Inconsistent Mandated Access to Fertility Preservation: A Review of Relevant State Legislation

Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation in Pediatric Centers across the United States: Practice Patterns and Barriers

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate practice patterns in ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) provision METHODS: US providers practicing or developing OTC in pediatric programs were invited to participate in a survey disseminated via the Oncofertility Consortium.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven programs representing a wide geographic area responded, largely representing academic institutions (85.2%). Of these, 21 (77.4%) performed OTC at their facility, most for oncology patients receiving gonadotoxic therapy, relapsed patients, and non-oncologic patients receiving gonadotoxic therapy (95.7%, 87.0%, and 82.6%, respectively). OTC procedures were most commonly performed by pediatric gynecology surgeons (71.4%) via laparoscopic oophorectomy (90.5%) using a heat-based method (55.0%) for dissection. Most centers used an outside compensated service (50%) or a reproductive endocrinology group (45%) for processing tissue. Many (13, 61.9%) performed OTC as standard of care, and 7 utilized an institutional review board for data collection. Of the 8 centers whose OTC programs were in the planning or early stages, frequently identified barriers were lack of priority within their medical team or institution (5/8), lack of protected time (3/8), and lack of funding (3/8).

CONCLUSION

OTC is commonly offered to oncology patients receiving highly gonadotoxic therapy, with pediatric gynecologists frequently involved in counseling and performing OTC. Variability exists in offering OTC to other patient populations, as well as in research practices, surgical technique, and processing. Institutions continue to face barriers in offering OTC when necessary resources are not prioritized by leadership.

Fertility concerns and treatment decision-making among national sample of young women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of breast cancer in young women has been shown to affect their decision-making with regard to fertility and family planning. Limited data are available from populations across the U.S. regarding this issue; thus, we sought to describe fertility concerns and efforts to preserve fertility in a national clinical trial population of young breast cancer patients.

METHODS

The young and strong study was a cluster-randomized controlled trial testing an intervention program for young women with breast cancer. Patients were surveyed within 3 months after diagnosis and at 3, 6, and 12 months after. Surveys asked about sociodemographics, psychosocial domains, fertility concerns, and fertility preservation strategies. Univariable and multivariable models were used to investigate sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial predictors of fertility concerns.

RESULTS

Of 467 women from 54 clinical sites across the U.S. (14 academic, 40 community), 419 were evaluable regarding fertility concerns. Median age was 40 years (range 22-45), 11% were Black, 6% Hispanic, and 75% had children. Tumor stage was I (35%), II (51%), or III (14%); 82% received chemotherapy. At time of the treatment decision, 133 (32%) participants had fertility concerns, among whom 47% indicated this affected their treatment decisions. Sixty percent of participants reported having discussed fertility with their physician. Twenty percent of those with fertility concerns used fertility preservation strategies. History of difficulty becoming pregnant and younger age were associated with higher odds of fertility concerns in multivariable modeling.

CONCLUSION

Many young women with newly diagnosed breast cancer are concerned about fertility in a way that impacts their treatment decisions. Concerns were discussed, but few used fertility preservation strategies. These findings have implications for counseling young patients.

Disparities in fertility preservation use among adolescent and young adult women with cancer

PURPOSE

Women face multiple barriers to fertility preservation after cancer diagnosis, but few studies have examined disparities in use of these services.

METHODS

Women aged 15-39 years diagnosed with cancer during 2004-2015 were identified from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and linked to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Women who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos for fertility preservation (n = 96) were compared to women who received gonadotoxic treatment but did not use fertility preservation (n = 7964). Conditional logistic and log-binomial regression were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) or prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Few adolescent and young adult women with cancer in our study (1.2%) used fertility preservation. In multivariable regression, women less likely to use fertility preservation were older at diagnosis (ages 25-29 vs. 35-39: OR = 6.27, 95% CI: 3.35, 11.73); non-Hispanic Black (vs. non-Hispanic White: PR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.79); and parous at diagnosis (vs. nulliparous: PR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.45); or lived in census tracts that were non-urban (vs. urban: PR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.37) or of lower socioeconomic status (quintiles 1-3 vs. quintiles 4 and 5: PR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with cancer who were older, non-Hispanic Black, parous, or living in areas that were non-urban or of lower socioeconomic position were less likely to use fertility preservation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Clinical and policy interventions are needed to ensure equitable access to fertility services among women facing cancer treatment-related infertility.

