Patient-Reported Fertility Discussions Before Early-Onset Cancer Treatment
Samantha R. Keller,Allison Rosen,Mark A. Lewis,Hyo K. Park,Rebecca Babyak,Jill Feldman,Fei Ye,Rajiv Agarwal,Kristen K. Ciombor,Timothy M. Geiger,Cathy Eng,Katherine J. Hunzinger,Richard H. Viskochil,Michelle K. Roach,Digna R. Velez Edwards,Michele L. Cote,Andreana N. Holowatyj
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.44540
2024-11-13
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:The early-onset cancer (ie, individuals aged 18-49 years) experience is unique because there exists a greater need to treat multiple life domains—including reproductive health—that are affected by a cancer diagnosis. 1 ,2 Notwithstanding the widespread recognition of the importance of a patient–health care professional discussion to address the possibility of infertility and fertility preservation (FP) options before cancer treatment, 3 our understanding of this patient experience remains incomplete. Herein, we evaluated FP discussion patterns as reported by 473 patients with a first primary early-onset cancer in the REACT (Reproductive Health After Cancer Diagnosis & Treatment) Study. REACT Study recruitment, self-administered questionnaire elements, and sources and population are described in the eMethods in Supplement 1. We limited our cross-sectional study to males (age at diagnosis, 18-49 years) and females (age at diagnosis, 18-42 years) who received their diagnosis between 2013 and 2021 and who responded yes or no to the following question 4 : "Did a healthcare professional involved in your cancer care talk with you about options to preserve your fertility (e.g., sperm banking or freezing of eggs, embryos, or ovarian tissue) before you started cancer treatment?" (eFigure in Supplement 1). Differences between characteristics by patient-reported FP discussion were examined using the χ 2 test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used to assess trends in age at diagnosis by patient-reported FP discussion. This study followed the STROBE reporting guideline. Statistical analysis was performed from November 10, 2023, to September 11, 2024, using SAS Institute software, version 9.4. All tests were 2-sided (unless otherwise specified), with P < .05 considered statistically significant. One in every 2 patients (240 of 473 [50.7%]) reported that a health care professional involved in their cancer care discussed FP options before treatment initiation (Table). The proportion of these patient-reported FP discussions differed significantly by age, pregnancy history, and marital status. Patient-reported FP discussions by cancer type are presented in the Figure. The lowest prevalence of FP discussions was reported by young patients with thyroid, lung or bronchus, ovarian, and colorectal cancers (3.6% [1 of 28], 21.0% [13 of 62], 21.4% [3 of 14], and 44.2% [42 of 95], respectively). In this cross-sectional study, we observed that half of the patients did not report having an FP discussion with their health care professional before early-onset cancer treatment. Our study is unique in that it does not focus on what is documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) or on health care professional self-reported practices regarding FP discussions, but, rather, it is patient centered by asking patients what they experienced, heard, and discussed during their clinical encounters with their cancer care team. However, the study of patients' perceptions or experiences inherently introduces recall bias. It is possible that patients may not have remembered this discussion—which could be attributable to lack of interest in having children, stress from early-onset cancer diagnosis, or inability to pursue FP. 5 Thus, if FP was discussed by the health care professional but the patient did not understand or recall this information, our findings may underreport the true prevalence of patient-recalled FP discussions in the clinical setting. This also points to the plethora of pressures on an initial oncology visit and other clinical visits after a new early-onset cancer diagnosis and emphasizes the importance of appropriate timing for this conversation. Because cancer therapies for gonadal function vary by disease site and therapeutic regimen, 1 our present work adds to the literature 6 by exploring patterns of patient-reported FP discussions across cancer types for both males and females of reproductive age. Our analyses were conducted using REACT Study data from a large patient population representing 30 early-onset cancer types. We acknowledge that, as a patient-partnered study, our recruitment strategy during COVID-19 contributed to skewed demographics (eg, insured patients or those with higher socioeconomic status) that limit representation of the overall population. The REACT Study also lacks EMR information to assess clinical factors that may affect FP discussions (eg, disease stage, therapeutic regimen that does not affect fertility, or goal of therapy). Although our findings shed light on limited FP discussions as reported by individuals with early-onset cancers, we were unable to evaluate how differences across health care settings or clinical factors may contribute to these patterns. Overall, our study emphasizes the importance of tailoring effective stra -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal