As part of education and informed consent before cancer therapy, health care providers (including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, gynecologic oncologists, urologists, hematologists, pediatric oncologists, and surgeons) should address the possibility of infertility with patients treated during their reproductive years (or with parents or guardians of children) and 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, the Update Panel encourages providers to 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 and embryo cryopreservation as well as oocyte cryopreservation are considered standard practice and are widely available. Other fertility preservation methods should be considered investigational and should be performed by providers with the necessary expertise.

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 .

The goal of the update 1 is to provide oncologists, other health care providers, and caregivers with recommendations regarding fertility preservation for adults, adolescents, and children with cancer.ASCO first published evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on fertility preservation in 2006, and an updated guideline was published in 2013. 2 The goal of the 2018 guideline update is to provide current guidance regarding fertility preservation options for people with cancer anticipating treatment. The current 2018 update assesses whether the 2013 recommendations remain valid. A complete list of 2013 and 2018 recommendations is available at www. asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.Additionalinformationisavailableatwww. asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. Patient information is available at www.cancer.net.

Presumed underlying etiologies with POA follow a similar distribution pattern as reported for POF. POA and POF may, therefore, represent a continuum in phenotypical expression of different etiologies of premature ovarian senescence. Like POF, POA should be considered reason to investigate underlying etiologies.

With recent advances in cryobiology, cryopreservation of the oocyte and ovarian tissue is rapidly becoming an important service provided by medical centers throughout the world. The general indication for oocyte or ovarian tissue cryopreservation is to retain future fertility potential for women who face the possibility of premature or imminent ovarian failure resulting from treatments for various disease states including cancer. Considering limitations imposed by age, lack of a partner, or sufficient time to undergo embryo cryopreservation, these patients have few options if they desire preservation of their fertility. The objective of this manuscript is to review the basic aspects of oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, and to discuss the current and future applications of these technologies in fertility preservation.

Breast cancer is the most common neoplasm in women and accounts for 26% (182,460) of all new cancer cases among women. With the use of screening mammography and advancement in other diagnostic modalities, many cases of breast cancer now can be diagnosed and treated at early stages of the disease. Unfortunately, adjuvant chemotherapy regimens commonly used in the treatment of breast cancer may cause premature ovarian failure due to their cytotoxic effects on the germ cells in the ovary. Therefore preservation of fertility in breast cancer survivors at reproductive age has become an important quality of life issue. Fertility preservation is a recently emerged field of reproductive medicine that may help protect the reproductive capability of the cancer survivors and allow them to have children in the future. Embryo freezing is the most established fertility preservation strategy. But conventional ovarian stimulation protocols are contraindicated in breast cancer patients because of the rise of estrogen and its metabolites to supraphysiological levels. Recently developed ovarian stimulation protocols with aromatase inhibitor letrozole and tamoxifen appear to provide a safe stimulation with endogenous estrogen levels comparable with those achieved in the natural cycle. Oocyte freezing can be considered in single women and in those who do not wish donor sperm. Ovarian tissue freezing could also be an option in breast cancer patients who do not wish or have a time for an in vitro fertilization cycle, which requires 10 to 14 days of ovarian stimulation.

No abstract

No abstract