Parent-Adolescent Concordance Regarding Fertility Perspectives and Sperm Banking Attempts in Adolescent Males With Cancer

Fertility Preservation Discussions And Decisions: Results From a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Among Adolescent Males With Cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The Family-centered Adolescent Sperm banking values clarification Tool (FAST) was developed to facilitate sperm banking communication and decision-making pre-cancer treatment. The FAST was tested in a pilot parallel randomized controlled trial (Fertility Preservation Discussions And Decisions: "FP-DAD"-NCT04268004), aiming to (i) assess feasibility/acceptability of FP-DAD; and (ii) examine efficacy regarding banking attempts (yes/no) and decision quality. Differences in decision quality by banking attempt were explored.

DESIGN/METHODS

Males (12-25 years, new cancer diagnosis) and caregivers were randomized to standard of care (fertility consult) or FP-DAD (fertility consult + FAST + interventionist-led discussion). One month later, FP-DAD participants completed acceptability surveys. Both arms completed the Brief Subjective Decision Quality measure. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, and independent samples t-tests/mixed-models examined relationships between variables.

RESULTS

Acceptability ratings of FP-DAD were high (88%-100%). Recruitment and participation challenges limited the final sample size (21 adolescents and 32 caregivers). Banking attempts (67% in standard of care vs. 82% in FP-DAD) did not differ by arm. While decision quality was not significantly different between groups, effect sizes were medium-large for four of six items for adolescents (d = 0.6 to -0.90) and two of six for caregivers (d = 0.36 to -0.78). Decision quality was significantly higher across several domains among those who banked.

CONCLUSIONS

FP-DAD had high acceptability, though feasibility challenges (e.g., time contraints) limited full family participation. Findings showed limited efficacy, but effect sizes suggest this may be due to sample size. Relationships between banking attempts and decision quality emphasize banking benefits. Findings will inform adaptations to the FAST for clinical implementation.

Oncofertility care for children, adolescents, and young adults at risk for treatment-related fertility loss

As therapy for childhood malignancies becomes more sophisticated and survival has improved, long-term therapy-related sequelae have emerged. Loss of reproductive potential among childhood cancer survivors is one such concern that has become increasingly recognized among patients, families, and healthcare providers. The risk status for infertility based upon therapy received, state of current reproductive technology and outcomes, and an emphasis on adequate referral and counseling for fertility preservation options are reviewed. Contributing factors to infertility are discussed, and options for female and male preservation based upon age and pubertal status are summarized. This article highlights the current state of fertility opportunities for children and adolescents undergoing therapy for cancer. Providers caring for these young patients should be familiar with such options and should routinely initiate evaluations for eligibility of fertility preservation.

Differentiating gender-based reproductive concerns among adolescent and young adult cancer patients: A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have examined the distinct reproductive concerns (RC) of men and women in the adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patient population. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore and differentiate the RC of AYAs.

METHODS

Participants completed the Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC) scale and participated in a semistructured interview. Interviews were deductively coded based on an analytic schema derived from the RCAC.

RESULTS

After identifying participants through the electronic health record, 27 younger AYAs, ages 12-25, enrolled in the study. Four inductive themes emerged and differed by gender. These include differential temporality, acceptance, and openness to alternatives, partner influence, and parental/guardian influence. AYA men reported fewer RC (M = 49.4, SD = 9.6) compared to AYA women (M = 56.8, SD = 8.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Oncofertility care providers are advised to account for short- and long-ranging concerns based on AYAs' gender. Future evaluations of patient-reported outcome measures specific to AYA RC are recommended.

Clinicians' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to sperm banking in adolescent males with cancer: a mixed-methods study

PURPOSE

To examine processes, barriers, and facilitators to sperm banking counseling and decision-making for adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer from the perspective of clinicians who completed Oncofertility communication training. We also identify opportunities for improvement to inform future interventions and implementation.

