1
|
Salama M, Nahata L, Jayasinghe Y, Gomez-Lobo V, Laronda MM, Moravek MB, Meacham LR, Christianson MS, Lambertini M, Anazodo A, Quinn GP, Woodruff TK. Pediatric oncofertility care in limited versus optimum resource settings: results from 39 surveyed centers in Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II. J Assist Reprod Genet 2023; 40:443-454. [PMID: 36542312 PMCID: PMC9768400 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02679-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Salama
- grid.17088.360000 0001 2150 1785Oncofertility Consortium, Michigan State University, 965 Wilson Road, Room A626B, East Lansing, MI 48824-1316 USA
| | - L. Nahata
- grid.240344.50000 0004 0392 3476Endocrinology and Center for Biobehavioral Health, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH 43205 USA
- grid.261331.40000 0001 2285 7943Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH 43205 USA
| | - Y. Jayasinghe
- grid.416107.50000 0004 0614 0346Royal Children’s Hospital, Flemington Rd, Parkville, Melbourne, Vic 3054 Australia
| | - V. Gomez-Lobo
- grid.239560.b0000 0004 0482 1586Children’s National Hospital, 111 Michigan Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20010 USA
- grid.420089.70000 0000 9635 8082Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda MD, Annapolis, 20892 USA
| | - MM. Laronda
- grid.413808.60000 0004 0388 2248Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, 225 East Chicago Ave, Box 63, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
| | - MB. Moravek
- grid.412590.b0000 0000 9081 2336Center for Reproductive Medicine, Michigan Medicine, 475 Market Place, Building 1, Suite B, Ann Arbor, MI 48108 USA
| | - LR. Meacham
- grid.428158.20000 0004 0371 6071Aflac Cancer Center Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA USA
- grid.189967.80000 0001 0941 6502Department of Pediatrics, Emory University, 2015 Uppergate Dr, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
| | - MS. Christianson
- grid.21107.350000 0001 2171 9311Johns Hopkins Fertility Center, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 10751 Falls Road, Suite 280, Lutherville, MD 21093 USA
| | - M. Lambertini
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Department of Medical Oncology, UOC Clinica Di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy
| | - A. Anazodo
- grid.414009.80000 0001 1282 788XKids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children’s Hospital, High Street Randwick, Sydney, Randwick 2031 Australia
| | - GP. Quinn
- grid.137628.90000 0004 1936 8753New York University, NYU Langone Fertility Center, 660 First Ave, 5Th Floor, New York, NY 10016 USA
| | - TK. Woodruff
- grid.17088.360000 0001 2150 1785Oncofertility Consortium, Michigan State University, 965 Wilson Road, Room A626B, East Lansing, MI 48824-1316 USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Salama M, Lambertini M, Christianson MS, Jayasinghe Y, Anazodo A, De Vos M, Amant F, Stern C, Appiah L, Woodard TL, Anderson RA, Westphal LM, Leach RE, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Patrizio P, Woodruff TK. Installing oncofertility programs for breast cancer in limited versus optimum resource settings: Empirical data from 39 surveyed centers in Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022; 39:505-516. [PMID: 35032286 PMCID: PMC8760079 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02394-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2021] [Accepted: 01/05/2022] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE As a further step to elucidate the actual diverse spectrum of oncofertility practices for breast cancer around the globe, we present and discuss the comparisons of oncofertility practices for breast 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 & Latin America (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I), and 25 in optimum resource settings from the United States, Europe, Australia and Japan (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part II). Survey questions covered the availability of fertility preservation and restoration options offered to young female patients with breast cancer as well as the degree of utilization. RESULTS In the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, responses for breast cancer and calculated oncofertility scores showed the following characteristics: (1) higher oncofertility scores in optimum resource settings than in limited resource settings especially for established options, (2) frequent utilization of egg freezing, embryo freezing, ovarian tissue freezing, GnRH analogs, and fractionation of chemo- and radiotherapy, (3) promising utilization of oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM), (4) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, and stem cells reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings, (5) recognition that technical and ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and innovative oncofertility options. CONCLUSIONS We presented a plausible oncofertility best practice model to guide oncofertility teams in optimizing care for breast cancer patients in various resource settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahmoud Salama
- Oncofertility Consortium, Michigan State University, 965 Wilson Road, Room A626B, East Lansing, MI 48824-1316 USA
| | - M. Lambertini
- Department of Medical Oncology, UOC Clinica Di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - MS Christianson
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Johns Hopkins Fertility Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 10751 Falls Road, Suite 280, Lutherville, MD 21093 USA
| | - Y. Jayasinghe
- Royal Children’s Hospital, Flemington Rd, Parkville, Melbourne, Vic 3054 Australia
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Royal Womens Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - A. Anazodo
- Fertility Research Centre, Royal Hospital for Women, Barker Street, Sydney, Australia
| | - M. De Vos
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine of UZ Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium
| | - F. Amant
- Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - C. Stern
- Fertility Preservation Service, Reproductive Services Unit, Royal Women’s Hospital, Parkville, 3051 Australia
- Fertility Preservation Service, Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, 3002 Australia
| | - L. Appiah
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO USA
| | - T. L. Woodard
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Oncofertility Program, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX USA
| | - R. A. Anderson
- MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - L. M. Westphal
- Stanford University Hospital, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA USA
| | - R. E. Leach
- Oncofertility Consortium, Michigan State University, 965 Wilson Road, Room A626B, East Lansing, MI 48824-1316 USA
| | - K. A. Rodriguez-Wallberg
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska University Hospital, 14186 Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Reproductive Medicine, Division of Gynecology and Reproduction, Karolinska University Hospital, 14186 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - P. Patrizio
- Yale Fertility Center and Yale Fertility Preservation Program, 200 West Campus Dr, Orange, CT 06477 USA
| | - Teresa K. Woodruff
- Oncofertility Consortium, Michigan State University, 965 Wilson Road, Room A626B, East Lansing, MI 48824-1316 USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Installing oncofertility programs for common cancers in optimum resource settings (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part II): a committee opinion. J Assist Reprod Genet 2021; 38:163-176. [PMID: 33452592 PMCID: PMC7810602 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-020-02012-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2020] [Accepted: 11/09/2020] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The main objective of Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part 2 is to learn more about oncofertility practices in optimum resource settings to provide a roadmap to establish oncofertility best practice models. METHODS As an extrapolation for oncofertility best practice models in optimum resource settings, we surveyed 25 leading and well-resourced oncofertility centers and institutions from the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan. The survey included questions on the availability and degree of utilization of fertility preservation options in case of childhood cancer, breast cancer, and blood cancer. RESULTS All surveyed centers responded to all questions. Responses and their calculated oncofertility scores showed three major characteristics of oncofertility practice in optimum resource settings: (1) strong utilization of sperm freezing, egg freezing, embryo freezing, ovarian tissue freezing, gonadal shielding, and fractionation of chemo- and radiotherapy; (2) promising utilization of GnRH analogs, oophoropexy, testicular tissue freezing, and oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM); and (3) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, in vitro spermatogenesis, and stem cell reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings. Proper technical and ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and experimental oncofertility options to patients. CONCLUSIONS Our Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part 2 proposed installing specific oncofertility programs for common cancers in optimum resource settings as an extrapolation for best practice models. This will provide efficient oncofertility edification and modeling to oncofertility teams and related healthcare providers around the globe and help them offer the best care possible to their patients.
Collapse
|