Faculty Bibliography

A 16-year-old adolescent who identifies as transgender wishes to consider fertility preservation prior to the use of gender-affirming hormones. The adolescent's parents are divorced, and one parent supports fertility preservation while the other does not. This case explores the minor's future reproductive autonomy and parental decision making in a field where there is limited evidence of known harms and benefits to the use of fertility preservation in the transgender population and about future potential regret from lack of consideration of fertility preservation during the prime window of opportunity. This case is created from a composite of cases seen at multiple institutions.

Transgender and gender-nonconforming (TGNC) youth who suffer from gender dysphoria are at a substantially elevated risk of numerous adverse physical and psychosocial outcomes compared with their cisgender peers. Innovative treatment options used to support and affirm an individual's preferred gender identity can help resolve gender dysphoria and avoid many negative sequelae of nontreatment. Yet, despite advances in these relatively novel treatment options, which appear to be highly effective in addressing gender dysphoria and mitigating associated adverse outcomes, ethical challenges abound in ensuring that young patients receive appropriate, safe, affordable treatment and that access to this treatment is fair and equitable. Ethical considerations in gender-affirming care for TGNC youth span concerns about meeting the obligations to maximize treatment benefit to patients (beneficence), minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), supporting autonomy for pediatric patients during a time of rapid development, and addressing justice, including equitable access to care for TGNC youth. Moreover, although available data describing the use of gender-affirming treatment options are encouraging, and the risks of not treating TGNC youth with gender dysphoria are evident, little is known about the long-term effects of both hormonal and surgical interventions in this population. To support ethical decision-making about treatment options, we encourage the development of a comprehensive registry in the United States to track long-term patient outcomes. In the meantime, providers who work with TGNC youth and their families should endeavor to offer ethically sound, patient-centered, gender-affirming care based on the best currently available evidence.

Once unimaginable, fertility management is now a nationally established part of cancer care in institutions, from academic centers to community hospitals to private practices. Over the last two decades, advances in medicine and reproductive science have made it possible for men, women and children to be connected with an oncofertility specialist or offered fertility preservation soon after a cancer diagnosis. The Oncofertility Consortium's National Physicians Cooperative is a large-scale effort to engage physicians across disciplines - oncology, urology, obstetrics and gynecology, reproductive endocrinology, and behavioral health - in clinical and research activities to enable significant progress in providing fertility preservation options to children and adults. Here, we review the structure and function of the National Physicians Cooperative and identify next steps.

BACKGROUND:Physicians are encouraged through formalized systems to discuss their own errors with peers for the purposes of quality improvement. However, no clear professional norms exist regarding peer review when physicians discover errors that occurred at other institutions before referral. Our objective was to determine specialist physicians' attitudes and practices regarding providing feedback to referring physicians when prereferral errors are discovered. METHODS:We conducted semistructured interviews of specialists from two National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Centers. Thematic analysis of transcripts was performed to determine physicians' attitudes toward the delivery of negative feedback regarding prereferral errors, whether and how they communicate these errors to referring physicians, and perceived barriers to doing so. RESULTS:We purposively sampled specialists by discipline, gender, and experience level, who described greater than 50% reliance on external referrals (n = 30). Specialists believed regular, explicit feedback was ideal, but the majority of participants reported practices that did not meet this standard. While there were some structural barriers to providing feedback (lack of time or contact information), the majority of barriers were internal psychological concerns (general discomfort with providing negative feedback, fear of conflict, or defensive reactions) or fears about implications for future referrals or medicolegal risk. CONCLUSIONS:Policies and interventions that structure the approach to this sometimes difficult, yet critically important, opportunity for reducing medical errors warrant investigation as potential mechanisms by which to improve consistency and quality of care while maintaining positive professional relationships.

BACKGROUND:Supporting patients' decision making about clinical trials may enhance trial participation. To date, few theory-based interventions have been tested to address this issue. The objective of the current study was aimed to evaluate the effect of a multimedia psychoeducation (MP) intervention, relative to a print education (PE) intervention, on patients' decision support needs and attitudes about clinical trials. METHODS:Patients with cancer who were eligible for participation in a National Cancer Institute therapeutic cancer clinical trial were recruited through the nationwide University of Rochester Cancer Center National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program from 2014 to 2016 and were randomized to the MP or PE intervention. Assessments at baseline (before intervention), postintervention, and at a 2-month follow-up visit included patients' decision support needs, attitudes regarding clinical trials, and clinical trial participation. RESULTS:In total, 418 patients with various types of cancer were recruited (ages 26-89 years). Relative to the PE intervention, the MP intervention did not significantly affect decision support needs. However, patients in the MP arm reported significantly more positive attitudes about clinical trials and were more likely to participate in a clinical trial than those in the PE arm (69% vs 62%; P = .01). Furthermore, an improvement in attitudes about clinical trials significantly mediated the effect of the intervention on participation in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS:The MP intervention was able to improve patient attitudes toward clinical trials compared with the PE intervention, and this improvement led to increased rates of participation in trials. The MP intervention could be disseminated to improve attitudes about clinical trials among patients with cancer.

Reproductive health is an important yet often overlooked topic in pediatric health care; when addressed, the focus is generally on prevention of sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancy. Two aspects of reproductive health counseling that have received minimal attention in pediatrics are fertility and sexual function for at-risk pediatric populations, and youth across many disciplines are affected. Although professional organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, have published recommendations about fertility preservation discussions, none of these guidelines address how to have ongoing conversations with at-risk youth and their families about the potential for future infertility and sexual dysfunction in developmentally appropriate ways. Researchers suggest many pediatric patients at risk for reproductive problems remain uncertain and confused about their fertility or sexual function status well into young adulthood. Potential infertility may cause distress and anxiety, has been shown to affect formation of romantic relationships, and may lead to unplanned pregnancy in those who incorrectly assumed they were infertile. Sexual dysfunction is also common and may lead to problems with intimacy and self-esteem; survivors of pediatric conditions consistently report inadequate guidance from clinicians in this area. Health care providers and parents report challenges in knowing how and when to discuss these issues. In this context, the goal of this clinical report is to review evidence and considerations for providers related to information sharing about impaired fertility and sexual function in pediatric patients attributable to congenital and acquired conditions or treatments.

Purpose To provide current recommendations about fertility preservation for adults and children with cancer. Methods A systematic review of the literature published from January 2013 to March 2017 was completed using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. An Update Panel reviewed the identified publications. Results There were 61 publications identified and reviewed. None of these publications prompted a significant change in the 2013 recommendations. Recommendations Health care providers should initiate the discussion on the possibility of infertility with patients with cancer treated during their reproductive years or with parents/guardians of children as early as possible. Providers should be prepared to discuss fertility preservation options and/or to refer all potential patients to appropriate reproductive specialists. Although patients may be focused initially on their cancer diagnosis, providers should advise patients regarding potential threats to fertility as early as possible in the treatment process so as to allow for the widest array of options for fertility preservation. The discussion should be documented. Sperm, oocyte, and embryo cryopreservation are considered standard practice and are widely available. There is conflicting evidence to recommend gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) and other means of ovarian suppression for fertility preservation. The Panel recognizes that, when proven fertility preservation methods are not feasible, and in the setting of young women with breast cancer, GnRHa may be offered to patients in the hope of reducing the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced ovarian insufficiency. GnRHa should not be used in place of proven fertility preservation methods. The panel notes that the field of ovarian tissue cryopreservation is advancing quickly and may evolve to become standard therapy in the future. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .