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

What are the decisive factors in fertility preservation (FP) decision-making in young women scheduled for gonadotoxic therapy? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Baysal Ö ，Bastings L ，Beerendonk CC ，Postma SA ，IntHout J ，Verhaak CM ，Braat DD ，Nelen WL ... -  《-》

Deciding about fertility preservation after specialist counselling.

How do female patients experience fertility preservation (FP) consultation (FPC) with a specialist in reproductive medicine and subsequent decision-making on FP? Most patients had positive experiences with FPC, but negative experiences were found to be associated with decisional conflict and decision regret. When confronted with a need for gonadotoxic treatment, girls and young women will have to make an irreversible decision with regard to FP. Patients may experience decisional conflict and develop regret about their decision during follow-up. Patients' opportunities to ask questions during FPC and their knowledge about FP have been inversely related to decisional conflict. A questionnaire on experiences with FPC, designed after qualitative research, was retrospectively distributed to 108 patients to whom FP was offered after FPC between July 2008 and July 2013. Aiming to minimize recall bias, we defined a subgroup of patients counselled since 2011 who had not yet tried to conceive after FPC. Patients were aged ≥16 years and had either cancer or a benign disease that required gonadotoxic therapy. They received FPC in a single university hospital in the Netherlands. Apart from patients' experiences, patients' characteristics, decisional conflict and decision regret were assessed. A total of 64 patients (59.3%) responded to the questionnaire. Patients generally had positive experiences with FPC, but indicated room for improvement. Negative experiences were associated with decisional conflict regarding the FP decision (not enough time for counselling: P < 0.0001; not having the opportunity to ask all questions during FPC: P < 0.0001; not feeling supported by the counsellor during decision-making: P = 0.0003; not all applicable options were discussed: P = 0.0001; benefits and disadvantages of FP options were not clearly explained: P = 0.0005). Decisional conflict was correlated to decision regret (P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of patients counselled after 2011 who had not tried to conceive (n = 33), similar results as for the total study population were found for the association of patient experiences with decisional conflict. Given our retrospective design, we were not informed about the causality of the associations observed. We studied Dutch patients who were counselled in a single centre and were at least 16 years old when filling in the questionnaire. This may limit the generalizability of our data to other settings and populations. More attention should be paid to improving FPC care. Interventions aiming at improving patients' comprehension of the topic of FP and their feelings of being supported in decision-making are advisable. This work was supported by the Radboud Institute for Health and an unconditional grant from Merck Serono. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest with respect to this work.

Bastings L ，Baysal Ö ，Beerendonk CC ，IntHout J ，Traas MA ，Verhaak CM ，Braat DD ，Nelen WL ... -  《-》

Referral for fertility preservation counselling in female cancer patients.

What changes can be detected in fertility preservation (FP) counselling (FPC) over time and what are the determinants associated with the referral of newly diagnosed female cancer patients, aged 0-39 years, to a specialist in reproductive medicine for FPC? Although the absolute number of patients receiving FPC increased over time, only 9.8% of all potential patients (aged 0-39 years) were referred in 2011 and referral disparities were found with respect to patients' age, cancer diagnosis and healthcare provider-related factors. Referral rates for FPC prior to the start of gonadotoxic cancer treatment are low. Determinants associated with low referral and referral disparities have been identified in previous studies, although there are only scarce data on referral practices and determinants for FPC referral in settings with reimbursement of FP(C). We conducted a retrospective observational and questionnaire study in a Dutch university hospital. Data on all female cancer patients counselled for FP in this centre (2001-2013), as well as all newly diagnosed female cancer patients aged 0-39 years in the region (2009-2011) were collected. Data were retrieved from medical records (FPC patients), cancer incidences reported by the Dutch Cancer Registry (to calculate referral percentages) and referring professionals (to identify reasons for the current referral behaviour). In 2011, a total of 9.8% of the patients were referred for FPC. Patients aged 20-29 years or diagnosed with breast cancer or lymphoma were referred more frequently compared with patients under the age of 20 years or patients diagnosed with other malignancies. The absolute numbers of patients receiving FPC increased over time. Healthcare provider-related determinants for low referral were not starting a discussion about fertility-related issues, not knowing where to refer a patient for FPC and not collaborating with patients' associations. Actual referral rates may slightly differ from our estimation as there may have been patients who did not wish to receive FPC. Sporadically, patients might have been directly referred to other regions or may have received ovarian transposition without FPC. By excluding skin cancer patients, we will have underestimated the group of women who are eligible for FPC as this group also includes melanoma patients who might have received gonadotoxic therapy. The low referral rates and referral disparities reported in the current study indicate that there are opportunities to improve referral practices. Future research should focus on the implementation and evaluation of interventions to improve referral practices, such as information materials for patients at oncology departments, discussion prompts or methods to increase the awareness of physicians and patients of FP techniques and guidelines. This work was supported by the Radboud university medical center and the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest with respect to this work. Not applicable.

Bastings L ，Baysal O ，Beerendonk CC ，Braat DD ，Nelen WL ... -  《-》

Fertility preservation in the male pediatric population: factors influencing the decision of parents and children.

