Faculty Bibliography

STUDY QUESTION/OBJECTIVE:What structural (logistical) and psychological challenges do patients who cryopreserve oocytes or embryos for medical reasons face, including possible barriers to using their frozen materials? SUMMARY ANSWER/CONCLUSIONS:The majority of women who underwent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation for medical reasons reported a desire to use their frozen oocytes or embryos but had been impeded by ongoing medical issues, the need for a gestational carrier, or the lack of a partner. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY/BACKGROUND:Current data suggest that many women who have frozen oocytes or embryos for medical indications are concerned about the prospect of infertility and have unique emotional and financial needs that differ from patients with infertility. Further, most patients have not returned to use their cryopreserved materials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION/METHODS:This is a qualitative interview study of 42 people who cryopreserved between January 2012 and December 2021. Interviews were conducted between March 2021 and March 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS/METHODS:All participants were cisgender women who had undergone oocyte or embryo cryopreservation for medical indications at an academic fertility center. Participants were invited to interview by email if they were younger than 40 years old when their oocytes or embryos were cryopreserved. Interviews were conducted over the internet and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis with the constant comparison method. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE/RESULTS:Saturation was reached at 42 interviews. The median age of participants was 35 years old (range 28-43) at interview and 31 years old (range 25-39) at cryopreservation. Of the 42 women, 30 had a cancer diagnosis, while 7 had non-cancer chronic medical conditions, and 5 had hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes. There were 12 women who banked embryos and 30 who banked oocytes. The majority of women indicated a desire to use their cryopreserved materials, but many were unsure about how or when. Four had already used their frozen oocytes or embryos, while another four had conceived without assisted reproduction. The cryopreservation experience was described by the majority as highly emotionally challenging because they felt out of place among couples receiving infertility treatment and, for cancer patients, overwhelmed by the complex decisions to be made in a short time period. Common reported barriers to using frozen materials included ongoing medical issues preventing pregnancy, the need for a gestational carrier, the lack of a partner, and the desire for unassisted conception. Some were glad to have frozen oocytes or embryos to allow more time to meet a partner or if they were considering becoming single parents. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION/CONCLUSIONS:The majority of participants had their oocytes or embryos frozen at a single, urban, academic fertility center, which may limit generalizability. We also could not calculate a response rate because the snowball technique was used to identify additional participants, so did not know the total number of people invited to participate. Like other interview studies, our study may be subject to response bias because those who agreed to participate may have particularly positive or negative views about their experiences. Furthermore, the mean follow-up time since freezing was relatively short (3.3 years, median 2.7 years), which may not have been enough time for some patients to use their frozen materials. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS:Learning about the experiences of patients undergoing medically indicated oocyte and embryo cryopreservation can help clinicians better counsel these patients regarding decisions and hurdles they may encounter. We found that most patients had not returned to use their frozen materials because of ongoing medical issues, the need for a gestational carrier, lack of a partner, or the desire to attempt unassisted reproduction. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)/BACKGROUND:This study did not receive any funding. The authors of this study have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/BACKGROUND:N/A.

Adult males with sickle cell disease (SCD) may have abnormal semen parameters, raising the concern that SCD and/or treatments may impact fertility. Yet, studies that include adolescents are lacking. To determine if fertility testing is feasible in male adolescents with SCD, and to explore their experiences and outcomes of fertility testing, 33 adolescents who completed a web-based SCD reproductive health education program were offered a free semen analysis. Five (15%) obtained testing and each had abnormalities. Barriers to testing included lack of time and transportation and discomfort. Findings highlight the need for larger, longitudinal studies using innovative testing approaches.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To examine processes, barriers, and facilitators to sperm banking counseling and decision-making for adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer from the perspective of clinicians who completed Oncofertility communication training. We also identify opportunities for improvement to inform future interventions and implementation. METHODS:A survey (N=104) and subsequent focus groups (N=15) were conducted with non-physician clinicians practicing in pediatric oncology who completed Oncofertility communication training. RESULTS:Most survey participants were confident in communicating about the impact of cancer on fertility (n=87, 83.7%) and fertility preservation options (n=80, 76.9%). Most participants reported never/rarely using a sperm banking decision tool (n=70, 67.3%), although 98.1% (n=102) said a decision tool with a family-centered approach would be beneficial. Primary themes in the subsequent focus groups included variable processes/workflows (inconsistent approaches to consult initiation; involvement of adolescents, caregivers, and various clinician types; assessment of puberty/sexual experience), structural and psychosocial barriers (cost and logistics, developmental, cultural, clinical acuity/prognosis), and facilitators (educational materials, alternative options for banking). Opportunities and strategies for improvement (including fertility preservation in existing research protocols; additional staffing/resources; oncologist education and buy-in; and development of decision tools) were informed by challenges identified in the other themes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Barriers to adolescent sperm banking remain, even among clinicians who have completed Oncofertility training. Although training is one factor necessary to facilitate banking, structural and psychosocial barriers persist. Given the complexities of offering sperm banking to pediatric populations, continued efforts are needed to mitigate structural barriers and develop strategies to facilitate decision-making before childhood cancer treatment.

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the rates of vaccination against infectious diseases (Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis [Tdap] and influenza) in pregnancy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic compared to contemporary historical controls. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 1,713 pregnant people were included. Compared to historical controls, the COVID cohort differed in age, race, timing of initiation of prenatal care, insurance status, and medical comorbidities. After adjusting for these covariates, pregnant people were significantly more likely to accept influenza vaccine in the COVID cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-2.29) and had similar Tdap acceptance (aOR 1.5, 95% CI 0.99-2.17). However, this trend was not observed for the entire obstetric population; public insurance status and medical comorbidities were associated with lower vaccine rates during the pandemic. For those who had public insurance, rates of influenza vaccination decreased from 83% in 2019 to 40% during COVID (aOR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10-0.24) and for Tdap rates decreased from 93 to 54% (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.21). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic era, pregnant people at large were more likely to accept the influenza vaccine. However, this trend did not apply to Tdap, and high-risk groups with public insurance and medical comorbidities. This study highlights potential disparities in vaccination rates, which need to be accounted for when evaluating national vaccine trends. These data support increased efforts in vaccine counseling for high-risk populations. KEY POINTS/CONCLUSIONS:· Antenatal flu vaccination increased during the pandemic.. · Antenatal Tdap vaccination was unchanged during the pandemic.. · High-risk pregnant patients had decreased vaccine uptake.. · High-risk subgroups were not included in overarching vaccination trends..

Sexual health may be disrupted in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) both during and after cancer treatment, irrespective of whether they are diagnosed in childhood, adolescence, or young adulthood. Unfortunately, oncology providers often underestimate the relevance of psychosexual issues for AYAs and underprioritize sexual health throughout treatment and survivorship. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide information on (a) the etiology of psychosexual dysfunction in childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer patients and young adult survivors of childhood cancer; (b) strategies for communicating and evaluating potential sexual health issues of AYA patients/survivors; and (c) guidance for the practicing pediatric oncologist on how to address sexual health concerns with patients.

BACKGROUND:Underserved and minoritized patients with cancer often experience more psychosocial concerns and inferior quality of life (QOL) compared with majority populations. This study compared patient-reported psychosocial characteristics and QOL among self-identified sexual and gender minority patients with cancer vs cisgender-heterosexual patients with cancer treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in the United States. METHODS:Self-report data from 51 503 patients were obtained from an institutional standard-of-care electronic patient questionnaire that was completed prior to, or on the day of, the patient's initial visit. The electronic patient questionnaire collects demographic information, including sexual orientation and gender identity, psychosocial variables, and QOL using the validated Short Form Health Survey-12. Sexual orientation and gender identity information was used to identify self-identified sexual and gender minority and cisgender-heterosexual persons (ie, non-self-identified sexual and gender minority). Using parametric analyses, psychosocial variables and QOL measures were compared for self-identified sexual and gender minority vs non-self-identified sexual and gender minority patients with cancer. RESULTS:Compared with non-self-identified sexual and gender minority patients (n = 50 116), self-identified sexual and gender minority patients (n = 1387, 2.7%) reported statistically significantly greater concerns regarding getting help during treatment (2.6% vs 4.3%, respectively; P = .001) and concerns with ability to seek care (16.7% vs 21.6%, respectively, P < .001). Self-identified sexual and gender minority patients reported statistically significantly elevated mental health concerns and daily emotional and pain interference (all P < .001), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in daily interference due to physical functioning. CONCLUSION:These data reveal real-world disparities among self-identified sexual and gender minority patients with cancer, which can be used to develop psychosocial interventions tailored to address the unique psychosocial and QOL needs of this underserved and minoritized population and to ultimately improve cancer care.