TY - JOUR
T1 - Determinants of utilization of cryopreservation of germ cells in adolescent cancer patients in four European countries
AU - PanCareLIFE
AU - Balcerek, Magdalena
AU - Schilling, Ralph
AU - Byrne, Julianne
AU - Dirksen, Uta
AU - Cario, Holger
AU - Fernandez-Gonzalez, Marta Julia
AU - Kepak, Tomas
AU - Korte, Elisabeth
AU - Kruseova, Jarmila
AU - Kunstreich, Marina
AU - Lackner, Herwig
AU - Langer, Thorsten
AU - Sawicka-Zukowska, Malgorzata
AU - Stefanowicz, Joanna
AU - Strauß, Gabriele
AU - Borgmann-Staudt, Anja
N1 - Funding Information:
This project received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 602030 (PanCareLIFE). The study was also supported by Berliner Krebsgesellschaft e.V. (EKPS201607) and KINDERHILFE - Hilfe für krebs- und schwerkranke Kinder e.V. Dr. Balcerek is being supported by the Clinician Scientist Programme of Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the Berlin Institute of Health (BIH). Special thanks go to our young patients and their parents for participating in this study. We also thank the participating clinics in this study for the good cooperation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/1/1
Y1 - 2020/1/1
N2 - Infertility is a relevant late-effect following cancer treatment; yet, a large proportion of survivors cannot recall having been informed of this risk. In an intervention study, we examined if and how supportive patient information material on fertility/fertility-preserving measures influences utilization of cryopreservation in adolescent cancer patients. The control group, recruited 03/2014–01/2016, received the usual patient education at initial diagnosis. The intervention group, recruited 04/2016–10/2017, received patient education supported by a fertility flyer and brochure. Patients and parents were each asked questions on utilization of cryopreservation in a questionnaire 3 and 6 months after initial diagnosis. Patient core and therapy data were obtained from medical records. Overall, cryopreservation rates showed no significant difference between the control (32.7%, n = 37/113) and intervention group (36.6%, n = 37/101). In the control group, cryopreservation was associated with gender (OR 0.100, CI 0.023–0.427), age (OR 1.559, CI 1.077–2.258) and recalling information on fertility protection (OR 33.663, CI 2.100–539.574); in the intervention group, cryopreservation was related to gender (OR 0.093, CI 0.026–0.330) and the estimated infertility risk (OR 43.665, CI 2.157–883.974). Conclusion: Cryopreservation rates did not overall increase following the intervention; however, the individual risk seemed to be brought into attention more: Those at risk, including younger patients, cryopreserved at higher rates.What is Known:•Infertility is a relevant late-effect following adolescent cancer.•Guidelines recommend to offer fertility protection before cancer treatment.•A relevant proportion of adolescents with cancer are not aware of this risk.•Fertility protection seems under-used in cancer patients at risk for infertility.What is New:•Information material on fertility and protection in adolescents did not increase overall rates of cryopreservation.•Cryopreservation rates were improved according to individual risk for infertility.•Our flyers and brochures on fertility in cancer patients are available in various languages.
AB - Infertility is a relevant late-effect following cancer treatment; yet, a large proportion of survivors cannot recall having been informed of this risk. In an intervention study, we examined if and how supportive patient information material on fertility/fertility-preserving measures influences utilization of cryopreservation in adolescent cancer patients. The control group, recruited 03/2014–01/2016, received the usual patient education at initial diagnosis. The intervention group, recruited 04/2016–10/2017, received patient education supported by a fertility flyer and brochure. Patients and parents were each asked questions on utilization of cryopreservation in a questionnaire 3 and 6 months after initial diagnosis. Patient core and therapy data were obtained from medical records. Overall, cryopreservation rates showed no significant difference between the control (32.7%, n = 37/113) and intervention group (36.6%, n = 37/101). In the control group, cryopreservation was associated with gender (OR 0.100, CI 0.023–0.427), age (OR 1.559, CI 1.077–2.258) and recalling information on fertility protection (OR 33.663, CI 2.100–539.574); in the intervention group, cryopreservation was related to gender (OR 0.093, CI 0.026–0.330) and the estimated infertility risk (OR 43.665, CI 2.157–883.974). Conclusion: Cryopreservation rates did not overall increase following the intervention; however, the individual risk seemed to be brought into attention more: Those at risk, including younger patients, cryopreserved at higher rates.What is Known:•Infertility is a relevant late-effect following adolescent cancer.•Guidelines recommend to offer fertility protection before cancer treatment.•A relevant proportion of adolescents with cancer are not aware of this risk.•Fertility protection seems under-used in cancer patients at risk for infertility.What is New:•Information material on fertility and protection in adolescents did not increase overall rates of cryopreservation.•Cryopreservation rates were improved according to individual risk for infertility.•Our flyers and brochures on fertility in cancer patients are available in various languages.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073933687&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00431-019-03459-9
DO - 10.1007/s00431-019-03459-9
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 31493021
AN - SCOPUS:85073933687
SN - 0340-6199
VL - 179
SP - 51
EP - 60
JO - European Journal of Pediatrics
JF - European Journal of Pediatrics
IS - 1
ER -