A Geospatial Analysis of Disparities in Access to Oncofertility Services

Importance

Fertility preservation (FP), including oocyte and embryo cryopreservation prior to gonadotoxic therapy, is an urgent and essential component of comprehensive cancer care. Geographic proximity to a center offering FP is a critical component of ensuring equitable access for people with cancer desiring future fertility.

Objective

To characterize the distribution of centers offering FP services in the US, quantify the number of self-identified reproductive-age female individuals living outside of geographically accessible areas, and investigate the association between geographic access and state FP mandates.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional analysis calculated 2-hour travel time isochrone maps for each center based on latitude and longitude coordinates. Population-based geospatial analysis in the US was used in this study. Fertility clinics identified through the 2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report were defined as oncofertility centers by meeting 4 criteria: (1) offered oocyte and embryo cryopreservation, (2) performed at least 1 FP cycle in 2018, (3) served people without partners, and (4) had an accredited laboratory. County-level data were obtained from the 2020 US Census, with the primary at-risk population identified as reproductive-age female individuals aged 15 years to 44 years. The analysis was performed from 2021 to 2022.

Exposures

Location outside of 2-hour travel time isochrone of an oncofertility center.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Oncofertility centers were compared with centers not meeting criteria and were classified by US region, state FP mandate status, number of assisted reproductive technology cycles performed, and number of FP cycles performed. The number and percentage of at-risk patients, defined as those living outside of accessible service areas by state, were identified.

Results

Among 456 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-reporting fertility clinics, 86 (18.9%) did not meet the criteria as an oncofertility center. A total of 3.63 million (5.70%) reproductive-age female individuals lack geographic access to an oncofertility center. States with FP mandates have the highest rates of eligible female patients with geographic access (98.54%), while states without active or pending legislation have the lowest rates (79.57%). The greatest disparities in geographic access to care are most concentrated in the Mountain West and West North Central regions.

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients face numerous barriers to comprehensive cancer care, including a lack of geographic access to centers capable of offering FP services. This cross-sectional study identified disparities in geographic access and potential opportunities for strategic expansion.

Fertility Preferences and Practices Among Young Women With Breast Cancer: Germline Genetic Carriers Versus Noncarriers

BACKGROUND

Young women with breast cancer who carry germline genetic pathogenic variants may face distinct fertility concerns, yet limited data exist comparing fertility preferences and practices between carriers and noncarriers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants in the Young Women's Breast Cancer Study (NCT01468246), a prospective cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤40 years, who completed a modified Fertility Issues Survey were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1052 eligible participants, 118 (11%) tested positive for a pathogenic variant. Similar proportions (P = .23) of carriers (46%, [54/118]) and noncarriers (37%, [346/934]) desired more biologic children prediagnosis, and desire decreased similarly postdiagnosis (carriers, 30% [35/118] vs. noncarriers, 26% [244/934], P = .35). Among those desiring children postdiagnosis (n = 279), concern about cancer risk heritability was more common among carriers (74% [26/35] vs. noncarriers, 36% [88/244], P < .01). Carriers were more likely to report that concern about cancer risk heritability contributed to a lack of certainty or interest in future pregnancies (20% [16/81] vs. noncarriers, 7% [49/674], P = .001). Similar proportions (P = .65) of carriers (36% [43/118]) and noncarriers (38% [351/934]) were somewhat or very concerned about infertility post-treatment; utilization of fertility preservation strategies was also similar (carriers, 14% [17/118] vs. noncarriers, 12% [113/934], P = .78).

CONCLUSION

Carriers were similarly concerned about future fertility and as likely to pursue fertility preservation as noncarriers. Concern about cancer risk heritability was more frequent among carriers and impacted decisions not to pursue future pregnancies for some, underscoring the importance of counseling regarding strategies to prevent transmission to offspring, including preimplantation genetic testing.

