Journal of Cancer Survivorship

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 140–145 | Cite as

Pathways toward the future: points to consider for oncofertility oversight

  • Sarah B. Rodriguez
  • Lisa Campo-Engelstein
  • Marla L. Clayman
  • Caprice Knapp
  • Gwendolyn Quinn
  • Laurie Zoloth
  • Linda Emanuel
Article

Abstract

Introduction

In September 2007, Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine received a $21.1 million dollar, 5-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to fund the Oncofertility Consortium (OFC). Over the course of the grant, those engaged with the psychological, legal, social, and ethical issues arising from oncofertility provided recommendations to the OFC. The inclusion of serious, real-time consideration of ethical issues as a funded focus of the grant and the work of scholars in law, bioethics, and economics was a key part of the process of research. Now that this grant has ended, this commentary points to some of the issues that came forward during the 5 years of this project. Because of the emerging status of oncofertility, these issues are ones that need continued discussion and clarification, prompting our call for an oversight mechanism to provide guidance for how this technology should proceed.

Methods

An initial draft of this commentary arose from notes taken during a small colloquium held to discuss the oversight of oncofertility following the conclusion of the grant. This colloquium occurred in the fall of 2011. Using these notes as a starting point, the draft was then sent to other researchers who had been involved with the OFC in considering the psychological, legal, social, and ethical issues related to fertility preservation for cancer patients during the course of the grant. Finally, this commentary was further framed by the authors' review of existing published and gray literature regarding issues concerning fertility preservation for cancer patients.

Results

We provide several points to consider and then offer two suggestions for an oversight mechanism for research as it continues.

Discussion/conclusions

We assert the need not just for guidelines for the clinical practice of oncofertility, but also for oversight of the scope of this emerging technology because of its profound implications. We recognize that many long to a have a child and form a family and that, for some, cancer interrupts this path. With the conclusion of this grant, we call for the creation of a permanent oversight mechanism to thoughtfully and earnestly consider how to guide oncofertility to allow this emerging technology to be carefully considered as it develops.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

The circumstances in which fertility preservation should be discussed and the patients for whom fertility preservation would be most suitable are important guideline issues for people who survive cancer and for their treatment team. Oversight of the field of oncofertility would strengthen the rights of cancer patients and help protect them from abuses as well as alert health care professionals to their correlative duties to these vulnerable patients and families.

Keywords

Oncofertility Fertility preservation Guidelines Regulations 

References

  1. 1.
    Paul M. Feinberg awarded grant for research in cancer patient fertility. Northwestern University. 2007. http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/09/oncofertility.html. Accessed 15 Oct 2011.
  2. 2.
    No authors listed. Regulatory issues: the revised “points to consider” document. Hum Gene Ther. 1990;1:93–103Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patrizio P, Caplan A. Ethical issues surrounding fertility preservation in cancer patients. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53:717–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nisker J, Baylis F, McLeod C. Choice in fertility preservation in girls and adolescent women with cancer. Cancer. 2006;107:1686–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quinn G, Stearsman D, Campo-Engelstein L, Murphy D. Preserving the right to future children: an ethical case analysis. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12:38–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gardino SL, Emanuel LL. Choosing life when facing death: understanding fertility preservation decision-making for cancer patients. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, editors. Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social, and medical perspectives. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 447–58.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeruss JS. Discussing fertility preservation with breast cancer patients. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, editors. Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social, and medical perspectives. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 461–6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gavin KM, Clayman ML. Whose future is it? Ethical family decision making about daughters' treatment in the oncofertility context. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, editors. Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social, and medical perspectives. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 429–45.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohn F. Oncofertility and informed consent. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, editors. Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social, and medical perspectives. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 249–58.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jungheim ES, Carson KR, Brown D. Counseling and consenting women with cancer on their oncofertility options: a clinical perspective. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, editors. Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social, and medical perspectives. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 403–12.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, Patrizio P, Wallace WH, Hagerty K, Beck LN. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2917–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ernst E, Bergholdt S, Jorgensen JS, Andersen CY. The first woman to give birth to two children following transplantation of frozen/thawed ovarian tissue. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1280–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grynberg M, Poulain M, Sebag-Peyrelevade S, le Parco S, Fanchin R, Frydman N. Ovarian tissue and follicle transplantation as an option for fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2001;97:1260–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1622–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leslie M. Melting opposition to frozen eggs. Science. 2007;316:388–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Committee ACOG. Opinion. Ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1255–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Backhus LE, Kondapalli LA, Chang RJ, Coutifaris C, Kazer R, Woodruff TK. Oncofertility consortium consensus statement: guidelines for ovarian tissue cryopreservation. In: Woodruff TK, Snyder KA, editors. Oncofertility. New York: Springer; 2007. p. 235–9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Great Britain Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Mary Warnock. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embyology. London: HMSO; 1984. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Warnock_Report_of_the_Committee_of_Inquiry_into_Human_Fertilisation_and_Embryology_1984.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2011.
  19. 19.
    Dolin G, Roberts DE, Rodriguez LM, Woodruff TK. Medical hope, legal pitfalls: potential legal issues in the emerging field of oncofertility. Santa Clara Law Rev. 2009;49:673–716.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reproductive Health Research Studies. UC San Diego Moore Cancer Center. http://cancer.ucsd.edu/coping/fertility/Pages/studies.aspx. Accessed 22 May 2012
  21. 21.
    FIRST Registry. The Oncofertility Consortium at Northwestern University. http://oncofertility.northwestern.edu/first-registry. Accessed 22 May 2012.
  22. 22.
    Cooper University Hospital: For pregnant women who find out they have cancer. www.cancerandpregnancy.com. Accessed 1 Mar 2012.
  23. 23.
    Fallat ME, Hutter J. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics, Section on Hematology/Oncology, Section on Surgery. Preservation of fertility in pediatric and adolescent patients with cancer. Pediatrics. 2008;121:1461–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Snyder KA, Pearse W. Discussing fertility preservation options with patients with cancer. JAMA. 2011;306:202–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, Lee J, Jacobsen PB, Bepler G, Lancaster J, Keefe DL, Albrecht TL. Physician referral for fertility preservation in oncology patients: a national study of practice behaviors. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5952–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    American Society for Reproductive Medicine: Fertility experts issue new report on egg freezing; ASRM lifts experimental label from technique; 2012. http://www.asrm.org/news/article.aspx?id=10324&terms=(+%40Publish_To+Both+Sites+or+%40Publish_To+ASRM+Only+)+and+Mature+Oocyte+Cyryopreservation. Accessed 29 October 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah B. Rodriguez
    • 1
  • Lisa Campo-Engelstein
    • 2
  • Marla L. Clayman
    • 3
  • Caprice Knapp
    • 4
  • Gwendolyn Quinn
    • 5
  • Laurie Zoloth
    • 6
  • Linda Emanuel
    • 7
  1. 1.Medical Humanities + Bioethics Program, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Alden March Bioethics Institute, Department of OBGYNAlbany Medical CollegeAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health Outcomes and Policy, College of MedicineUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  5. 5.Health Outcomes and Behavior ProgramMoffitt Cancer CenterTampaUSA
  6. 6.Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Feinberg College of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  7. 7.Buehler Center on AgingChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations