Tracy N Hadnott1, Shaylyn S Stark2, Alexa Medica1, Andrew C Dietz2, Maria Elena Martinez3, Brian W Whitcomb4, H Irene Su5. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 3. Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: hisu@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between perceived fertility potential and contraception use and to characterize factors important in contraceptive decision making in reproductive-age, female cancer survivors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Participants were from two state cancer registries, physician referrals, and cancer survivor advocacy groups in the United States. PATIENT(S): A total of 483 female survivors aged 18-40 years. INTERVENTION(S): Online questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Contraception use. RESULT(S): Eighty-four percent of participants used contraception; 49.7% used highly effective, World Health Organization tiers I and II methods (surgical sterilization, intrauterine devices, contraceptive implant, combined hormonal contraceptives, medroxyprogesterone acetate, progestin-only pills, contraceptive diaphragm). Contraception non-use was more common among survivors who perceived themselves to be infertile, compared with survivors who perceived themselves to be as or more fertile than similarly aged peers (prevalence ratio 4.0, 95% confidence interval 2.5-7.4). In mediation analysis that adjusted for clinical infertility, 59% of the association between prior chemotherapy and contraception non-use was explained by perceived infertility. Contraception efficacy (n = 62, 25.8%) and ease of use (n = 50, 20.8%) were the most cited reasons for using tier I/II methods; compared with lack of hormones (n = 81, 49.7%) as the predominant reason for using less-effective, tier III/IV methods. CONCLUSION(S): Although female, reproductive-age cancer survivors had high uptake of contraception, those who perceived themselves to be infertile were less likely to use contraception. Throughout survivorship, clinicians should counsel survivors on fertility potential in the context of their prior cancer treatments and on factors, including contraceptive efficacy and hormone-free contraception, that inform reproductive decision making in this population.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between perceived fertility potential and contraception use and to characterize factors important in contraceptive decision making in reproductive-age, female cancer survivors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING:Participants were from two state cancer registries, physician referrals, and cancer survivor advocacy groups in the United States. PATIENT(S): A total of 483 female survivors aged 18-40 years. INTERVENTION(S): Online questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Contraception use. RESULT(S): Eighty-four percent of participants used contraception; 49.7% used highly effective, World Health Organization tiers I and II methods (surgical sterilization, intrauterine devices, contraceptive implant, combined hormonal contraceptives, medroxyprogesterone acetate, progestin-only pills, contraceptive diaphragm). Contraception non-use was more common among survivors who perceived themselves to be infertile, compared with survivors who perceived themselves to be as or more fertile than similarly aged peers (prevalence ratio 4.0, 95% confidence interval 2.5-7.4). In mediation analysis that adjusted for clinical infertility, 59% of the association between prior chemotherapy and contraception non-use was explained by perceived infertility. Contraception efficacy (n = 62, 25.8%) and ease of use (n = 50, 20.8%) were the most cited reasons for using tier I/II methods; compared with lack of hormones (n = 81, 49.7%) as the predominant reason for using less-effective, tier III/IV methods. CONCLUSION(S): Although female, reproductive-age cancer survivors had high uptake of contraception, those who perceived themselves to be infertile were less likely to use contraception. Throughout survivorship, clinicians should counsel survivors on fertility potential in the context of their prior cancer treatments and on factors, including contraceptive efficacy and hormone-free contraception, that inform reproductive decision making in this population.
Authors: Peter F Coccia; Alberto S Pappo; Jessica Altman; Smita Bhatia; Scott C Borinstein; Joseph Flynn; A Lindsay Frazier; Suzanne George; Robert Goldsby; Robert Hayashi; Mary S Huang; Rebecca H Johnson; Lynda Kwon Beaupin; Michael P Link; Kevin C Oeffinger; Kathleen M Orr; Damon Reed; Holly L Spraker; Deborah A Thomas; Margaret von Mehren; Daniel S Wechsler; Kimberly F Whelan; Brad Zebrack; Dorothy A Shead; Hema Sundar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Sally A Dominick; Mamie R McLean; Brian W Whitcomb; Jessica R Gorman; Jennifer E Mersereau; Janet M Bouknight; H Irene Su Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Brooke Winner; Jeffrey F Peipert; Qiuhong Zhao; Christina Buckel; Tessa Madden; Jenifer E Allsworth; Gina M Secura Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Simone L Broer; Jeroen van Disseldorp; Kimiko A Broeze; Madeleine Dolleman; Brent C Opmeer; Patrick Bossuyt; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Ben-Willem J Mol; Frank J M Broekmans Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Christina M Lam; Ksenya Shliakhtsitsava; Shaylyn S Stark; Alexa C O Medica; Kelsey A Pinson; Brian W Whitcomb; H Irene Su Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Hena Naz Din; David Strong; Savitri Singh-Carlson; Heather L Corliss; Sheri J Hartman; Hala Madanat; H Irene Su Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: H Irene Su; Shaylyn Stark; Brian Kwan; Sarah Boles; Diana Chingos; Jennifer Ehren; Jessica R Gorman; Michael Krychman; Sally A D Romero; Jun J Mao; John P Pierce; Loki Natarajan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Matteo Lambertini; Claudia Massarotti; Julie Havas; Barbara Pistilli; Anne-Laure Martin; Alexandra Jacquet; Charles Coutant; Florence Coussy; Asma Dhaini Mérimèche; Florence Lerebours; Christine Rousset-Jablonski; Christelle Jouannaud; Olivier Rigal; Marion Fournier; Patrick Soulie; Maria Alice Franzoi; Lucia Del Mastro; Ann H Partridge; Fabrice André; Ines Vaz-Luis; Antonio Di Meglio Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-09-01