METHODS

A survey (N=104) and subsequent focus groups (N=15) were conducted with non-physician clinicians practicing in pediatric oncology who completed Oncofertility communication training.

RESULTS

Most survey participants were confident in communicating about the impact of cancer on fertility (n=87, 83.7%) and fertility preservation options (n=80, 76.9%). Most participants reported never/rarely using a sperm banking decision tool (n=70, 67.3%), although 98.1% (n=102) said a decision tool with a family-centered approach would be beneficial. Primary themes in the subsequent focus groups included variable processes/workflows (inconsistent approaches to consult initiation; involvement of adolescents, caregivers, and various clinician types; assessment of puberty/sexual experience), structural and psychosocial barriers (cost and logistics, developmental, cultural, clinical acuity/prognosis), and facilitators (educational materials, alternative options for banking). Opportunities and strategies for improvement (including fertility preservation in existing research protocols; additional staffing/resources; oncologist education and buy-in; and development of decision tools) were informed by challenges identified in the other themes.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to adolescent sperm banking remain, even among clinicians who have completed Oncofertility training. Although training is one factor necessary to facilitate banking, structural and psychosocial barriers persist. Given the complexities of offering sperm banking to pediatric populations, continued efforts are needed to mitigate structural barriers and develop strategies to facilitate decision-making before childhood cancer treatment.

Uncertainty: a neglected determinant of health behavior?

Health behaviors are critical determinants of the well-being of individuals and populations, and understanding the determinants of these behaviors has been a major focus of research. One important determinant that has received little direct attention in past health research is uncertainty: a complex phenomenon that pertains not only to scientific issues regarding the diagnosis, prognosis, prevention, and treatment of health problems, but also to personal issues regarding other important health-related concerns. Here, we make the case for greater attention to uncertainty in health behavior theory and research, and especially to personal uncertainties. We discuss three exemplary types of personal uncertainty-value uncertainty, capacity uncertainty, and motive uncertainty-which relate, respectively, to moral values, capacities to enact or change behaviors, and the motives and intentions of other persons or institutions. We argue that that personal uncertainties such as these influence health behaviors, but their influence has historically been obscured by a focus on other constructs such as self-efficacy and trust. Reconceptualizing and investigating health behavior as a problem of uncertainty can advance both our understanding of the determinants of healthy behaviors and our ability to promote them.

Fertility discussions and concerns in childhood cancer survivors, a systematic review for updated practice

PURPOSE

To provide ways to improve the clinical practice of fertility preservation (FP) for children, adolescents, and young adults (AYA) with cancer.

DESIGN

A systematic research of online databases was undertaken in March 2020 following the PRISMA criteria, including Medline and Web of Science.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine articles were included. Surveys, interviews, and focus groups were used to collect data from patients, parents, and health care providers (HCPs). Four themes worth exploring emerged: (a) what do patients and professionals think of and know about FP? (b) what makes the fertility discussion happen or not? (c) what, retrospectively, led to FP being pursued or not? and (d) how do patients and HCPs feel about fertility issues?

CONCLUSION

A minority of AYAs preserve their fertility (banking assay for 45% of boys and 23% of girls). Yet fertility concerns have a significant impact on the quality of life of young cancer survivors. Although recommendations and guidelines regarding FP are available internationally, there are no specific guidelines as to how to conduct fertility counseling for children and adolescents. Some barriers are not removable, such as a poor prognosis of an obvious severe disease, time constraints for starting treatment, and cultural and religious beliefs. In response to aspects hindering patients and families to be receptive to any discussion at the time of diagnosis, psychological support could reduce the level of emotional distress and help restore a degree of open-mindedness to open a window for discussion. Moreover, as the lack of knowledge of professionals about fertility is frequently pointed out as a limiting factor for fertility discussion, reinforcing professional training regarding FP could be proposed to promote fertility discussion and eventually referral for FP.