How can the decision process for fertility preservation (FP) in adolescents and prepubertal boys be improved based on patient and parent feelings about FP counseling? The content of information given to patients and parents and hope for future parenthood appeared to positively impact on the decision to preserve fertility in the pediatric population and, therefore, deserves special attention to improve FP care. A vast body of literature on adult cancer patients shows that reproductive capacity is a major quality-of-life issue. Patients also have a strong desire to be informed of available FP options with a view to future parenthood of their own genetic child, considering that <10% chose to adopt or used donated gametes. Furthermore, the quality of fertility counseling provided at the time of cancer diagnosis has been identified as a crucial factor in the decision-making process. By contrast, in the pediatric population, while it was shown that parents were able to make an informed and voluntary decision for their prepubertal sons despite the heavy emotional burden at the time of diagnosis, there is so far very limited information on patient expectations regarding FP. A lack of awareness often equates to suboptimal care by oncologists and FP specialists, and poor access to FP, therefore improving knowledge and identifying the expectations of pediatric patients and their parents are crucial for optimizing multidisciplinary collaborative care pathways (MCCPs), including counseling and access to FP methods, in the youngest population. A questionnaire survey was posted to an eligible population between May 2005 and May 2013. A total of 348 prepubertal boys and adolescents aged 0-18 years, diagnosed with cancer in a university hospital setting, were eligible. Three different questionnaires for two age groups of children (<12 and 12-18 years) and parents were established based on information from focus groups. Questions were subsequently reviewed by the institutional ethics board before being sent. Of the 348 eligible patients, 44 died and 14 were lost to follow-up. Thus, 290 patients (77 aged 12-18 years and 213 aged <12 years) were sent a questionnaire. In total, 120 questionnaires were recovered, 45.5% (n = 35/77) from adolescents and 39.9% (n = 85/213) from children. FP acceptance rates were, respectively, 74 and 78.6% for boys aged <12 and 12-18 years. The content of information provided to patients and parents appeared to positively impact on the decision to preserve fertility (P = 0.04). While the majority of boys aged >12 years considered the information to be clear (72%), complete (80%) and understandable (90.9%), only 33.3% of boys aged <12 years were able to comprehend the information. Pressure from doctors to reduce the delay between diagnosis and cancer treatment increased the number of refusals (P<0.01), while hope for future parenthood favored acceptance (P < 0.01). Family support was considered important for 75% of adolescents and 58% of children, and medical support for 50% of adolescents and 42% of children. This single-center survey does not allow extrapolation of the information to other settings. Recall bias and lack of full external validation of the questionnaires are further limitations. Modification of the current MCCP should be further evaluated according to our results. Acknowledging the issues faced and familiarizing oneself with the care of patients undergoing fertility-threatening therapies supply primary care providers with the appropriate quality management tools in the field of FP in centers for reproductive medicine. Expectations reported in the survey allow appropriate support to be included within the MCCP design. Funding by hospital/clinic(s); Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. NCT02411214.

Wyns C ，Collienne C ，Shenfield F ，Robert A ，Laurent P ，Roegiers L ，Brichard B ... -  《-》

What factors hinder the decision-making process for women with cancer and contemplating fertility preservation treatment?

Although fertility preservation (FP) treatment options have increased, the existing evidence suggests that many women with cancer do not feel well supported in making these decisions, but find them stressful and complex and fail to take up fertility care at this crucial time. Whilst existing reviews have all made important contributions to our understanding of the FP decision-making process, none of them examine solely and specifically these processes for women of reproductive age with a diagnosis of any cancer, leaving a gap in the knowledge base. Given the expectation that care is patient-centred, our review aims to address this gap which may be of help to those managing patients struggling to make difficult decisions in the often brief period before potentially sterilizing cancer treatment is started. Underpinning this narrative review was the question 'What factors hinder the decision-making process for women with any cancer and contemplating FP treatment?' Our objectives were to (i) assess and summarize this existing literature, (ii) identify the factors that hinder this decision-making process, (iii) explore to what extent these factors may differ for women choosing different methods of FP and (iv) make recommendations for service delivery and future research. A systematic search of the medical and social science literature from the 1 January 2005 up to the end of January 2016 was carried out using three electronic databases (Web of Science (PubMed), Ovid SP Medline and CINAHL via Ebsco). Included in the review were quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. Reference lists of relevant papers were also hand searched. From the 983 papers identified, 46 papers were included. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. From the analysis, 6 key themes with 15 sub-themes emerged: (i) fertility information provision (lack of information, timing of the information, patient-provider communication); (ii) fear concerning the perceived risks associated with pursuing FP (delaying cancer treatment, aggravating a hormone positive cancer and consequences of a future pregnancy); (iii) non-referral from oncology (personal situation, having a hormone positive cancer, FP not a priority and transition between service issues); (iv) the dilemma (in survival mode, whether to prioritize one treatment over another); (v) personal situation (parity, relationship status) and (iv) costs (financial concerns). This review has found that a wide range of internal and external factors impact the FP decision-making process. Key external issues related to current service delivery such as the provision and timing of FP information, and lack of referral from oncology to the fertility clinic. However, internal issues such as women's fears concerning the perceived risks associated with pursuing FP also hindered decision-making but these 'risks' were typically overestimated and non-evidence based. These findings suggest that the implementation of a range of decision support interventions may be of benefit within the clinical care pathway of FP and cancer. Women would benefit from the provision of more evidence-based FP information, ideally received at cancer diagnosis, in advance of seeing a fertility specialist, for example through the implementation of patient decision aids. Healthcare professionals in both oncology and fertility services may also benefit from the implementation of training programmes and educational tools targeted at improving the communication skills needed to improve collaborative decision-making and deliver care that is patient-centred. Exploration of the current barriers, both intellectual and practical, that prevent some patients from accepting FP will help care providers to do better for their patients in the future. Finally, the extent to which a poorer prognosis and moral, ethical and religious beliefs influence the FP decision-making process also warrant further research.

Jones G ，Hughes J ，Mahmoodi N ，Smith E ，Skull J ，Ledger W ... -  《-》