|
|||||
|
|
||||||
Journal of Oncology Practice, Vol 2, No 3 (May), 2006: pp. 143-146 © 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2.3.143
ASCO Recommendations on Fertility Preservation in Cancer Patients: Guideline Summary
ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature available through March 2005 to develop guidance to oncologists about available fertility preservation methods and related issues in cancer patients.
The following recommendations are based on the available evidence and address several questions posed by the Panel. Oncologists should address the possibility of infertility with patients treated during their reproductive years. Fertility preservation is often possible, but to preserve the full range of options, fertility preservation approaches should be considered as early as possible during treatment planning.
What Is the Quality of Evidence Supporting Current and Forthcoming Options for Preservation of Fertility in Males?
Sperm cryopreservation. Sperm cryopreservation is effective, and oncologists should discuss sperm banking with appropriate patients. It is strongly recommended that sperm are collected prior to initiation of treatment because the quality of the sample and sperm DNA integrity may be compromised even after a single treatment session. Although planned chemotherapy may limit the number of ejaculates, intracytoplasmic sperm injection allows the successful freezing and future use of a very limited amount of sperm. Hormonal gonadoprotection. Hormonal therapy in men is not successful in preserving fertility when highly sterilizing chemotherapy is administered. Other considerations. Men should be advised of a potentially higher risk of genetic damage in sperm stored after initiation of therapy. Testicular tissue or spermatogonial cryopreservation and transplantation or testis xenografting have not yet been tested successfully in humans. Of note, such approaches are also the only methods of fertility preservation potentially available to prepubertal boys.
What Is the Quality of Evidence Supporting Current and Forthcoming Options for Preservation of Fertility in Females?
Embryo cryopreservation. Embryo cryopreservation is considered an established fertility preservation method because it has routinely been used for storing surplus embryos after in vitro fertilization. Approximately 2 weeks of ovarian stimulation with daily injections of follicle-stimulating hormone is required and must be started within the first 3 days of the menstrual cycle. Cryopreservation of unfertilized oocytes. Cryopreservation of unfertilized oocytes is an option, particularly for patients without a partner or those with religious or ethical objections to embryo freezing. Ovarian stimulation is required as described in the preceding section. Oocyte cryopreservation should be performed only in centers with the necessary expertise, and the Panel recommends participation in institutional review board (IRB) approved protocols. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation procedures should be performed only in centers with the necessary expertise under IRB-approved protocols that include follow-up for recurrent cancer. A concern with reimplanting ovarian tissue is the potential for reintroducing cancer cells, although in fewer than 20 procedures reported thus far, there are no reports of cancer recurrence. Ovarian suppression. Currently, there is insufficient evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs and other means of ovarian suppression on fertility preservation. Women interested in this technique are encouraged to participate in clinical trials. Ovarian transposition. Ovarian transposition (oophoropexy) can be offered when pelvic radiation is administered as cancer treatment. Because of the risk of remigration of the ovaries, this procedure should be performed as close to the radiation treatment as possible. Conservative gynecologic surgery. It has been suggested that radical trachelectomy be restricted to stage IA2-IB disease with diameter less than 2 cm and invasion less than 10 mm. In the treatment of other gynecologic malignancies, interventions to spare fertility have generally centered on doing less-radical surgery and/or lower-dose chemotherapy with the intent of sparing the reproductive organs as much as possible. Other considerations. Of special concern in breast and gynecologic malignancies is the possibility that fertility preservation interventions and/or subsequent pregnancy may increase the risk of cancer recurrence. Although several studies have not shown a decrement in survival or an increase in risk of breast cancer recurrence with pregnancy, the studies are all limited by significant biases, and concerns remain for some women and their physicians.
Special Considerations: Fertility Preservation in Children
What Is the Role of the Oncologist in Advising Patients About Fertility Preservation Options?
Oncologists should answer basic questions about whether fertility preservation options decrease the chance of successful cancer treatment, increase the risk of maternal or perinatal complications, or compromise the health of offspring. Patients should be encouraged to participate in registries and clinical studies as available to define further the safety of these interventions and strategies. Currently, women with a history of cancer and cancer treatment should be considered high risk for perinatal complications and would be prudent to seek specialized perinatal care. Oncologists should refer interested and appropriate patients to reproductive specialists as soon as possible. Referral to psychosocial providers may be beneficial when a patient has moderate to severe distress about potential infertility.
The literature review found many cohort studies, case series, and case reports, but relatively few randomized or definitive trials examining the success and impact of fertility preservation methods in people with cancer.
Fertility preservation methods are still applied relatively infrequently in the cancer population, limiting greater knowledge about success and effects of different potential interventions. Other than risk of tumor recurrence, less attention is paid to the potential negative effects (physical and psychological) of fertility preservation attempts.
In addition to the full text of the guideline (http://www.asco.org/guidelines/fertility), further resources include a Patient Guide (http://www.plwc.org/patientguides) and a PowerPoint slide set (http://www.asco.org/guidelines/fertility/slides). The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has both a Mental Health Professional Group (http://www.asrm.org/Professionals/PG-SIG-Affiliated_Soc/MHPG/index.html) and a Fertility Preservation Special Interest Group (http://www.asrm.org/Professionals/PG-SIG-Affiliated_Soc/fpsig/fpsig_index.html). Cancer patient advocacy organizations such as fertileHOPE (www.fertilehope.org), Lance Armstrong Foundation/LIVESTRONG (www.livestrong.org), and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (www.komen.org) provide patient information.
The Guideline Recommendations on Fertility Preservation in Cancer Patients were developed and written by Stephanie J. Lee (co-chair), MD, MPH, Kutluk Oktay (co-chair), MD, Leslie R. Schover, PhD, Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, Pasquale Patrizio, MD, MBE, W. Hamish Wallace, MD, Karen L. Hagerty, MD, Lindsay N. Beck, and Lawrence V. Brennan, MD.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1935-469X. Print ISSN: 1554-7477
|