Pediatric oncofertility care in limited versus optimum resource settings: results from 39 surveyed centers in Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II

PURPOSE

As a secondary report to elucidate the diverse spectrum of oncofertility practices for childhood cancer around the globe, we present and discuss the comparisons of oncofertility practices for childhood cancer in limited versus optimum resource settings based on data collected in the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II.

METHODS

We surveyed 39 oncofertility centers including 14 in limited resource settings from Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I), and 25 in optimum resource settings from the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part II). Survey questions covered the availability of fertility preservation and restoration options offered in case of childhood cancer as well as their degree of utilization.

RESULTS

In the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, responses for childhood cancer and calculated oncofertility scores showed the following characteristics: (1) higher oncofertility scores in optimum resource settings than in limited resource settings for ovarian and testicular tissue cryopreservation; (2) frequent utilization of gonadal shielding, fractionation of anticancer therapy, oophoropexy, and GnRH analogs; (3) promising utilization of oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM); and (4) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, in vitro spermatogenesis, and stem cells reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, we presented a plausible oncofertility best practice model to help optimize care for children with cancer in various resource settings. Special ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and innovative oncofertility options to children.

Perspectives surrounding fertility preservation and posthumous reproduction for adolescent and young adults with terminal cancer: Survey of allied health professionals

BACKGROUND

While all reproductive-aged individuals with cancer should be offered fertility preservation (FP) counseling, there is little guidance over offers to adolescent and young adults (AYA) with terminal diagnoses, especially when considering posthumous assisted reproduction (PAR). The Enriching Communication skills for Health professionals in Oncofertility (ECHO/ENRICH) trains Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) to improve communication with AYAs with cancer. Little is known about AHPs' role in assisting in FP and PAR decisions.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional survey of ECHO/ENRICH trainees' attitudes and experience with FP and PAR in AYA with terminal cancer.

RESULTS

The response rate was 61% (365/601). While 69% felt comfortable discussing FP with terminal AYA after ECHO/ENRICH training, 85% desired further education. The majority (88%) agreed FP should be an option for AYA with cancer, though some agreed offering FP provided false hope (16%) or was a waste of resources (7%). Most shared that avoidance of FP discussions was common practice, especially in the medically fragile, late-stage disease, or among minors. Many attributed lack of conversations to oncology team goals. Only 9% had prior experience with PAR. Many were conflicted about how PAR reproductive material should be gifted and who should be permitted to use PAR. Several raised moral concerns for PAR, or discomfort advising family. Many voiced desire for additional PAR-specific education.

CONCLUSION

ECHO/ENRICH trainees had varied levels of exposure to FP in terminal AYA and limited experiences with PAR. Many expressed uncertainties with PAR, which may be alleviated with further training and transparent institutional policies.

Disparities in the use of assisted reproductive technologies after breast cancer: a population-based study

PURPOSE

Equitable access to oncofertility services is a key component of cancer survivorship care, but factors affecting access and use remain understudied.

METHODS

To describe disparities in assisted reproductive technology (ART) use among women with breast cancer in California, we conducted a population-based cohort study using linked oncology, ART, and demographic data. We identified women age 18-45 years diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2000 and 2015. The primary outcome was ART use-including oocyte/embryo cryopreservation or embryo transfer-after cancer diagnosis. We used log-binomial regression to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to identify factors associated with ART use.

RESULTS

Among 36,468 women with invasive breast cancer, 206 (0.56%) used ART. Women significantly less likely to use ART were age 36-45 years at diagnosis (vs. 18-35 years: PR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.13-0.22); non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic White: PR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.21-0.46); had at least one child (vs. no children: adjusted PR [aPR] = 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.60); or lived in non-urban areas (vs. urban: aPR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.10-0.75), whereas women more likely to use ART lived in high-SES areas (vs. low-/middle-SES areas: aPR = 2.93, 95% CI 2.04-4.20) or had private insurance (vs. public/other insurance: aPR = 2.95, 95% CI 1.59-5.49).

