Glory E Mgboji1, Christina N Cordeiro Mitchell2,3,4, Bronwyn S Bedrick2, Dhananjay Vaidya5, Xueting Tao6,7, Yisi Liu8, Jacqueline Y Maher2,9,10, Mindy S Christianson2. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. gmgboji1@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. RADfertility, Newark, DE, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ChristianaCare, Newark, DE, USA. 5. Department of Internal Medicine/Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Data Management, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine/Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Data Management, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine/Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Biostatistics Department, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 8. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Data Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 9. Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, USA. 10. Pediatric Gynecology Program, Children's National Hospital, Washington D.C., USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize female pediatric and adolescent patients seen for fertility preservation consultation at an academic medical center and to describe the association between demographic or clinical factors and the use of fertility preservation treatment (FPT). METHODS: This is a retrospective chart analysis of female pediatric and adolescent patients seen for fertility preservation consultation at an academic fertility center over a 14-year period from 2005 to 2019. RESULTS: One hundred six females aged 3-21 years were seen for fertility preservation consultation with a mean age of 16.6 years. Diagnoses included hematologic malignancies (41.5%), gynecologic malignancies (9.4%), other malignancies (31.1%), non-malignant hematologic disease (14.2%), and non-malignant conditions (3.8%). Overall, 64.2% of subjects pursued fertility preservation, including oocyte cryopreservation (35.8%) and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (23.6%). Overall, age, minority race, diagnosis, time since diagnosis, and median household income were not significantly associated with odds of completing an FPT procedure. Among all patients, those who underwent gonadotoxic therapy prior to consultation had a lower odds of receiving FPT (OR= 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.55). Among patients without chemotherapy exposure, no factors were associated with FPT. CONCLUSIONS: Among pediatric and adolescent patients at an academic center undergoing a fertility preservation consultation, there were no socioeconomic or clinical barriers to FPT use in those who had not yet undergone gonadotoxic therapy. The only factor that was negatively associated with odds of pursuing FPT was prior chemotherapy exposure.
PURPOSE: To characterize female pediatric and adolescent patients seen for fertility preservation consultation at an academic medical center and to describe the association between demographic or clinical factors and the use of fertility preservation treatment (FPT). METHODS: This is a retrospective chart analysis of female pediatric and adolescent patients seen for fertility preservation consultation at an academic fertility center over a 14-year period from 2005 to 2019. RESULTS: One hundred six females aged 3-21 years were seen for fertility preservation consultation with a mean age of 16.6 years. Diagnoses included hematologic malignancies (41.5%), gynecologic malignancies (9.4%), other malignancies (31.1%), non-malignant hematologic disease (14.2%), and non-malignant conditions (3.8%). Overall, 64.2% of subjects pursued fertility preservation, including oocyte cryopreservation (35.8%) and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (23.6%). Overall, age, minority race, diagnosis, time since diagnosis, and median household income were not significantly associated with odds of completing an FPT procedure. Among all patients, those who underwent gonadotoxic therapy prior to consultation had a lower odds of receiving FPT (OR= 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.55). Among patients without chemotherapy exposure, no factors were associated with FPT. CONCLUSIONS: Among pediatric and adolescent patients at an academic center undergoing a fertility preservation consultation, there were no socioeconomic or clinical barriers to FPT use in those who had not yet undergone gonadotoxic therapy. The only factor that was negatively associated with odds of pursuing FPT was prior chemotherapy exposure.
Authors: Kutluk Oktay; Brittany E Harvey; Ann H Partridge; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Joyce Reinecke; Hugh S Taylor; W Hamish Wallace; Erica T Wang; Alison W Loren Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ursula Balthazar; Allison M Deal; Marc A Fritz; Laxmi A Kondapalli; Ja Yeon Kim; Jennifer E Mersereau Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Erin M Mobley; Ginny L Ryan; Amy E Sparks; Varun Monga; William W Terry Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 2.223