New approaches to female fertility preservation

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge, Attitude and Current Behaviours towards Female Fertility Preservation Services within the UK

(1) Background: This study aims to establish the knowledge, attitudes and current behaviours towards female fertility preservation (FP) services amongst healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the UK. (2) Methods: An online survey was advertised publicly on the social media platform Instagram between 25 February 2021 and 11 March 2021. (3) Results: In total, 415 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the survey. The majority of HCPs discussed FP techniques either never 39.5% (n = 164), once a year 20.7% (n = 86) or once a month 17.8% (n = 74). The majority rated their knowledge of each type of FP method as 'very poor' or 'poor' and strongly disagreed 14.2% (n = 59) or disagreed 42.2% (n = 175) with the statement they 'felt confident to counsel a patient on FP'. The majority either agreed 37.8% (n = 157) or strongly agreed 22.2% (n = 92) that it was their responsibility to discuss FP and 38.1% (n = 158) agreed or strongly agreed 19.5% (n = 81) they considered the desire for future fertility when planning treatment. The majority 87.2% (n = 362) had not experienced formal training on FP. (4) Conclusions: Discrepancies in knowledge remain regarding techniques of FP, referral pathways, awareness of facilities offering services and existing educational resources. Many HCPs recognise the importance of FP and their responsibility to initiate discussions. The knowledge that FP may not delay the treatment of cancer has also improved; however, training in FP is scarce.

Cancer patients' and professional caregivers' needs, preferences and factors associated with receiving and providing fertility-related information: a mixed-methods systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Cancer treatment can impair fertility. The aim of this review was to investigate (1) fertility information needs, receipt and provision, (2) fertility information preferences, and (3) factors associated with receiving/providing fertility information. Cancer patients' and professional caregivers' perspectives were considered.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, CRD, Embase) were systematically screened to retrieve articles published between January 2001 and March 2012. Reference lists and conference abstracts were checked for additional publications.

REVIEW METHODS

The principles outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention were applied. Publications were included if they explored fertility-related information/communication in cancer patients/survivors of reproductive age or professional caregivers. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for Qualitative Studies and the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies were used to assess the methodological quality. A standardised form based on the Cochrane guidelines for systematic reviews was used to extract the data. Two independent reviewers performed all methodological steps.

RESULTS

Of the 1872 papers found, 27 were included in this review. The majority (66-100%) of the cancer patients wanted information about the impact of cancer therapy on fertility. The need and importance were higher in younger and childless patients, and in patients having childbearing plans. The number of patients receiving this information ranged from 0% to 85%. Several factors were associated with the lack of information receipt, including female gender and age 35 years or older. Patients preferred information via an individual consultation. In the diagnostic phase patients needed information about the impact of the treatment on fertility and preservation options. At the end or after the treatment, information needs shifted towards long term effects. Professional caregivers experienced several barriers in providing fertility information, including caregiver-, patient- and institutional-related factors. Nurses in particular, perceived difficulty in providing fertility-related information due to additional barriers associated with limited responsibility and opportunity in fertility information provision.

CONCLUSION

Professional caregivers experienced multiple barriers that hinder information provision. Further exploration of the role of Advanced Nurse Practitioners/Midwifes and the development of an evidence based intervention to overcome caregiver-related barriers are recommended to improve information provision.

Genotoxicity assessment of mouse oocytes by comet assay before vitrification and after warming with three vitrification protocols

OBJECTIVE

To assess the genotoxicity of three oocyte vitrification protocols.

DESIGN

Murine assay.

SETTING

Biogenotoxicology research laboratory.

ANIMAL(S)

CD1 female mice.