CONCLUSION

Women with breast cancer who are socially or economically disadvantaged, or who already had a child, are substantially less likely to use ART after diagnosis. The implementation of policies or programs targeting more equitable access to fertility services for women with cancer is warranted.

The impact of hiring a full-time fertility navigator on fertility-related care and fertility preservation at a pediatric institution

Fertility navigators (FNs) are important in communicating infertility risk and fertility preservation (FP) options to patients receiving gonadotoxic therapies. This retrospective study examined electronic medical records of patients with fertility consults at a large pediatric institution (2017-2019), before and after hiring a full-time FN. Of 738 patient encounters, 173 consults were performed pre-navigator and 565 post-navigator. Fertility consults for long-term follow-up cancer survivors increased most substantially: pre-navigator (n = 7) and post-navigator (n = 387). Across diagnoses, females had a larger increase in consults compared to males (χ² [3, N = 738] = 8.17, p < .05). Findings highlight FNs' impact on counseling rates, particularly in survivorship.

Impact of in vitro fertilization state mandates for third party insurance coverage in the United States: a review and critical assessment

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine estimates that fewer than a quarter of infertile couples have sufficient access to infertility care. Insurers in the United States (US) have long considered infertility to be a socially constructed condition, and thus in-vitro fertilization (IVF) an elective intervention. As a result, IVF is cost prohibitive for many patients in the US. State infertility insurance mandates are a crucial mechanism for expanding access to fertility care in the US in the absence of federal legislation. The first state insurance mandate for third party coverage of infertility services was passed by West Virginia in 1977, and Maryland passed the country's first IVF mandate in 1985. To date, twenty states have passed legislation requiring insurers to cover or offer coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Ten states currently have "comprehensive" IVF mandates, meaning they require third party coverage for IVF with minimal restrictions to patient eligibility, exemptions, and lifetime limits. Several studies analyzing the impact of infertility and IVF mandates have been published in the past 20 years. In this review, we characterize and contextualize the existing evidence of the impact of state insurance mandates on access to infertility treatment, IVF practice patterns, and reproductive outcomes. Furthermore, we summarize the arguments in favor of insurance coverage for infertility care and assess the limitations of state insurance mandates as a strategy for increasing access to infertility treatment. State mandates play a key role in the promotion of evidence-based practices and represent an essential and impactful strategy for the advancement of gender equality and reproductive rights.

Fertility Preservation and Financial Hardship among Adolescent and Young Adult Women with Cancer

BACKGROUND

Financial hardship among adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer who receive gonadotoxic treatments may be exacerbated by the use of fertility services. This study examined whether AYA women with cancer who used fertility preservation had increased financial hardship.

METHODS

AYA women with cancer in North Carolina and California completed a survey in 2018-2019. Cancer-related financial hardship was compared between women who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos for fertility preservation after cancer diagnosis (n = 65) and women who received gonadotoxic treatment and reported discussing fertility with their provider, but did not use fertility preservation (n = 491). Multivariable log-binomial regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Women were a median age of 33 years at diagnosis and 7 years from diagnosis at the time of survey. Women who used fertility preservation were primarily ages 25 to 34 years at diagnosis (65%), non-Hispanic White (72%), and had at least a Bachelor's degree (85%). In adjusted analysis, use of fertility preservation was associated with 1.50 times the prevalence of material financial hardship (95% CI: 1.08-2.09). The magnitude of hardship was also substantially higher among women who used fertility preservation: 12% reported debt of ≥$25,000 versus 5% in the referent group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides new evidence that cryopreserving oocytes or embryos after cancer diagnosis for future family building is associated with increased financial vulnerability.

IMPACT

More legislation that mandates insurance coverage to mitigate hardships stemming from iatrogenic infertility could improve access to fertility preservation for young women with cancer.

