVM) for female cancer patients who underwent a fertility preservation (FP) prior to gonadotoxic therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study from 2009 to December 2017 was conducted. Among the 667 female cancer patients who underwent oocytes or embryos cryopreservation for FP, 40 (6%) have returned to the fertility clinic between 2011 and 2019 to use their frozen material after being cured. We compared these thaw cycles outcomes according to the techniques used at the time of cryopreservation.

RESULTS

Among the 40 women cancer survivors who used their cryopreserved material, thirty patients have benefited from at least one embryo transfer. Ten patients did not have an embryo transfer since the oocytes did not survive after the thawing process or because no embryo was obtained after fertilization. We related three live births following FP using IVM (two from frozen oocytes and one after embryo cryopreservation). Five live births were obtained when COS was performed at the time of FP (one from frozen oocytes and four after embryo cryopreservation).

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary results, although they are obtained in a small sample, are encouraging and show that different FP techniques can be used in female cancer patients and lead to live births. IVM is one of the options available that does not delay the start of chemotherapy or if ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins is contraindicated.

Outcomes after Fertility-sparing Surgery for Women with Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

To compare reproductive and oncologic outcomes of patients diagnosed with early-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma, borderline ovarian tumors, or nonepithelial ovarian carcinoma according to receipt of fertility-sparing surgery or conventional surgery.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed was searched from January 1, 1995, to May 29, 2020.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they (1) enrolled women of childbearing age diagnosed with ovarian cancer between the ages of 18 years and 50 years, (2) reported on oncologic and/or reproductive outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for ovarian cancer, and (3) included at least 20 patients.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The initial search identified 995 studies. After duplicates were removed, we abstracted 980 unique citations. Of those screened, 167 publications were identified as potentially relevant, and evaluated for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The final review included 44 studies in epithelial ovarian cancer, 42 in borderline ovarian tumors, and 31 in nonepithelial ovarian carcinoma. The narrative synthesis demonstrated that overall survival does not seem to be compromised in patients undergoing fertility-sparing surgery compared with those undergoing conventional surgery, although long-term data are limited. Areas of controversy include safety of fertility-sparing surgery in the setting of high-risk factors (stage IC, grade 3, and clear cell histology), as well as type of surgery (salpingo-oophorectomy vs cystectomy). It seems that although there may be some fertility compromise after surgery, pregnancy and live-birth rates are encouraging.

CONCLUSION

Fertility-sparing surgery is safe and feasible in women with early-stage low-risk ovarian cancer. Pregnancy outcomes for these patients also seem to be similar to those of the general population.

Effects of cancer stage and grade on fertility preservation outcome and ovarian stimulation response

STUDY QUESTION

Do the stage and grade of malignancy affect the fertility preservation outcome in females?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Patients with high-grade cancer have a decreased number of retrieved mature oocytes and cryopreserved embryos.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Cancer has local and systemic effects on the host. The effects of cancer spread and aggressiveness on the ovarian function and stimulation response remain unclear.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Retrospective cohort study evaluating data of all fertility preservation treatment cycles among women with cancer at the reproductive unit of the McGill University Health Centre in the period from 2008 to 2017.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Study inclusion criteria were age 18-38 years, first stimulation cycle, GnRH-antagonist protocol and early follicular phase stimulation start. Only one stimulation cycle per patient was included. Patients with ovarian pathology, previous ovarian surgery and previous chemo- or radiotherapy were excluded. The outcomes of women with low-stage cancer (local tumor Stage I-II, no lymph node involvement, no metastases) were compared with those with high-stage disease (local tumor Stage III-IV, lymph node involvement or metastases). Similarly we compared those with low-grade (G1-2) and high-grade (G3-4) malignancies. The primary outcome measure was the number of mature oocytes retrieved. The secondary outcomes included the total number of retrieved oocytes, the number of vitrified oocytes, and the number of frozen embryos. We used Student's t-test for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon test for skewed data. To determine factors associated with good fertility preservation outcome defined as over 10 retrieved mature oocytes, we used multivariate logistic regression.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 147 patients were included in the final analysis. Age, body mass index, ovarian reserve parameters of the study groups in stage- and grade-based analyses were similar. Compared to women with low-stage cancer (n = 83), those with high-stage cancer (n = 64) required a higher dose of gonadotropin (P = 0.02). The number of retrieved mature oocytes (9 (7-13) versus 8 (5-12); P = 0.37) and vitrified oocytes (10 (7-15) versus 10 (7-13); P = 0.53) were similar between the two groups. However, in cycles where fertilization of all retrieved oocytes was performed, the fertilization rate (82.7% versus 71.5%; P = 0.03) and the number of vitrified embryos (6.2 ± 3.2 versus 4.3 ± 2.1; P = 0.01) were higher in the low-stage group. Compared to patients with low-grade cancer (n = 62), those with high-grade disease (n = 85) had significantly lower number of retrieved mature oocytes (11 (7-15) versus 8 (5-11); P = 0.002) and vitrified oocytes (12 (8-15) versus 10 (7-11); P = 0.005). The number of vitrified embryos was lower in high-grade group (6.5 ± 3.5 versus 4.6 ± 2.3; P = 0.03) in cycles where the fertilization was performed. In multivariate logistical analysis, the low-grade cancer was significantly associated with retrieval of over 10 mature oocytes (OR = 4.26; 95% CI 1.82-9.98; P = 0.0009).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The main limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small sample size in the embryological outcome analysis. The results of our study should be viewed with caution as different malignancy types were included in the study groups, although their distribution between the study groups was similar.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Cancer grade seems to have a negative impact on the fertility preservation outcome and the ovarian stimulation response.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Authors have not received any funding to support this study. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Social egg freezing under public health perspective: Just a medical reality or a women's right? An ethical case analysis

