Literature DB >> 26034191

Decision-making in female fertility preservation is balancing the expected burden of fertility preservation treatment and the wish to conceive.

Ö Baysal1, L Bastings1, C C M Beerendonk1, S A E Postma1, J IntHout2, C M Verhaak3, D D M Braat1, W L D M Nelen4.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What are the decisive factors in fertility preservation (FP) decision-making in young women scheduled for gonadotoxic therapy? SUMMARY ANSWER: FP decision-making in young women scheduled for gonadotoxic therapy is mainly based on weighing two issues: the intensity of the wish to conceive a child in the future and the expected burden of undergoing FP treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Future fertility is of importance for young cancer patients whose reproductive function is being threatened by oncological therapy. To prevent or reduce severe psychological effects of infertility as well as feelings of regret about their FP decision after cancer treatment, the quality of fertility preservation counselling (FPC) should be improved. To improve care, those issues forming a decisive factor in FP decision-making for patients should be clarified, as these issues deserve extensive discussion during FPC. Until now, decisive factors have not been isolated from the complex interplay of all aspects of FP that women contemplate during FP decision-making. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: By using a mixed methods methodology, a questionnaire developed after qualitative research involving a selected group of five women who previously received FPC was retrospectively sent to eligible patients (n = 143) who had received FPC (1999 - July 2013) and to whom at least one FP option was offered. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: Patients had received FPC at a university hospital in the Netherlands, in a setting where financial factors do not play a role in FP. They were aged ≥16 years and were scheduled for gonadotoxic treatment. The relationship between patients' baseline characteristics, their attributed importance to 28 relevant importance items and their FP choices was investigated. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After five interviews, 28 importance items for FP decision-making were identified and included in our questionnaire. Of these 28 importance items, 24 items could be clustered into seven importance themes. A total of 87 patients (61%) responded to our questionnaire. After performing a multivariable logistic regression analysis, proceeding with FP was related to higher attributed importance during FP decision-making to the theme 'Wish to conceive (in the future)' (odds ratio (OR) 10.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5-34.4) and the item 'Having a stable partner relationship' (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-4.1), while higher attributed importance to the theme 'Expected burden of FP' during FP decision-making (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.3) more often resulted in refraining from treatment. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Besides possible recall and selection bias, the fact that this study was performed in Dutch patients aged ≥16 years counselled in a single centre, where finance was not an additional consideration, possibly limits the generalizability of our results to a broader European population of cancer patients. Furthermore, we are not able to draw conclusions about the causality of the associations observed in our study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: The wish to conceive and the expected burden of FP treatment should be discussed carefully with patients during FP decision-making, either by the referring healthcare provider or by reproductive medicine specialist. Prospective research is needed to explore the causality of the associations found in this study. Furthermore, in order to deliver high quality patient-centred care, the development of tools to explore patients' wish to conceive (for example in different age categories) and tools to provide clear information about the burden of FP treatments (using the preferred information channels suggested by patients) is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences (research school affiliated to the Radboud university medical center). The authors have declared no conflicts of interest with respect to this work.
© The Author 2015. 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; decision-making; female; fertility preservation; gonadotoxic therapy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26034191     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev116

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


  16 in total

Review 1.  Vitrification of embryos and oocytes for fertility preservation in cancer patients.

Authors:  Keiichi Kato
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2016-02-29

2.  Satisfaction, disappointment and regret surrounding fertility preservation decisions in the paediatric and adolescent cancer population.

Authors:  Sadunee Jayasuriya; Michelle Peate; Catherine Allingham; Nancy Li; Lynn Gillam; Margaret Zacharin; Peter Downie; Paddy Moore; Leanne Super; Lisa Orme; Franca Agresta; Catharyn Stern; Yasmin Jayasinghe
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  "My choice": breast cancer patients recollect doctors fertility preservation recommendations.

Authors:  Efrat Dagan; Suzi Modiano-Gattegno; Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-02-25       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Medical egg freezing: the importance of a patient-centered approach to fertility preservation.

Authors:  Marcia C Inhorn; Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli; Lynn M Westphal; Joseph Doyle; Norbert Gleicher; Dror Meirow; Hila Raanani; Martha Dirnfeld; Pasquale Patrizio
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Psychological impact of fertility preservation techniques in women with gynaecological cancer.

Authors:  Antonio Simone Laganà; Valentina Lucia La Rosa; Agnese Maria Chiara Rapisarda; Alessio Platania; Salvatore Giovanni Vitale
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2017-02-08

6.  Oncofertility Decision Support Resources for Women of Reproductive Age: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Brittany Speller; Selena Micic; Corinne Daly; Lebei Pi; Tari Little; Nancy N Baxter
Journal:  JMIR Cancer       Date:  2019-06-06

7.  The Importance of Fertility Preservation Counseling in Patients with Gynecologic Cancer.

Authors:  Salvatore Giovanni Vitale; Valentina Lucia La Rosa; Agnese Maria Chiara Rapisarda; Antonio Simone Laganà
Journal:  J Reprod Infertil       Date:  2017 Apr-Jun

8.  Medical egg freezing: How cost and lack of insurance cover impact women and their families.

Authors:  Marcia C Inhorn; Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli; Lynn M Westphal; Joseph Doyle; Norbert Gleicher; Dror Meirow; Hila Raanani; Martha Dirnfeld; Pasquale Patrizio
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Soc Online       Date:  2018-02-04

Review 9.  Fertility preservation in women affected by gynaecological cancer: the importance of an integrated gynaecological and psychological approach.

Authors:  Valentina Lucia La Rosa; Simone Garzon; Giuseppe Gullo; Michele Fichera; Giovanni Sisti; Pasquale Gallo; Gaetano Riemma; Antonio Schiattarella
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2020-05-06

10.  Fertility Preservation for Patients with Malignant Disease. Guideline of the DGGG, DGU and DGRM (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/082, November 2017) - Recommendations and Statements for Girls and Women.

Authors:  Ralf Dittrich; Sabine Kliesch; Andreas Schüring; Magdalena Balcerek; Dunja M Baston-Büst; Ramona Beck; Matthias W Beckmann; Karolin Behringer; Anja Borgmann-Staudt; Wolfgang Cremer; Christian Denzer; Thorsten Diemer; Almut Dorn; Tanja Fehm; Rüdiger Gaase; Ariane Germeyer; Kristina Geue; Pirus Ghadjar; Maren Goeckenjan; Martin Götte; Dagmar Guth; Berthold P Hauffa; Ute Hehr; Franc Hetzer; Jens Hirchenhain; Wilfried Hoffmann; Beate Hornemann; Andreas Jantke; Heribert Kentenich; Ludwig Kiesel; Frank-Michael Köhn; Matthias Korell; Sigurd Lax; Jana Liebenthron; Michael Lux; Julia Meißner; Oliver Micke; Najib Nassar; Frank Nawroth; Verena Nordhoff; Falk Ochsendorf; Patricia G Oppelt; Jörg Pelz; Beate Rau; Nicole Reisch; Dorothea Riesenbeck; Stefan Schlatt; Annekathrin Sender; Roxana Schwab; Friederike Siedentopf; Petra Thorn; Steffen Wagner; Ludwig Wildt; Pauline Wimberger; Tewes Wischmann; Michael von Wolff; Laura Lotz
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 2.915

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.