Navigating parent-child disagreement about fertility preservation in minors: scoping review and ethical considerations

BACKGROUND

Offering fertility preservation (FP) prior to gonadotoxic therapy, including cancer care and gender-affirming treatment, is now considered standard of care. Periodically, parents and children disagree about whether to pursue FP. However, it is unknown how often this occurs and how disagreement is handled when it arises. Moreover, there is no clear guidance on how to resolve these difficult situations.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of available research evidence about parent-child disagreement regarding FP in order to establish that disagreement occurs in practice, understand the basis for disagreement and explore suggestions for how such disputes could be resolved. Based on our findings, we offer a discussion of the ethical principles at stake when disagreement occurs, which can be used to guide clinicians' approaches when these challenging scenarios present.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was run in several databases, including PubMed/Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The search was performed in February 2021 and updated in August 2021. Articles were included in the final review if they discussed how parents or children wanted their views on FP taken into account, presented evidence that parent-child discordance regarding FP exists, discussed how to handle disagreement in a particular case or offered general suggestions for how to approach parent-child discordance about FP. Studies were excluded if the patients were adult only (age 18 years and older), pertained to fertility-sparing treatments (e.g. gonad shielding, gonadopexy) rather than fertility-preserving treatments (e.g. testicular tissue cryopreservation, ovarian tissue cryopreservation, oocyte cryopreservation or sperm cryopreservation) or explored the views of clinicians but not patients or parents. Meta-synthesis was used to synthesize and interpret data across included studies and thematic analysis was used to identify common patterns and themes.

OUTCOMES

In total, 755 publications were screened, 118 studies underwent full-text review and 35 studies were included in the final review. Of these studies, 7 discussed how parents or children wanted their opinions to be incorporated, 11 presented evidence that discordance exists between parents and children regarding FP, 4 discussed how disagreement was handled in a particular case and 21 offered general suggestions for how to approach parent-child disagreement. There was a range of study designs, including quantitative and qualitative studies, case studies, ethical analyses and commentaries. From the thematic analysis, four general themes regarding FP disagreement emerged, and four themes relating to the ethical principles at stake in parent-child disagreement were identified. The general themes were: adolescents typically desire to participate in FP decision-making; some parents prefer not to involve their children; minors may feel more favorably about FP than their parents; and transgender minors and their parents may have unique reasons for disagreement. The ethical principles that were identified were: minor's best interest; right to an open future; minor's autonomy; and parental autonomy.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This study offers an overview of available research on the topic of parent-child disagreement regarding FP and discusses the ethical considerations at stake when disagreement occurs. The findings can be used to inform guidance for clinicians presented with FP disagreement in practice.

Study protocol for fertility preservation discussions and decisions: A family-centered psychoeducational intervention for male adolescents and emerging adults newly diagnosed with cancer and their families

Many childhood cancer survivors desire biological children but are at risk for infertility after treatment. One option for mitigating risk is the use of fertility preservation prior to gonadotoxic therapy. Adolescents and emerging adults may rely on their parents to help them decide whether to use fertility preservation. While this is often a collaborative process, it is currently unknown how parents can optimally support adolescents and emerging adults through this decision. To address this gap, we developed a family-centered, psychoeducational intervention to prompt adolescents and emerging adults to reflect on their future parenthood goals and attitudes towards fertility preservation, as well as to prompt their parents (or other caregivers) to reflect on their own and their child's perspectives on the topic. In this randomized controlled trial, families will be randomized to either the standard of care control group (fertility consult) or the intervention group. After their fertility consult, adolescents and emerging adults and parents in the intervention group will complete a fertility preservation values clarification tool and then participate in a guided conversation about their responses and the fertility preservation decision. The primary expected outcome of this study is that participation in the intervention will increase the use of fertility preservation. The secondary expected outcome is an improvement in decision quality. Chi-square analyses and t-tests will evaluate primary and secondary outcomes. The goal of this intervention is to optimize family-centered fertility preservation decision-making in the context of a new cancer diagnosis to help male adolescents and emerging adults achieve their future parenthood goals.