Caroline S Dorfman1,2, Juliann M Stalls1, Coleman Mills2, Shannon Voelkel2, Mallori Thompson2, Kelly S Acharya3, Karen C Baker4, Lars M Wagner5, Nolan Miller6, Amy Boswell7, Cheyenne Corbett2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 2. Duke Supportive Care and Survivorship Center, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 4. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 6. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 7. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infertility is a common late effect for cancer survivors. Whereas assisted reproductive technology has made it possible for survivors to take steps to preserve fertility before starting treatment, only a minority of patients proceed with preservation. Patient-, provider-, health system-, and societal-level barriers to fertility preservation (FP) exist. Oncofertility patient navigation is a valuable resource for addressing FP barriers. OBJECTIVES: To highlight the critical role of oncofertility patient navigation in addressing barriers to FP within an academic oncofertility program. METHODS: The role of the oncofertility patient navigator in reducing FP barriers, promoting informed decision-making, and ensuring program sustainability is described. Program metrics illustrating the impact of oncofertility patient navigation on referrals for FP counseling and access to FP in the last year also are provided. DISCUSSION: The oncofertility program at our academic adult and pediatric medical centers aims to facilitate rapid referral to fertility counseling and preservation services for postpubertal cancer patients. The patient navigator is integral to the success of the program. The navigator ensures that patients are: (1) well-informed about the potential impact of cancer on fertility and FP options, (2) aware of available resources (eg, financial) for pursuing FP, (3) able to access FP services if desired, and (4) well supported in making an informed FP decision. The inclusion of the patient navigator has led to an almost 2-fold increase in referrals for FP counseling in the past year over the historic annual average. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution's oncofertility program, with patient navigation at the core, provides a potential model for increasing patient access to oncofertility care and promoting program sustainability. Oncofertility patient navigation is a valuable resource for providing patients and families with education and support regarding FP decision-making, as well as addressing the multilevel barriers to FP.
BACKGROUND: Infertility is a common late effect for cancer survivors. Whereas assisted reproductive technology has made it possible for survivors to take steps to preserve fertility before starting treatment, only a minority of patients proceed with preservation. Patient-, provider-, health system-, and societal-level barriers to fertility preservation (FP) exist. Oncofertility patient navigation is a valuable resource for addressing FP barriers. OBJECTIVES: To highlight the critical role of oncofertility patient navigation in addressing barriers to FP within an academic oncofertility program. METHODS: The role of the oncofertility patient navigator in reducing FP barriers, promoting informed decision-making, and ensuring program sustainability is described. Program metrics illustrating the impact of oncofertility patient navigation on referrals for FP counseling and access to FP in the last year also are provided. DISCUSSION: The oncofertility program at our academic adult and pediatric medical centers aims to facilitate rapid referral to fertility counseling and preservation services for postpubertal cancer patients. The patient navigator is integral to the success of the program. The navigator ensures that patients are: (1) well-informed about the potential impact of cancer on fertility and FP options, (2) aware of available resources (eg, financial) for pursuing FP, (3) able to access FP services if desired, and (4) well supported in making an informed FP decision. The inclusion of the patient navigator has led to an almost 2-fold increase in referrals for FP counseling in the past year over the historic annual average. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution's oncofertility program, with patient navigation at the core, provides a potential model for increasing patient access to oncofertility care and promoting program sustainability. Oncofertility patient navigation is a valuable resource for providing patients and families with education and support regarding FP decision-making, as well as addressing the multilevel barriers to FP.
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: Kate E Waimey; Brigid M Smith; Rafael Confino; Jacqueline S Jeruss; Mary Ellen Pavone Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Joseph M Letourneau; James F Smith; Erin E Ebbel; Amaranta Craig; Patricia P Katz; Marcelle I Cedars; Mitchell P Rosen Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tobias S Köhler; Laxmi A Kondapalli; Amul Shah; Sarah Chan; Teresa K Woodruff; Robert E Brannigan Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2010-11-26 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: James L Klosky; Vicky Lehmann; Jessica S Flynn; Yin Su; Hui Zhang; Kathryn M Russell; Lauren A M Schenck; Leslie R Schover Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 6.860