Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the knowledge level and perspectives of female cancer patients regarding fertility preservation techniques before gonadotoxic treatment. Material and Methods. This was a prospective observational survey-based study conducted between 2016 and 2020 in Izmir Economy University Medical Park Hospital. A total of 150 female cancer patients aged 18–42 years were included. The participants completed a 17-item questionnaire, developed by the research team to evaluate their knowledge and perspectives on fertility preservation techniques.
Results
The mean age of the patients was 39.5 ± 4.9 years. Only 64.7% of the patients were referred to fertility counseling by a gynecologist, while 72.6% of the patients knew of the risk of infertility after cancer treatment. There was a significant correlation between the health status and cancer stage of the patient (p=0.003). The estimated future chance of becoming pregnant spontaneously or through fertility preservation techniques was significantly higher in patients with a higher education level (p=0.041 or 0.008, respectively). Satisfaction with the counseling process was reported as high or low by 66.7% or 20% of the patients, respectively.
Conclusions
The rate of referral of reproductive-age cancer patients to fertility preservation counseling is still not satisfactory. Education level was the only variable significantly associated with a motivation to become pregnant after cancer treatment, either spontaneously or through fertility preservation techniques.
1. Introduction
More than one million females are diagnosed with cancer annually, of whom 10% are of reproductive age [1, 2]. The gonadotoxic effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy may lead to premature ovarian failure and infertility. Increased survival rates with newer oncologic treatments have resulted in improved quality of life and an increase in the search for fertility options after cancer treatment. Recent developments in assisted reproductive medicine have made it possible to preserve fertility after gonadotoxic cancer treatment. Despite the emphasis on fertility preservation counseling, studies have reported that only a few females of reproductive age receive counseling by a specialist, and that the timing of the counseling is often inconvenient for the patients [3–6].
Lack of adequate time before initiating treatment of the primary disease and the risk of mortality are the major factors causing a delay in fertility preservation [7]. Although specific ovarian stimulation protocols have been well-defined to avoid high levels of hormones in fertility preservation treatments of hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients, there are still remaining concerns about the recurrence or adverse effect on the tumor cells for this patients. This also may be another reason not to choose fertility preservation treatments for patients with hormone dependent tumors.
Furthermore, although clinical practice guidelines specify the fertility preservation techniques, time requirements, and efficacies, the knowledge of health care providers in the field is still limited [8]. Although multiple reasons contribute to patient perceptions, these may vary among populations. Geographic, cultural, and economic differences should be considered during fertility preservation counseling.
Several retrospective studies have investigated the efficacy of fertility preservation counseling and patient perspectives regarding this approach [9–11]. However, there are limited data about the knowledge and perspectives of cancer patients on fertility preservation techniques in our country.
1.1. Objectives
The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge levels and perspectives of female cancer patients regarding fertility preservation techniques before gonadotoxic treatment.
2. Material and Methods
This was an observational survey-based study of 150 newly diagnosed female cancer patients aged 18–42 years who presented to the Izmir Economy University Medical Park Hospital between 2016 and 2020. Patients were informed about the study prior to the cancer treatment, and face-to-face interviews were held with the participants. Patients who refused to participate or answer the questions were excluded. The referred patients were asked whether they had been referred to fertility preservation counseling; counseling was provided to the nonreferred patients. The satisfaction level related to the fertility preservation counseling was investigated.
The questionnaire was designed by a team of reproductive medicine, public health, and behavioral science experts of Izmir Economy University (Supplementary File 1). The questionnaire was evaluated by survey experts and physicians for relevance and comprehensibility. Auxiliary staff reviewed the survey for clarity. The questionnaire was administered to 10 patients before the start of the study. Their results were used to ensure that the questionnaire was appropriate in terms of intelligibility and effectiveness. The questionnaire consisted of 17 questions. The first eight questions were related to patient and disease characteristics (age, education level, and marital, current health, and psychological statuses), while the remaining nine questions focused on fertility preservation knowledge and perceptions (infertility risk due to treatment, chance of pregnancy after treatment either spontaneously or via fertility preservation techniques, and satisfaction with the counseling procedure). The second part of the questionnaire used a rating scale to allow semi-quantitative analysis and comparison between groups. The participants were categorized into three groups according to the rating scale scores: low/bad (score, 0–3), moderate (4–6), and high/good (7–10). The results were analyzed to assess the knowledge levels and perspectives of the patients on fertility preservation.
