BACKGROUND: This study seeks to examine the relation between sociodemographic characteristics and the utilization of fertility preservation services in reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A total of 1041 women diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 18 and 40 years responded to a retrospective survey on demographic information and reproductive health history. Five cancer types were included: leukemia, Hodgkin disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, breast cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer. Nine hundred eighteen women reported treatment with potential to affect fertility (chemotherapy, pelvic radiation, pelvic surgery, or bone marrow transplant). Student t test, linear regression, and multivariate logistic regression were used where appropriate to determine the relation between sociodemographic characteristics and the odds of using fertility preservation services. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of women were counseled on the risk of cancer treatment to fertility by the oncology team. Overall, 4% of women pursued fertility preservation. In multivariate analysis, women who had not attained a bachelor's degree (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.9) were less likely to be counseled. Trends also suggested possible disparities in access to fertility preservation with age older than 35 years (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-1.4) or previous children (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.1) at diagnosis. Disparities in access to fertility preservation based on ethnicity and sexual orientation were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic health disparities likely affect access to fertility preservation services. Although awareness of fertility preservation has improved in the past decade, an unmet need remains for reproductive health counseling and fertility preservation in reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer.
BACKGROUND: This study seeks to examine the relation between sociodemographic characteristics and the utilization of fertility preservation services in reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A total of 1041 women diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 18 and 40 years responded to a retrospective survey on demographic information and reproductive health history. Five cancer types were included: leukemia, Hodgkin disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, breast cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer. Nine hundred eighteen women reported treatment with potential to affect fertility (chemotherapy, pelvic radiation, pelvic surgery, or bone marrow transplant). Student t test, linear regression, and multivariate logistic regression were used where appropriate to determine the relation between sociodemographic characteristics and the odds of using fertility preservation services. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of women were counseled on the risk of cancer treatment to fertility by the oncology team. Overall, 4% of women pursued fertility preservation. In multivariate analysis, women who had not attained a bachelor's degree (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.9) were less likely to be counseled. Trends also suggested possible disparities in access to fertility preservation with age older than 35 years (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-1.4) or previous children (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.1) at diagnosis. Disparities in access to fertility preservation based on ethnicity and sexual orientation were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic health disparities likely affect access to fertility preservation services. Although awareness of fertility preservation has improved in the past decade, an unmet need remains for reproductive health counseling and fertility preservation in reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer.
Authors: Joseph M Letourneau; Erin E Ebbel; Patricia P Katz; Audra Katz; Wei Z Ai; A Jo Chien; Michelle E Melisko; Marcelle I Cedars; Mitchell P Rosen Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lari Wenzel; Aysun Dogan-Ates; Rana Habbal; Ross Berkowitz; Donald P Goldstein; Marilyn Bernstein; Brenda Coffey Kluhsman; Kathryn Osann; Edward Newlands; Michael J Seckl; Barry Hancock; David Cella Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2005
Authors: W Leung; M M Hudson; D K Strickland; S Phipps; D K Srivastava; R C Ribeiro; J E Rubnitz; J T Sandlund; L E Kun; L C Bowman; B I Razzouk; P Mathew; P Shearer; W E Evans; C H Pui Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephanie J Lee; Leslie R Schover; Ann H Partridge; Pasquale Patrizio; W Hamish Wallace; Karen Hagerty; Lindsay N Beck; Lawrence V Brennan; Kutluk Oktay Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Angela K Lawson; Susan C Klock; Mary Ellen Pavone; Jennifer Hirshfeld-Cytron; Kristin N Smith; Ralph R Kazer Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Sally A Dominick; Brian W Whitcomb; Jessica R Gorman; Jennifer E Mersereau; Karine Chung; H Irene Su Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-05-24 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Katrina F Trivers; Aliza K Fink; Ann H Partridge; Kutluk Oktay; Elizabeth S Ginsburg; Chunyu Li; Lori A Pollack Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-06-20
Authors: Angela K Lawson; Susan C Klock; Mary Ellen Pavone; Jennifer Hirshfeld-Cytron; Kristin N Smith; Ralph R Kazer Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2015
Authors: Tracy N Hadnott; Shaylyn S Stark; Alexa Medica; Andrew C Dietz; Maria Elena Martinez; Brian W Whitcomb; H Irene Su Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Kate E Waimey; Francesca E Duncan; H Irene Su; Kristin Smith; Harlan Wallach; Kemi Jona; Christos Coutifaris; Clarisa R Gracia; Lonnie D Shea; Robert E Brannigan; R Jeffrey Chang; Mary B Zelinski; Richard L Stouffer; Robert L Taylor; Teresa K Woodruff Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.223