Faculty Bibliography

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of distributing a prompting tool (stress egg) in order to increase discussions about fertility risk and preservation (FP) among female adolescent oncology patients, parents, and healthcare providers (HCP). 200 eggs were distributed to four pediatric oncology centers. Qualitative interviews were completed with healthcare staff (N=7) after 6 months of distribution to newly diagnosed female oncology patients ages 12-18. Interviews showed that the main barriers to distribution of the prompt were: forgetting to distribute the eggs; uncertainty about the significance of fertility; and uncertainty about fertility issues in general for female adolescent cancer patients. The scientific community must continually explore effective avenues of communication to ensure such information is received. The stress egg has potential to impact a cancer survivor's outlook on future partnering, family life, and self-concept when used in conjunction with policy.

In this article we review the existing fertility preservation options for women diagnosed with Turner syndrome and provide practical guidelines for the practitioner. Turner syndrome is the most common sex chromosome abnormality in women, occurring in approximately 1 in 2500 live births. Women with Turner syndrome are at extremely high risk for primary ovarian insufficiency and infertility. Although approximately 70%-80% have no spontaneous pubertal development and 90% experience primary amenorrhea, the remainder might possess a small residual of ovarian follicles at birth or early childhood. The present challenge is to identify these women as early in life as is possible, to allow them to benefit from a variety of existing fertility preservation options. To maximize the benefits of fertility preservation, all women with Turner syndrome should be evaluated by an expert as soon as possible in childhood because the vast majority will have their ovarian reserve depleted before adulthood. Cryopreservation of mature oocytes and embryos is a proven fertility preservation approach, and cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is a promising technique with a growing number of live births, but remains investigational. Oocyte cryopreservation has been performed in children with Turner syndrome as young as 13 years of age and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in affected prepubertal children. However, current efficacy of these approaches is unknown in this cohort. For those who have already lost their ovarian reserve, oocyte or embryo donation and adoption are strategies that allow fulfillment of the desire for parenting. For those with Turner syndrome-related cardiac contraindications to pregnancy, use of gestational surrogacy allows the possibility of biological parenting using their own oocytes. Alternatively, gestational surrogacy can serve to carry pregnancy resulting from the use of donor oocytes or embryos, if needed.

Participation in biobanking among individuals with familial risk for hereditary cancer (IFRs) and underserved/minority populations is vital for biobanking research. To address gaps in researcher knowledge regarding ethical concerns of these populations, we developed a web-based curriculum. Based on formative research and expert panel assessments, a curriculum and website was developed in an integrative, systematic manner. Researchers were recruited to evaluate the curriculum. Public health graduate students were recruited to pilot test the curriculum. All 14 researchers agreed the curriculum was easy to understand, adequately addressed the domains, and contained appropriate post-test questions. The majority evaluated the dialgoue animations as interesting and valuable. Twenty-two graduate students completed the curriculum, and 77 % improved their overall test score. A web-based curriculum is an acceptable and effective way to provide information to researchers about vulnerable populations' biobanking concerns. Future goals are to incorporate the curriculum with larger organizations.

As cancer survivors live longer, fertility and reproductive health become important health concerns. Like other secondary effects of cancer treatment, these anticipated health risks should be addressed before the initiation of cancer treatment. While existing and emerging technologies may prevent or reduce risk of infertility (e.g., sperm, oocyte, embryo, or tissue banking), the lack of a trained workforce knowledgeable about oncology and reproductive health poses a barrier to care. The allied health professional (AHP) is a target of opportunity because of the direct and sustained patient relationships. Thus, developing tailored educational programs for nurses, social workers, psychologists, and physician assistants is an urgent unmet need toward field building. In this report, we outline results from a pilot study evaluating AHP perceptions of an oncology and reproductive health curriculum originally developed for nurses and adapted to meet the needs of several other AHP groups.

PURPOSE: This study aims to examine healthcare provider perceptions of cancer-related infertility and fertility preservation (FP) in an underserved population and to highlight cognitive and structural barriers to use. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of 16 healthcare providers participating in a larger ethnographic study on cancer survivorship and cancer-related infertility in Puerto Rico, an unincorporated US territory. Interviews were conducted in-person, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Providers identified several barriers to FP in Puerto Rico: high cost in relation to income levels, lack of insurance coverage, gaps in provider knowledge of fertility clinics and financial assistance, lower prioritization of quality-of-life needs leading to inconsistent physician disclosure of fertility risks, geographical location of fertility clinics, and logistical challenges to maintaining FP offerings. Two factors act as facilitators: a high value placed on patient-provider communication and relationships and the formation of local alliances between the oncology and reproductive medicine fields, potentially leading to increased cross-specialty communication and referral. CONCLUSIONS: Infertility is a continuing source of distress for cancer patients and survivors, and barriers to FP vary cross-culturally. In Puerto Rico, context-specific factors indicate potential areas of intervention. Greater awareness of fertility risks and options can be fostered through physician training in conjunction with organizational measures targeting cost barriers.

BACKGROUND: Intervention studies among individuals in diverse community settings are needed to reduce health disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and mortality rates. The current study compared the efficacy of 2 intervention conditions promoting CRC screening among black individuals. METHODS: Black individuals ages 50 to 75 years (N = 330) were recruited in community settings in 4 Tampa Bay counties. After obtaining consent and conducting a baseline interview to assess sociodemographic and health-related variables, participants received either a culturally targeted CRC photonovella booklet plus a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit or a standard CRC screening brochure plus an FIT kit. The primary outcome was FIT kit screening uptake. RESULTS: FIT screening uptake at 6 months was 86.7% overall (90.3% in the brochure group and 81.9% in the photonovella group). Controlling for baseline between-group differences, there was no influence of intervention on FIT kit uptake (P = .756). Significant predictors of not returning an FIT kit included being unable to work (P = .010), having higher religious belief scores (P = .015), and living farther from the cancer center (P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Providing FIT kits and educational print materials to black individuals in community settings resulted in high rates of CRC screening. The study also identified subgroups of participants who were less likely to return an FIT kit and provides insight for future interventions. Cancer 2016;122:3288-3296. (c) 2016 American Cancer Society.