Literature DB >> 25069500

Referral for fertility preservation counselling in female cancer patients.

L Bastings1, O Baysal1, C C M Beerendonk1, D D M Braat1, W L D M Nelen2.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What changes can be detected in fertility preservation (FP) counselling (FPC) over time and what are the determinants associated with the referral of newly diagnosed female cancer patients, aged 0-39 years, to a specialist in reproductive medicine for FPC? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although the absolute number of patients receiving FPC increased over time, only 9.8% of all potential patients (aged 0-39 years) were referred in 2011 and referral disparities were found with respect to patients' age, cancer diagnosis and healthcare provider-related factors. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Referral rates for FPC prior to the start of gonadotoxic cancer treatment are low. Determinants associated with low referral and referral disparities have been identified in previous studies, although there are only scarce data on referral practices and determinants for FPC referral in settings with reimbursement of FP(C). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a retrospective observational and questionnaire study in a Dutch university hospital. Data on all female cancer patients counselled for FP in this centre (2001-2013), as well as all newly diagnosed female cancer patients aged 0-39 years in the region (2009-2011) were collected. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: Data were retrieved from medical records (FPC patients), cancer incidences reported by the Dutch Cancer Registry (to calculate referral percentages) and referring professionals (to identify reasons for the current referral behaviour). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 2011, a total of 9.8% of the patients were referred for FPC. Patients aged 20-29 years or diagnosed with breast cancer or lymphoma were referred more frequently compared with patients under the age of 20 years or patients diagnosed with other malignancies. The absolute numbers of patients receiving FPC increased over time. Healthcare provider-related determinants for low referral were not starting a discussion about fertility-related issues, not knowing where to refer a patient for FPC and not collaborating with patients' associations. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Actual referral rates may slightly differ from our estimation as there may have been patients who did not wish to receive FPC. Sporadically, patients might have been directly referred to other regions or may have received ovarian transposition without FPC. By excluding skin cancer patients, we will have underestimated the group of women who are eligible for FPC as this group also includes melanoma patients who might have received gonadotoxic therapy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: The low referral rates and referral disparities reported in the current study indicate that there are opportunities to improve referral practices. Future research should focus on the implementation and evaluation of interventions to improve referral practices, such as information materials for patients at oncology departments, discussion prompts or methods to increase the awareness of physicians and patients of FP techniques and guidelines. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by the Radboud university medical center and the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest with respect to this work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer; counselling; female fertility preservation; referral

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25069500     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu186

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  23 in total

Review 1.  Childhood to adult transition and long-term follow-up after blood and marrow transplantation.

Authors:  M C Cupit; C Duncan; B N Savani; S K Hashmi
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 5.483

2.  Fertility preservation in young cancer patients--too little, too late?

Authors:  Helen Louise Robbins; Arooba Zahoor; Kevin Jones
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  A survey on fertility management in young women of reproductive age treated with chemotherapy.

Authors:  Akiko Abe; Akira Kuwahara; Takeshi Iwasa; Masato Nishimura; Minoru Irahara
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Psychosocial benefits of fertility preservation for young cancer patients.

Authors:  Juliana Assi; Juliana Santos; Tatiana Bonetti; Paulo C Serafini; Eduardo L A Motta; Mauricio Barbour Chehin
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Disparities in Counseling Female Cancer Patients for Fertility Preservation.

Authors:  Angela K Lawson; Jamie M McGuire; Edernst Noncent; John F Olivieri; Kristin N Smith; Erica E Marsh
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Occurrence and recall rates of fertility discussions with young breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Rahul Banerjee; Ekaterini Tsiapali
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 7.  A Review of the Oncology Patient's Challenges for Utilizing Fertility Preservation Services.

Authors:  Dina M Flink; Jeanelle Sheeder; Laxmi A Kondapalli
Journal:  J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 2.223

8.  Nurse Perspectives on Referrals for Oncology Patients to Reproductive Endocrinologists: Results of a Learning Activity.

Authors:  Susan T Vadaparampil; Juliette Christie; Meghan Bowman; Ivana Sehovic; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede; Gwendolyn P Quinn
Journal:  J Contin Educ Nurs       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 1.224

9.  Which female cancer patients fail to receive fertility counseling before treatment in the state of Georgia?

Authors:  Helen B Chin; Penelope P Howards; Michael R Kramer; Ann C Mertens; Jessica B Spencer
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-09-24       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Factors associated with the receipt of fertility preservation services along the decision-making pathway in young Canadian female cancer patients.

Authors:  Samantha Yee
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 3.412

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.