The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (approval No. 2016/195). Informed consent was obtained from all the participants. This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, current health and psychological statuses, perspectives on future pregnancies, and fertility preservation treatment. The associations between ordinal variables were analyzed using Somers' delta. The remaining associations were analyzed using the chi-square test. The alpha level was set at 0.05, and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics v. 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
3. Results
A total of 150 female cancer patients were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 39.5 ± 4.9 years. A majority of the patients were married (76.1%), had children (81.3%), had a university degree (46%), had been diagnosed with breast cancer (76.7%), and required only chemotherapy (75%). Other cancer types were lymphoma %4.7, leukemia %1.3, rectum cancer %1, and others %16.3 (skin cancer, renal cancer, thyroid cancer, osteosarcoma, and vulvar cancer).
Only 72.7% of the patients knew about the risk of infertility due to cancer treatment, and only 64.7% were referred to fertility counseling by a gynecologist (Table 1).
Table 1.
Patient characteristics.
| n = 150 | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (±SD) | 39.5 (±4.9) | |
|
| ||
| Marital status | ||
| Single | 19 | 12.7 |
| Married | 115 | 76.7 |
| Widowed | 16 | 10.6 |
|
| ||
| Previous children | ||
| No | 28 | 18.7 |
| Yes | 122 | 81.3 |
|
| ||
| Education level | ||
| Primary school | 38 | 25.3 |
| High school | 43 | 28.7 |
| University | 69 | 46 |
|
| ||
| Type of cancer | ||
| Breast cancer | 115 | 76.7 |
| Other | 35 | 23.3 |
|
| ||
| Cancer stage | ||
| 1 and 2 | 89 | 59.3 |
| 3 and 4 | 61 | 40.7 |
|
| ||
| Expected oncological treatment | ||
| Chemotherapy | 75 | 50 |
| Radiotherapy | 5 | 3.3 |
| Chemoradiotherapy | 52 | 34.7 |
| Other | 18 | 12 |
|
| ||
| Knowledge of infertility risk after cancer treatment | ||
| Yes | 109 | 72.6 |
| No | 41 | 27.4 |
|
| ||
| Referral to a fertility specialist before cancer treatment | ||
| Yes | 97 | 64.7 |
| No | 53 | 35.3 |
SD = standard deviation.
The overall physical and psychological health, current desire to have children, chance of a future spontaneous pregnancy, and chance of a future pregnancy using fertility preservation treatment were evaluated (Table 2). A total of 79.3% of participants believed that they had a low chance of becoming pregnant spontaneously in the future, and this belief was positively correlated with the education level (p=0.028) (Table 3). Answers of the higher educated patients were that they will have a higher chance of having baby in the future spontaneously or with fertility preservation methods due to their higher awareness levels. Because incomes of the patients were not questioned, therefore, this finding was associated with a higher awareness of higher educated patients, not higher income or greater economic possibilities. On the same subject, the belief of patients about having children spontaneously or via fertility preservation methods were questioned, and we asked them to rate their belief in this situation. The expected chance of pregnancy via fertility preservation treatment was low in 68.7% of the participants, and this chance was positively correlated with the education level (p=0.006) (Table 3). The desire to have children was not correlated with either a future spontaneous pregnancy or pregnancy via fertility preservation treatment (Figure 1). Satisfaction with the counseling process was high in 66.7% of the patients, while 20% reported being unsatisfied.
Table 2.