Reproductive health in transgender and gender diverse individuals: A narrative review to guide clinical care and international guidelines

Background

Hormonal treatments and surgical interventions practiced with the aim to affirm gender identity in transgender and gender diverse patients may impact their future reproductive ability, family building, and family planning options. Whereas it is recommended by international guidelines to discuss the potential risks of infertility and to present fertility preservation (FP) options to transgender individuals and their families prior to initiating any of these treatments, many barriers still remain. Further, transgender and gender diverse individuals often experience barriers to accessing contraception, abortion, pre-conception care, and comprehensive perinatal care.

Aims

In this review we summarize the current literature on reproductive healthcare issues reported in transgender people including fertility issues, fertility preservation (FP), contraception, pregnancy and lactation and perinatal health.

Methods

A narrative literature search of major databases (Pubmed, Medline, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, Web of Science) was conducted. Given the paucity and heterogeneity of studies, summative review tactics were not available. The literature was critically reviewed by international experts in the field with focus on the impact of gender-affirming medical interventions on future fertility, current FP options and reproductive health issues in transgender people.

Results

The current literature supports that transgender and gender diverse individuals may wish to have genetically related children in the future, rendering the issue of FP relevant to this patient group. The cryopreservation of mature gametes is an efficacious option for FP for post-pubertal adolescents and adults. It is recommended to discuss these options at time of planning for gender-affirming hormonal therapy (GAHT) or engaging with other gender-affirming procedures that can limit future fertility. Discontinuation of GAHT may allow individuals to undergo FP later, but data are limited and there is the concern of symptoms and consequences of stopping GAHT. For pre-pubertal and early pubertal children, FP options are limited to the cryopreservation of gonadal tissue. At present the tissue can become functional only after re-transplantation, which might be undesirable by transgender individuals in the future. Preconception counseling, prenatal surveillance, perinatal support, contraceptive, and pregnancy termination related healthcare need to be meaningfully adapted for this patient population, and many knowledge gaps remain.

Discussion

Specialized FP reproductive healthcare for transgender and gender diverse individuals is in early evolution. Research should be conducted to examine effects of medical interventions on fertility, timing of FP, gamete preservation and outcome of the fertility treatments. Strategies to inform and educate transgender and gender diverse patients can lead to optimization of reproductive care and counseling and decision making of FP for this population.

The ethics of offering fertility preservation to pediatric patients: A case-based discussion of barriers for clinicians to consider

Decisions about fertility preservation can be difficult in general but the recent application of preservation techniques to pediatric patients has ushered in a host of new ethical considerations. Fertility preservation (FP) may be considered for all patients who are at risk for infertility due to their medical diagnosis or treatment, including those undergoing gonadotoxic chemotherapy, those with differences of sex development (DSD) undergoing gonadectomy,1-3 and transgender patients undergoing gender affirming surgery. The focus of this paper is to review the ethical issues involved in offering FP to pediatric oncology patients and, to a lesser extent, the new ethical issues that apply to patients with DSD. Some of the techniques and approach to counseling will also apply to transgender individuals, although that is beyond the scope of this work. We aim to discuss several barriers to offering FP and to advise how to counsel families in the setting of rapid changes in this field. Families should be educated about:Specific guidance for clinicians regarding some of these points was recently published in an American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Report,1 and we will illustrate the use of these guidelines in four case presentations.

Fertility-a human right worthy of mandated insurance coverage: the evolution, limitations, and future of access to care

We review the history, current status, and potential future of state infertility mandates and focus on the business implications of mandates and on the inadequacies and reproductive injustice resulting from gaps between legislative intent and practical implementation. Nineteen states have passed laws that require insurers to either cover or offer coverage for infertility diagnoses and treatment. The qualifications for coverage, extent of coverage, and exemptions vary drastically from one state to another, resulting in deficiencies in access to care even within mandated states for certain groups, such as single individuals, patients in same-sex relationships, and patients pursuing fertility preservation. Although insurance coverage of fertility services in the United States has expanded as an increasing number of states have enacted infertility mandates, significant gaps in implementation and access remain even among states with existing mandates. Provider, patient, and legislative advocacy is warranted in the name of reproductive justice to expand insurance coverage and, in turn, maximize reproductive outcomes, which have been shown to improve as financial barriers are lifted.