In recent years, a social trend toward delaying childbearing has been observed in women of reproductive age. A novel technomedical innovation was commercialized for non-medical reasons to healthy, ostensibly fertile women, who wished to postpone motherhood for various reasons such as educational or career demands, or because they had not yet found a partner. As a consequence, these women may be affected by age-related infertility when they decide to conceive, and fertility preservation techniques can be obtained through the so-called social egg freezing. This paper examines, from an ethical point of view, the impact of social egg freezing under some aspects that can involve policy making and resources allocation in public health. Due to the increasing demand for this procedure, some debated issues regard if it is reasonable to include social egg freezing in Public Healthcare System and consequently how to manage the storage of cryopreserved oocytes also from individual donors, how to support these egg banks and how to face, in the future, with the possibility that egg freezing will play a role in enabling childbearing for gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons. Social freezing may be advertised to harmonise gender differences, but we wonder if it is the proper solution to the problem or if it could also create further challenges. An ethical argumentation on these topics should address some questions that will be discussed.

Responses to fertility treatment among patients with cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Cancer treatments have significant negative impacts on female fertility, but the impact of cancer itself on fertility remains to be clarified. While some studies have shown that compared with healthy women, those with cancer require higher doses of gonadotropins resulting in decreased oocyte yields, others have shown comparable oocyte yields between the two groups. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether there is an association between any cancer and/or type of cancer, and response to ovarian stimulation for egg and embryo banking.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, ovarian stimulation cycles performed from June 2007 through October 2014 at a single academic medical center were reviewed to identify those undertaken for women with cancer undergoing fertility preservation (n = 147) or women with no cancer undergoing their first cycle due to male factor infertility (n = 664). Of the 147 women undergoing fertility preservation, 105 had local cancer (Stage I-III solid malignancies) and 42 had systemic cancer (hematologic or Stage IV solid malignancies). Response to ovarian stimulation was compared among these two groups and women with no cancer.

Results

Adjusting for age and BMI, women with systemic cancer had lower baseline antral follicle counts (AFC) than women with no cancer or local cancer. Women with systemic cancer required higher doses of FSH than women with no cancer or local cancer, and they had higher oocyte to AFC ratios than women with no cancer or local cancer, but greater odds of cycle cancellation as compared to women with no cancer or local cancer. No significant differences were observed among the three groups for duration of stimulation, number of oocytes and mature oocytes retrieved, or number of embryos created.

Conclusions

Women with cancer achieve similar oocyte and embryo yields as women with no cancer, although those with systemic cancer require higher FSH doses and are at greater risk of cycle cancellation.

Thirteen years' experience in fertility preservation for cancer patients after in vitro fertilization and in vitro maturation treatments

PURPOSE

This study aims to describe the experience and outcomes of in vitro maturation without ovarian stimulation (IVM-FP) and conventional in vitro fertilization after ovarian stimulation (IVF-FP) in a fertility preservation (FP) program for women with cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study from 2003 to 2015 was conducted. The study population consisted of 353 women with cancer who underwent 394 FP cycles (187 IVF-FP cycles and 207 IVM-FP) for oocytes and/or embryos cryopreservation.