The current health and psychological statuses, future chance of pregnancy with or without fertility preservation treatment, and satisfaction with counseling among the participants.
| N = 150 | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Current health status | ||
| Bad | 4 | 2.7 |
| Moderate | 39 | 26 |
| Good | 107 | 71.3 |
|
| ||
| Current psychological status | ||
| Bad | 15 | 10 |
| Moderate | 50 | 33.3 |
| Good | 85 | 56.7 |
|
| ||
| Current desire to have children | ||
| Low | 119 | 79.3 |
| Moderate | 14 | 9.3 |
| High | 17 | 11.3 |
|
| ||
| Future chance of spontaneous pregnancy | ||
| Low | 116 | 77.3 |
| Moderate | 18 | 12 |
| High | 16 | 10.7 |
|
| ||
| Future chance of pregnancy with fertility preservation treatment | ||
| Low | 103 | 68.7 |
| Moderate | 28 | 18.7 |
| High | 19 | 12.7 |
|
| ||
| Satisfaction with fertility preservation counseling | ||
| Low | 30 | 20 |
| Moderate | 20 | 13.3 |
| High | 100 | 66.7 |
Table 3.
Cancer stage, type, and education level according to the chance of a future pregnancy via spontaneously or fertility preservation treatment.
| Spontaneous pregnancy chance (%) | Pregnancy chance with fertility preservation treatment (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Moderate | High | p | Low | Moderate | High | p | |
| % | % | % | % | % | % | |||
| Education level | ||||||||
| Primary school | 84.2 | 10.5 | 5.3 | 0.041 | 78.9 | 15.7 | 5.4 | 0.008 |
| High school | 83.7 | 7.0 | 9.3 | 76.7 | 11.6 | 11.6 | ||
| University | 69.6 | 15.9 | 14.5 | 58.0 | 24.6 | 17.4 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Type of cancer | ||||||||
| Breast cancer | 75.7 | 13.9 | 10.4 | 0.426 | 67.8 | 18.3 | 13.9 | 0.705 |
| Other | 82.8 | 5.8 | 11.4 | 71.4 | 20 | 8.6 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Cancer stage | ||||||||
| 1 | 80.5 | 4.9 | 14.6 | 0.707 | 70.7 | 14.6 | 14.6 | 0.428 |
| 2 | 70.8 | 16.7 | 12.5 | 58.3 | 27.1 | 14.6 | ||
| 3 | 84.4 | 15.6 | 0.0 | 78.1 | 15.6 | 6.3 | ||
| 4 | 77.8 | 11.1 | 11.1 | 74.1 | 11.1 | 14.8 | ||
Bold values=p < 0.05.
Figure 1.
Associations of current desire to have children, chance of a future spontaneous pregnancy, and chance of a future pregnancy with fertility preservation treatment according to education level.
4. Discussion
Despite advances in fertility preservation techniques, the change in patient perspectives on life after cancer, and clinical guideline recommendations, the number of patients referred to fertility preservation has still not reached the desired level [10, 11]. Contrary to previous reports, we found that the attitude toward fertility preservation was not significantly correlated with the cancer type, cancer stage, or having previous children [12, 13]. Education level was the only significant determinant among our patients. In addition, the patient referral is low in our country, as in the rest of the world. To our knowledge, this was the first study performed in Turkey to investigate the social perspectives on this subject.
Based on the current guidelines, consideration of the infertility risk due to cancer treatments and referring the patient to a fertility specialist before cancer treatment are major steps [14, 15]. It is important to follow this process early to allow enough time for fertility preservation procedures. A study of oncologists reported that only 61% discussed the risk of infertility caused by oncologic treatments, while 45% did not routinely refer the patients to a reproductive medicine specialist [16]. Although the referral rate has increased, it still has not reached the required level [17–20]. We found that only two-thirds of the patients were referred to counseling by a gynecologist. This could be because oncologists and primary physicians do not emphasize this issue, while the patients avoid it due to anxiety or socioeconomic reasons [21].
