Table 3.
Oncofertility options and scores (%) for childhood cancer in limited versus optimum resource settings, based on empirical data from 39 surveyed centers in Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II [14, 15]
| Oncofertility options and scores (%) for childhood cancer | Centers with limited resource settings (Repro-Can-OPEN Study I) |
Centers with optimum resource settings (Repro-Can-OPEN Study II) |
|---|---|---|
| (n = 14) | (n = 25) | |
| Available fertility preservation options for girls with cancer | ||
| Ovarian tissue freezing | 25 | 63 |
| Oophoropexy in case of pelvic irradiation | 46.42 | 42 |
| Oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM) for peripubertal girls | 28.57 | 18 |
| Artificial ovary | 1.78 | 2 |
| Available fertility preservation options for boys with cancer | ||
| Testicular tissue freezing | 17.85 | 41 |
| In vitro spermatogenesis | 0 | 2 |
| Available fertility preservation options for both girls and boys with cancer | ||
| GnRH analogs in case of peripubertal child | 33.92 | 35 |
| Gonadal shielding in case of irradiation | 67.85 | 69 |
| Fractionation of chemo- and radiotherapy | 60.71 | 61 |
| Neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy | 3.57 | 6 |
| Stem cells reproductive technology | 1.78 | 0 |