Abstract
Purpose
Fertility preservation is a critical patient counseling component following cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare change and quality of fertility preservation information available to patients on the websites of National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers over 5 years (2015 to 2020) for both women and men.
Methods
All NCI-designated cancer center websites were queried for information on oncofertility in 2020 publicly available to patients using the methodology and rubric previously employed in 2015. Data was evaluated based on each center’s city, county, and state by demographic data obtained from the US Census. Additionally, the yearly number of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles performed in the city, county, and state of each NCICC was included using websites of clinics reporting data to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology.
Results
Significantly NCICCs have a standalone pages for fertility preservation in 2020 compared with 2015 (p = 0.004). There is a statistically significant association between discussion of male fertility and the number of fertility centers in the county and state of the NCICC (p = 0.04 and p = 0.001). NCICCs in counties in the highest quartile of per capita income were significantly more likely to address male fertility (p = 0.03).
Conclusions
Oncofertility information on NCICC websites has improved between 2015 and 2020. The impact of cancer treatment on male fertility, while improved, is still limited, particularly in counties with lower per capita income.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Requests for data can be made to melody.rasouli@unlv.edu.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Loprinzi CL, Wolf SL, Barton DL, Laack NN. Symptom management in premenopausal patients with breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(10):993–1001.
Tschudin S, Bitzer J. Psychological aspects of fertility preservation in men and women affected by cancer and other life-threatening diseases. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15(5):587–97.
Gorman JR, Malcarne VL, Roesch SC, Madlensky L, Pierce JP. Depressive symptoms among young breast cancer survivors: the importance of reproductive concerns. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123(2):477–85.
Canada AL, Schover LR. The psychosocial impact of interrupted childbearing in long-term female cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2012;21(2):134–43.
Letourneau JM, Ebbel EE, Katz PP, et al. Pretreatment fertility counseling and fertility preservation improve quality of life in reproductive age women with cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(6):1710–7.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: ASRM@asrm.org. Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(3):380–386.
Loren AW, Mangu PB, Beck LN, et al. Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(19):2500.
Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18):2917–31.
Oktay K, Harvey BE, Partridge AH, et al. Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(19):1994–2001.
McLaren JF, Bates GW. Fertility preservation in women of reproductive age with cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(6):455–62.
Gordon LG, Merollini KMD, Lowe A, Chan RJ. A systematic review of financial toxicity among cancer survivors: we can’t pay the co-pay. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2017;10(3):295–309.
Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(15):1477–9.
HINTS Briefs Number 16. https://hints.cancer.gov/docs/Briefs/HINTS_Brief_16.pdf
HINTS_Brief_30.pdf. https://hints.cancer.gov/docs/Briefs/HINTS_Brief_30.pdf
Hesse BW, Moser RP, Rutten LJ. Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(9):859–60.
Edens PS. How to develop a cancer information internet strategy. J Commun Healthc. 2008;1(3):266–73.
de Haydu C, Eleswarapu S V, Dabaja AA, Duke CM. Objective assessment of the oncofertility educational information, available to women, on the websites of NCI-designated cancer centers in the US: do socioeconomic demographic profiles by state make a difference? Fertil Steril 2015;104(3):e262.
Eleswarapu SV, de Haydu C, Klett D, Duke CM, Dabaja AA. Deficiency of oncofertility information for men with cancer: content analysis of NCI designated cancer center web sites. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):e9–10.
National Summary Report [Internet]. [cited 2020 Oct 18];Available from: https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?reportingYear=2017
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rasouli, M.A., de Haydu, C., Liu, A.H. et al. Has oncofertility information for male patients improved? Objective assessment of internet-based fertility preservation resources at NCI cancer centers from 2015 to 2020. J Assist Reprod Genet 38, 3057–3060 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02302-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02302-1