RESULT(S)

Comparatively with IVM-FP, IVF-FP had a higher median [25th-75th percentile] number of oocytes collected-12 [8-18] vs 7 [5-13]; oocytes cryopreserved-10 [6-15] vs 5 [2-8]; and, where applicable, embryos cryopreserved-5 [3-7] vs 3 [2-5] (p < 0.000001). Following FP treatment, 32 patients (9.0%) died, 18 patients (5.6%) conceived spontaneously, and 23 patients (6.5%) returned to attempt pregnancy with a median lapse of returning of 4.6 [3.1-6.1] years. Of these, cryopreserved oocytes or embryos were used in 33 cycles (19 after IVF-FP and 14 after IVM-FP). Overall, the cumulative pregnancy rate (CPR) was 47.6% (10/21) and the live birth rate (LBR) was 38.1% (8/21). Per cycle, CPR and LBR were 37 and 31% following IVF-FP and 14 and 7% following IVM-FP, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. We report the fourth live birth after IVM-FP in cancer, and the first one after IVM embryo warming resulting from in vivo oocyte retrieval and IVM procedure.

CONCLUSION(S)

Both IVF-FP and IVM-FP are possible options for FP women with cancer. Due to minimal data regarding ultimate outcomes, further follow-up is needed.

Cancer survivors of gynecologic malignancies are at risk for decreased opportunity for fertility preservation

Background

Cancer survivors rate fertility as one of the most important determinants of their quality of life in the years after cancer treatment. We seek to describe the reproductive goals of women affected by gynecologic cancers and investigate their specific challenges during fertility preservation (FP) counseling.

Methods

Univariate & multivariate logistic regression were used for quantitative analysis of objective FP counseling measures between women with gynecologic (GYN) and non-gynecologic (non-GYN) cancers from a cross sectional survey. Framework analysis was conducted on patient perception of physician-patient interactions.

Results

Of the 2537 women contacted, 1892 responded and 1686 reported treatment with potential to impact fertility. Among women with GYN cancers 52% wanted future children. Women <35 years were interested in FP (74%). Women with Gyn cancers received less FP counseling than women with non Gyn cancer (OR 0.5 95% CI 0.4-0.6). Three hundred twenty-four patients gave qualitative answers. Patient identified barriers included incomplete FP information (59%), nondisclosure (29%), a disinterest in FP (5%), and a perceived urgency to start treatment (7%).

Conclusions

Women with gynecologic cancers are less likely to be counseled about FP in comparison to women not affected by gynecologic cancers despite having similar fertility goals. We have identified patient perceived barriers to optimal FP counseling which may be improved upon to increase the value of FP and optimize quality of life for cancer survivors of gynecologic malignancies.

Successful Oocyte Cryopreservation in Reproductive-Aged Cancer Survivors

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that oocyte cryopreservation is a feasible reproductive option for patients with cancer of childbearing age who require gonadotoxic therapies.

METHODS

This study is a university-based retrospective review of reproductive-aged cancer patient treatment cycles that included ovarian stimulation, transvaginal oocyte retrieval, oocyte cryopreservation, and, in some cases, subsequent oocyte thaw, in vitro fertilization, and embryo transfer. Outcome measures included ovarian stimulation response, number of oocytes retrieved, cryopreserved, and thawed, and pregnancy data.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2014, 176 reproductive-aged patients with cancer (median age 31 years, interquartile range 24-36) completed 182 oocyte cryopreservation cycles. Median time between consult request and oocyte retrieval was 12 days (interquartile range 10-14). Median peak stimulation estradiol was 1,446 pg/mL (interquartile range 730-2,687); 15 (interquartile range 9-23) oocytes were retrieved and 10 (interquartile range 5-18) metaphase II oocytes were cryopreserved per cycle. Ten patients (11 cycles) have returned to attempt pregnancy with their cryopreserved oocytes. Among thawed oocytes, the cryopreservation survival rate was 86% (confidence interval [CI] 78-94%). Nine of 11 thaw cycles resulted in embryos suitable for transfer. The embryo implantation rate was 27% (CI 8-46%) and the live birth rate was 44% (CI 12-77%) per embryo transfer. Chance for live birth with embryos created from cryopreserved oocytes was similar between the patients with cancer in this study and noncancer patients who underwent the same treatment at our center (44% [CI 12-77%] compared with 33% [CI 22-44%] per embryo transfer).