Previous studies have investigated health status, desire to have children, knowledge about the infertility risk of cancer treatments, cancer type, and cancer stage to determine which of these factors contribute to the decision-making process [22]. In our study, none of these factors had an association with fertility preservation. This suggests that patient perspectives may depend on factors other than health parameters. Furthermore, three-quarters of the participants reported knowing of the infertility risk due to cancer treatment, and patients with higher education levels were more likely to know that getting pregnant spontaneously or via fertility preservation options is possible after cancer treatment. These findings agree with the literature [14, 23, 24]. It is believed that providing the relevant information may improve patient perspectives, planning of life after cancer, and interest in fertility preservation.
Several studies have previously evaluated the satisfaction level with and effectiveness of fertility preservation counseling. Hill et al. reported 64% satisfaction in their study of breast cancer patients, while Hill et al. demonstrated the impact of fertility preservation counseling on the decision-making process to pursue assisted reproductive techniques in breast cancer patients [25, 26]. In our study, a majority of the participants were extremely satisfied with the counseling process, but the percentage was lower than those reported in the literature. This may be explained by the feelings of anxiety and denial caused by a cancer diagnosis and an inability to process the questions and information. Application of a widespread referral and counseling system may lead to the adoption of fertility preservation treatment as part of routine cancer care.
In this study, none of the variables of having previous children, cancer type and stage, and the fear of not being able to conceive had any association with the fertility preservation treatment. This was not in agreement with the literature, and this disparity may be attributable to the social structure, lifestyle, perspectives on life, and socioeconomic factors [27].
The limitations of this study included the small number of patients limited to the west coast of Turkey, where the proportion of educated people is higher. Therefore, the results may not be representative of the entire country. There was also a lack of information regarding the fertility preservation treatments already performed as this was not the aim of the study. To our knowledge, this was the first prospective survey-based study on knowledge regarding fertility preservation and perspectives among female cancer patients in our country. In the future, it will also be necessary to evaluate the awareness and practices of physicians regarding fertility preservation practices.
5. Conclusion
Referral of reproductive age cancer patients was the main determinant of receiving fertility preservation counseling. There was no prognostic association of the factors evaluated, including cancer type, cancer stage, having previous children, and marital status, with fertility preservation treatments. It is crucial to increase the awareness of fertility preservation techniques among health care providers.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary file 1: 17 item-questionnaire.
References
- 1.Siegel R. L., Miller K. D., Fuchs H. E., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians . 2021;71(1):7–33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Seer. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program. 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov .
- 3.Lee S. J., Schover L. R., Partridge A. H., et al. American society of clinical oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology . 2006;24(18):2917–2931. doi: 10.1200/jco.2006.06.5888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Multidisciplinary Working Group. A strategy for fertility services for survivors of childhood cancer. Human Fertility . 2003;6(2):A1–A39. doi: 10.1080/1464770312331369133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cosa Clinical Oncological Society of Australia. Fertility preservation for AYAs diagnosed with cancer: guidance for health professionals. 2021. http://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/COSA.AYA.cancer.fertility.preservation .