INTERVENTION(S)

Three mouse oocyte groups were exposed to three commercialized human oocyte vitrification protocols. Protocols 1 and 2 contained dimethyl sulfoxide and ethylene glycol (EG), and protocol 3 contained EG and 1,2-propanediol (PrOH). DNA damage was first evaluated by comet assay after oocyte exposure to the three different equilibration and vitrification solutions. Comet assay was also performed after full vitrification and warming procedure and compared with a negative control group (oocytes stored in medium culture only) and a positive control group (oocytes exposed to hydrogen peroxide just before comet assay).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

DNA damage was quantified as Olive tail moment (OTM). Statistical analysis consisted of a Shapiro-Wilk test. Then, median protocol OTM was compared with the negative control group with the Mann-Whitney U test. The difference was considered to be statistically significant if the P value was <.05.

RESULT(S)

In both parts of our study, protocols 1 and 2 did not induce significant DNA damage, whereas protocol 3 induced statistically higher DNA damage compared with the negative control group.

CONCLUSION(S)

Vitrification protocols containing PrOH induced significant DNA damage on mouse oocytes, both before cooling and after warming. Therefore, for the moment, we prefer vitrification techniques without PrOH while we await more studies on PrOH toxicity and long-term evaluation.

Is vitrification of oocytes useful for fertility preservation for age-related fertility decline and in cancer patients?

The aim of this review is to provide current knowledge on oocyte cryopreservation, with special emphasis on vitrification as a means to preserve fertility in different indications. Major advancements achieved in the past few years in the cryolaboratory have facilitated major changes in our practice. Areas such as fertility preservation for social or oncologic reasons, the possibility to create oocyte banks for egg donation programs, the opportunity to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, or to accumulate oocytes in low-yield patients, or even to offer treatment segmentation by stimulating the ovaries, vitrifying, and then transferring in a natural cycle are some of the options that are now available with the development of cryopreservation. We present general experience from our group and others on fertility preservation for age-related fertility decline as well as in oncologic patients, confirming that oocyte vitrification is a standardized, simple, reproducible, and efficient option.

Female reproductive health after childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancers: guidelines for the assessment and management of female reproductive complications

PURPOSE

As more young female patients with cancer survive their primary disease, concerns about reproductive health related to primary therapy gain relevance. Cancer therapy can often affect reproductive organs, leading to impaired pubertal development, hormonal regulation, fertility, and sexual function, affecting quality of life.

METHODS

The Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines for Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer (COG-LTFU Guidelines) are evidence-based recommendations for screening and management of late effects of therapeutic exposures. The guidelines are updated every 2 years by a multidisciplinary panel based on current literature review and expert consensus.

RESULTS

This review summarizes the current task force recommendations for the assessment and management of female reproductive complications after treatment for childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancers. Experimental pretreatment as well as post-treatment fertility preservation strategies, including barriers and ethical considerations, which are not included in the COG-LTFU Guidelines, are also discussed.

CONCLUSION

Ongoing research will continue to inform COG-LTFU Guideline recommendations for follow-up care of female survivors of childhood cancer to improve their health and quality of life.

Fertility preservation in young cancer patients

As a result of advances in treatment, almost 80% of children and adolescents who receive a diagnosis of cancer become long-term survivors. The increased survival rate of children and adolescents with cancer has resulted in a major interest in the long-term effects of cancer treatment on the possibility for future fertility. Currently established methods for the preservation of fertility are available only for pubertal males and females. Pubertal male cancer patients should be encouraged to freeze numerous sperm samples even when sperm count and motility are poor. In these cases, intracytoplasmic sperm injection is a powerful technique compared with intrauterine insemination since thawed sperm samples with poor parameters can produce relatively high fertilization rates resulting in normal pregnancies and deliveries. Married pubertal women should be proposed ovulation induction, follicular aspiration, and fertilization with husband sperm. Single women could benefit from vitrification of oocytes. This requires a delay of about 3 weeks in the commencement of chemotherapy to enable follicular growth. Fertility preservation for prepubertal patients is more of a problem. Young girls could be offered cryopreservation of gametes in the gonadal tissue. Cryopreservation of testicular tissue was suggested for fertility preservation for young boys, but this method is totally experimental and not currently offered. Discussing future fertility is part of the consultation of young female and male patients facing potentially gonadotoxic cancer therapy. It is the role of reproductive specialists to create various options in their laboratory to preserve fertility potential of cancer patients.