Counseling and cryopreservation: evaluation of patient-reported counseling and choice on method of cancer-related fertility preservation.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1007/s10815-024-03217-3
Jillian Pecoriello, Gwendolyn P Quinn, Erinn Hade, Joyce Reinecke
{"title":"Counseling and cryopreservation: evaluation of patient-reported counseling and choice on method of cancer-related fertility preservation.","authors":"Jillian Pecoriello, Gwendolyn P Quinn, Erinn Hade, Joyce Reinecke","doi":"10.1007/s10815-024-03217-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Prior to cancer treatment, patients make decisions on whether to undergo fertility preservation (FP) and the method of FP. We sought to learn more about counseling and decision-making on the method of cancer-related FP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional 26-item online survey was administered to patients with ovaries who underwent cancer-related FP. Associations between demographics and the FP method were made through estimates of risk difference, with a 95% confidence interval. Open-ended responses were analyzed using the constant comparative method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 240 respondents completed the survey: 52% underwent oocyte cryopreservation (OC), 29% underwent embryo cryopreservation (EC), and 19% underwent both oocyte and embryo cryopreservation (OC/EC). Most respondents agreed that if they were to go through the process again, they would make the same decision about FP (80% EC, 72% OC, 59% OC/EC). Women ≥ 35 years reported being counseled more that embryos were superior compared to younger women (risk difference 46%, CI 32.8, 59.1), however were not more likely to freeze embryos (risk difference 6.2%, CI - 9.8, 22.2). Women in long-term relationships reported they were counseled more that embryos were superior compared to those single/dating (risk difference 27%, CI 18.1, 35.9). All women in long-term relationships reported undergoing EC, while the majority of single/dating women reported undergoing OC (74.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most women who have undergone cancer-related FP reported they would choose the same FP method again. Women in long-term relationships or ≥ 35 years reported they were more likely to be counseled that EC is superior; however, only women in long-term relationships were more likely to freeze embryos.</p>","PeriodicalId":15246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics","volume":" ","pages":"2807-2812"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11535109/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03217-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Prior to cancer treatment, patients make decisions on whether to undergo fertility preservation (FP) and the method of FP. We sought to learn more about counseling and decision-making on the method of cancer-related FP.

Methods: A cross-sectional 26-item online survey was administered to patients with ovaries who underwent cancer-related FP. Associations between demographics and the FP method were made through estimates of risk difference, with a 95% confidence interval. Open-ended responses were analyzed using the constant comparative method.

Results: A total of 240 respondents completed the survey: 52% underwent oocyte cryopreservation (OC), 29% underwent embryo cryopreservation (EC), and 19% underwent both oocyte and embryo cryopreservation (OC/EC). Most respondents agreed that if they were to go through the process again, they would make the same decision about FP (80% EC, 72% OC, 59% OC/EC). Women ≥ 35 years reported being counseled more that embryos were superior compared to younger women (risk difference 46%, CI 32.8, 59.1), however were not more likely to freeze embryos (risk difference 6.2%, CI - 9.8, 22.2). Women in long-term relationships reported they were counseled more that embryos were superior compared to those single/dating (risk difference 27%, CI 18.1, 35.9). All women in long-term relationships reported undergoing EC, while the majority of single/dating women reported undergoing OC (74.6%).

Conclusion: Most women who have undergone cancer-related FP reported they would choose the same FP method again. Women in long-term relationships or ≥ 35 years reported they were more likely to be counseled that EC is superior; however, only women in long-term relationships were more likely to freeze embryos.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
咨询与冷冻保存:评估患者报告的咨询情况以及对癌症相关生育力保存方法的选择。
目的:在癌症治疗之前,患者会就是否进行生育力保存(FP)以及生育力保存的方法做出决定。我们试图了解更多有关癌症相关 FP 方法的咨询和决策情况:我们对接受癌症相关生育保护的卵巢癌患者进行了一项包含 26 个项目的横断面在线调查。通过估计风险差异和 95% 的置信区间,得出人口统计学特征与 FP 方法之间的关联。采用恒定比较法对开放式回答进行了分析:共有 240 名受访者完成了调查:52%的受访者进行了卵母细胞冷冻保存(OC),29%的受访者进行了胚胎冷冻保存(EC),19%的受访者同时进行了卵母细胞和胚胎冷冻保存(OC/EC)。大多数受访者同意,如果再次经历这一过程,她们会对 FP 作出同样的决定(80% EC、72% OC、59% OC/EC)。与年轻女性相比,≥ 35 岁的女性更容易接受关于胚胎优越性的咨询(风险差异为 46%,CI 为 32.8,59.1),但她们并不更倾向于冷冻胚胎(风险差异为 6.2%,CI 为 -9.8,22.2)。与单身/约会的女性相比,长期恋爱关系中的女性更多地被告知胚胎更优越(风险差异为 27%,CI 为 18.1,35.9)。所有有长期关系的女性都表示接受了EC,而大多数单身/约会女性则表示接受了OC(74.6%):结论:大多数接受过癌症相关 FP 的女性表示,她们会再次选择相同的 FP 方法。有长期关系或年龄≥35 岁的妇女表示,她们更有可能接受关于EC 优越性的咨询;然而,只有有长期关系的妇女更有可能冷冻胚胎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
286
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics publishes cellular, molecular, genetic, and epigenetic discoveries advancing our understanding of the biology and underlying mechanisms from gametogenesis to offspring health. Special emphasis is placed on the practice and evolution of assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) with reference to the diagnosis and management of diseases affecting fertility. Our goal is to educate our readership in the translation of basic and clinical discoveries made from human or relevant animal models to the safe and efficacious practice of human ARTs. The scientific rigor and ethical standards embraced by the JARG editorial team ensures a broad international base of expertise guiding the marriage of contemporary clinical research paradigms with basic science discovery. JARG publishes original papers, minireviews, case reports, and opinion pieces often combined into special topic issues that will educate clinicians and scientists with interests in the mechanisms of human development that bear on the treatment of infertility and emerging innovations in human ARTs. The guiding principles of male and female reproductive health impacting pre- and post-conceptional viability and developmental potential are emphasized within the purview of human reproductive health in current and future generations of our species. The journal is published in cooperation with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, an organization of more than 8,000 physicians, researchers, nurses, technicians and other professionals dedicated to advancing knowledge and expertise in reproductive biology.
期刊最新文献
National-level assessment of gestational carrier pregnancies in the United States. Assessing the impact of calcium ionophore on pregnancy outcomes in artificial oocyte activation cycles: a 10-year update of systematic review and meta-analysis. From live birth to live birth: a strong correlation between the outcomes of first and second frozen-thawed euploid blastocyst transfers from sibling oocytes. The new ice age: the promise and challenges of rapid oocyte warming protocols. Dual trigger versus human chorionic gonadotropin trigger for blastocyst quality and cumulative live birth.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1