- 6.Jones G., Hughes J., Mahmoodi N., Smith E., Skull J., Ledger W. What factors hinder the decision-making process for women with cancer and contemplating fertility preservation treatment? Human Reproduction Update . 2017;23(4):433–457. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmx009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Gorman J. R., Usita P. M., Madlensky L., Pierce J. P. Young breast cancer survivors: their perspectives on treatment decisions and fertility concerns. Cancer Nursing . 2011;34(1):32–40. doi: 10.1097/ncc.0b013e3181e4528d. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Adams E., Hill E., Watson E. Fertility preservation in cancer survivors: a national survey of oncologists’ current knowledge, practice and attitudes. British Journal of Cancer . 2013;108(8):1602–1615. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Garvelink M. M., Ter Kuile M. M., Bakker R. M., et al. Women’s experiences with information provision and deciding about fertility preservation in The Netherlands: ‘satisfaction in general, but unmet needs. Health Expectations . 2015;18(5):956–968. doi: 10.1111/hex.12068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Anderson R. A., Weddell A., Spoudeas H. A., et al. Do doctors discuss fertility issues before they treat young patients with cancer? Human Reproduction . 2008;23(10):2246–2251. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Forman E. J., Anders C. K., Behera M. A. A nationwide survey of oncologists regarding treatment-related infertility and fertility preservation in female cancer patients. Fertility and Sterility . 2010;94(5):1652–1656. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Melo C., Moura-Ramos M., Canavarro M. C., Almeida-Santos T. The time is now: an exploratory study regarding the predictors of female cancer patients’ decision to undergo fertility preservation. European Journal of Cancer Care . 2019;28(4) doi: 10.1111/ecc.13025.e13025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Salsman J. M., Yanez B., Snyder M. A., et al. Attitudes and practices about fertility preservation discussions among young adults with cancer treated at a comprehensive cancer center: patient and oncologist perspectives. Supportive Care in Cancer . 2021;29(10):5945–5955. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06158-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Bastings L., Baysal O., Beerendonk C. C. M., Braat D. D. M., Nelen W. L. D. M. Referral for fertility preservation counselling in female cancer patients. Human Reproduction . 2014;29(10):2228–2237. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lee S., Ozkavukcu S., Heytens E., Moy F., Oktay K. Value of early referral to fertility preservation in young women with breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology . 2010;28(31):4683–4686. doi: 10.1200/jco.2010.30.5748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Forman E. J., Anders C. K., Behera M. A. Pilot survey of oncologists regarding treatment-related infertility and fertility preservation in female cancer patients. Journal of Reproductive Medicine . 2009;54(4):203–207. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Oktay K., Harvey B. E., Loren A. W. Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update summary. Journal of Oncology Practice . 2018;14(6):381–385. doi: 10.1200/jop.18.00160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Campbell J. E., Assanasen C., Robinson R. D., Knudtson J. F. Fertility preservation counseling for pediatric and adolescent cancer patients. Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology . 2016;5(1):58–63. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2015.0040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Suzuki N. Clinical practice guidelines for fertility preservation in pediatric, adolescent, and young adults with cancer. International Journal of Clinical Oncology . 2019;24(1):20–27. doi: 10.1007/s10147-018-1269-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ahmad Sindi R., Salem Bagabas M., Mamdoh Al-Manabre L., Zahi Al-Sofee R., Yousef Rednah R., Meshal Al-Jahdali S. Evaluation of knowledge, attitude, and practice of health practitioners towards fertility preservation in cancer patients in an environmental region of Saudi arabia. Journal of Environmental and Public Health . 2022;2022:11. doi: 10.1155/2022/6404837.6404837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
- 21.Lampic C., Wettergren L. Oncologists’ and pediatric oncologists’ perspectives and challenges for fertility preservation. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica . 2019;98(5):598–603. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Von Wolff M., Giesecke D., Germeyer A., et al. Characteristics and attitudes of women in relation to chosen fertility preservation techniques: a prospective, multicenter questionnaire-based study with 144 participants. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology . 2016;201:12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.01.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Lawson A. K., McGuire J. M., Noncent E., Olivieri J. F., Smith K. N., Marsh E. E. Disparities in counseling female cancer patients for fertility preservation. Journal of Women’s Health . 2017;26(8):886–891. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.5997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Chin H. B., Howards P. P., Kramer M. R., Mertens A. C., Spencer J. B. Which female cancer patients fail to receive fertility counseling before treatment in the state of Georgia? Fertility and Sterility . 2016;106(7):1763–1771.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Hill K. A., Nadler T., Mandel R., et al. Experience of young women diagnosed with breast cancer who undergo fertility preservation consultation. Clinical Breast Cancer . 2012;12(2):127–132. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2012.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Peate M., Meiser B., Cheah B. C., et al. Making hard choices easier: a prospective, multicentre study to assess the efficacy of a fertility-related decision aid in young women with early-stage breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer . 2012;106(6):1053–1061. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Duffy C., Allen S. Medical and psychosocial aspects of fertility after cancer. The Cancer Journal . 2009;15(1):27–33. doi: 10.1097/ppo.0b013e3181976602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary file 1: 17 item-questionnaire.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.