CONCLUSION

Oocyte cryopreservation is now a feasible fertility preservation option for reproductive-aged patients with cancer who require gonadotoxic therapies.

Discussing reproductive health in spinal care, part II: fertility issues

PURPOSE

Due to advancing insights, discussing fertility in spinal care is an emerging topic. Studies among neurosurgeons to evaluate clinical practice about discussing fertility are non-existent. The aim of this study is to review knowledge, attitude and practice patterns regarding discussing fertility in spinal care.

METHODS

Dutch neurosurgeons and residents were sent a mail-based questionnaire addressing attitude, knowledge and practice patterns regarding discussing fertility.

RESULTS

Response rate was 62 % (compared to mean of 28 % in similar surveys) with 89 questionnaires suitable for analysis. Mean age was 42 years with 83 % of respondents being male. A quarter of respondents stated neurosurgeons are responsible to discuss fertility, with 12 % indicating to actually do this. Fertility is discussed more often with patients with cauda equina syndrome (70 %) and with men (p = 0.006). Merely 8 % of respondents stated to have adequate knowledge on fertility preservation (FP); this percentage was higher for doctors with spinal surgery as specialty (p = 0.015). In case of cauda equina syndrome, doctors with more knowledge discussed fertility more often (p = 0.002). Fifty-three percent of neurosurgeons wished to enhance their knowledge, in order to feel more comfortable to discuss fertility with their patients. Five percent indicated to have ever referred a patient to a fertility specialist.

CONCLUSION

With the exception of cauda equina syndrome, fertility is not routinely discussed in spinal care. Fertility is discussed more often with men. Recent guidelines state that discussing fertility is an essential part of good practice in spinal care. Education on fertility and FP needs to be integrated in the neurosurgical training program to create more awareness, and to enable clinicians to provide adequate information and care to the patient.

Embryo banking among women diagnosed with cancer: a pilot population-based study in New York, Texas, and Illinois

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study is to estimate the proportion of women with cancer who return to use the embryos that they have banked and to compare this proportion to that of women without cancer who bank embryos.

METHODS

This is a cohort study of three groups of women from New York, Texas, and Illinois who used embryo banking in their first assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment cycle: two groups with cancer (222 women without an infertility diagnosis and 48 women with an infertility diagnosis) and a control group without cancer (68 women with the infertility diagnosis of male factor only). Women were included only if their first ART cycle reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) occurred between 2004 and 2009. Cancer cases were identified from each State Cancer Registry from 5 years prior to initiation of ART treatment to 6 months post-initiation; mean follow-up after the first ART cycle was 2.0 years.

RESULTS

Women with cancer without an infertility diagnosis returned for a subsequent ART cycle at a lower rate (10.8 %) than those with an infertility diagnosis (31.3 %, p = 0.0010) or the control group (85.3 %, p < 0.0001). Among those who returned for a subsequent cycle, women with cancer waited a longer time to return (14.3 months without an infertility diagnosis and 8.3 months with an infertility diagnosis, p = 0.13) compared to the control group (2.8 months, p = 0.0007). The live birth rate among women who did not utilize embryo banking in their second cycle did not differ significantly across the three study groups, ranging from 25.0 and 42.9 % for women with cancer with and without an infertility diagnosis, respectively, to 36.2 % for women in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with cancer without an infertility diagnosis are either less likely to return for subsequent treatment or will wait a longer time to return than women with an infertility diagnosis or those that do not have cancer. A longer-term study is necessary to assess whether these women return to use their frozen embryos after cancer treatment or are able to spontaneously conceive and if those subsequent pregnancies are adversely affected by the cancer diagnosis or therapy.

Fertility Preservation Before Cancer Treatment: Options, Strategies, and Resources

BACKGROUND

Loss of fertility is one of the many potential late effects of cancer treatment. For young men and women who have not yet started or completed building their families, this can be a source of considerable emotional distress. Advances in reproductive technology can enable many of these patients to preserve their fertility; however, discussions must be initiated early enough during treatment planning to enable them to take advantage of these options.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to provide oncology nurses with information, strategies, and resources to discuss fertility with men and women starting cancer treatment.

METHODS

This article summarizes the literature on treatment-related fertility risks and fertility preservation options, and provides a systematic framework for nurses to integrate these discussions into practice.

FINDINGS

Oncology nurses can effectively collaborate with other members of the healthcare team to ensure that young men and women starting cancer treatment are informed of the potential risks to fertility from their planned treatment, understand options to preserve fertility before treatment, and, if interested, are referred to appropriate reproductive specialists.

Factors associated with the receipt of fertility preservation services along the decision-making pathway in young Canadian female cancer patients

PURPOSE

This study investigated the factors associated with the receipt of fertility preservation (FP) services along the decision-making pathway in young Canadian female cancer patients. The roles of the oncologists were examined.

METHODS

A total of 188 women who were diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 18-39 after the year 2000 and had finished active cancer treatment by the time of the survey (2012-2013) participated in the study. Logistic regression models and Pearson χ (2) tests were used for analyses.

RESULTS

The mean ages of participants at diagnosis and at survey time were 30.2 (SD = 3.7) and 33.9 (SD = 5.9). One quarter (n = 45, 23.9 %) did not recall having a fertility discussion with their oncologists. Of the three quarters who had a fertility discussion (n = 143, 76.1 %), discussions were equally initiated by oncologists (n = 71) and patients (n = 72). Of the 49 women (26 %) who consulted a fertility specialist, 17 (9 %) underwent a FP procedure. Fertility concern at diagnosis was the driving force of the receipt of FP services at all decision points. Our findings suggest that not only was the proactive approach of oncologists in initiating a fertility discussion important, the quality of the discussion was equally critical in the decision-making pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologists play a pivotal role in the provision of fertility services in that they are not only gate keepers, knowledge brokers, and referral initiators of FP consultation, but also they are catalysts in supporting cancer patients making important FP decision in conjunction with the consultation provided by a fertility specialist.

Fertility preservation in female cancer patients: An overview

Fertility preservation is becoming increasingly important to improve the quality of life in cancer survivors. Despite guidelines suggesting that discussion of fertility preservation should be done prior to starting cancer therapies, there is a lack of implementation in this area. A number of techniques are available for fertility preservation, and they can be used individually or together in the same patient to maximize efficiency. Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are now established techniques but have their limitations. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation though considered experimental at present, has a wider clinical application and the advantage of keeping the fertility window open for a longer time. Both chemotherapy and radiotherapy have a major impact on reproductive potential and fertility preservation procedures should be carried out prior to these treatments. The need for fertility preservation has to be weighed against morbidity and mortality associated with cancer. There is thus a need for a multidisciplinary collaboration between oncologists and reproductive specialists to improve awareness and availability.

Challenges and considerations in optimizing ovarian stimulation protocols in oncofertility patients

The scope of cancer treatment in women of childbearing age has changed in the last decade. Fertility preservation is no longer an afterthought but central to multi-disciplinary cancer treatment planning and should be addressed due to the cytotoxic effects of cancer therapy. However, oncology patients present as a unique treatment challenge as the physician must balance the urgency of fertility preservation with the risks of delaying cancer therapy. Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is routinely applied in assisted reproductive technology but can be contraindicated in women with estrogen-receptor-positive tumors. This paper reviews some of the challenges to consider when using COS and newer stimulation protocols to minimize risks and optimize outcomes in oncofertility patients.

Preserving fertility in patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer: current perspectives

Invasive breast cancer (BC) is the most frequent cancer of young women. Considering the trend toward postponing childbearing until the later reproductive years, the number of childless women at diagnosis of BC will continue to increase. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have recommended that the impact of cancer treatments on fertility should be addressed with all cancer patients of reproductive age and that options for fertility preservation, such as cryopreservation of embryos and oocytes, ovarian tissue, in vitro maturation of immature oocytes, and ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, should be discussed routinely. To optimally counsel patients on how to best weigh the risks and benefits of fertility preservation, both the health care provider and the patient must know about the options, their risks, and their likelihood of success. The aim of this review is to summarize current knowledge on fertility preservation options for young BC patients, surrogates of ovarian function, psychosocial aspects of infertility after cancer treatment, women’s attitudes towards childbearing after cancer treatment, and health care providers’ attitudes towards fertility preservation.