MyMedR

Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Case Report: Young Adults With Breast Cancer: A Case Series of Fertility Preservation Management and Literature Review

Ahmad MF, Sugishita Y, Suzuki-Takahashi Y, Sawada S, Iwahata H, Shiraishi E, et al.

Front Med (Lausanne), 2021;8:670872.
PMID: 34422852 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.670872

Breast cancer comprised at least 21.8% of the overall cancer among young adult (YA) women and became the leading cancer in this group in Japan, with 50% adolescent and YAs being diagnosed and 15-44-year-old women showing excellent 5-year survival. Surgical-chemoradiation therapy often results in excellent survivorship with an increased incidence of treatment-induced subfertility. Therefore, adding fertility preservation (FP) to the primary cancer treatment is necessary. Herein, we reported a series of cases of YA women with breast cancer who opted for FP, where their option was tailored accordingly. To date, the selection of oocytes, embryos and ovarian tissue is widely available as an FP treatment. PGT could reduce the risk of BRCA mutation transmission amongst BRCA carriers before pregnancy planning. Otherwise, gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog has no gonadoprotective effect and thus should not be considered as an FP option.
Oncofertility Treatment Among Breast Cancer Women: A Paradigm Shift of Practice After a Decade of Service

Ahmad MF, Sugishita Y, Suzuki-Takahashi Y, Sawada S, Iwahata H, Shiraishi E, et al.

J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol, 2020 08;9(4):496-501.
PMID: 32283045 DOI: 10.1089/jayao.2019.0177

Purpose:
Our center is known as a pioneer center initiating oncofertility service since 2010 in Japan. We demonstrate our transition of this service in regional university hospitals ingenuously.
Methods:
We compared two phases of service: initial phase (2011 and 2012) and current phase (2019). The comparison included the number of women attending the oncofertility unit, diversity of breast cancer cases, the acceptability of preservation service, and the type of fertility preservation (FP) option offered in between these phases.
Results:
A total of 58 women were seen during the initial phase as compared with 41 women in the later phase. The mean age at diagnosis was not significantly different between the two periods. The majority of them were married and diagnosed with stage II luminar type. The current phase had a tendency to have a higher anti-Müllerian hormone level although not reaching significance. At least 50% of them declined FP and 84.5% never received ovarian control stimulation in the initial phase. Otherwise, 61% used aromatase inhibitor in the current phase. Only 15.5% in the initial phase received control ovarian stimulation whereas 63.4% in the current phase received it. The ovarian tissue cryopreservation was highly chosen during the initial phase (25.9%), whereas embryo cryopreservation (39%) was highly opted for during the current phase. All of our parameters are comparable between these two phases (p > 0.05).
Conclusion:
The significant changes of oncofertility practice were observed mainly due to the understanding of the oncofertility concept among reproductive physicians and the acceptance environment, including standard guidelines, supportive society, as well as advancements in cryobiology technique.
Fulltext Survey of understanding and awareness of fertility preservation in pediatric patients: Is conversation about fertility preservation unpleasant for pediatric patients?

Takae S, Iwahata Y, Sugishita Y, Iwahata H, Kanamori R, Shiraishi E, et al.

Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2022;13:1074603.
PMID: 36686445 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1074603

OBJECTIVE: To verify understanding and awareness of fertility preservation (FP) in pediatric patients undergoing FP treatments.
METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted before and after explanation of fertility issues and FP treatments for patients 6-17 years old who visited or were hospitalized for the purpose of ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) or oocyte cryopreservation (OC), or sperm cryopreservation between October 2018 and April 2022. This study was approved by the institutional review board at St. Marianna University School of Medicine (No. 4123, UMIN000046125).
RESULT: Participants in the study comprised 36 children (34 girls, 2 boys). Overall mean age was 13.3 ± 3.0 years. The underlying diseases were diverse, with leukemia in 14 patients (38.9%), brain tumor in 4 patients (11.1%). The questionnaire survey before the explanation showed that 19 patients (52.8%) wanted to have children in the future, but 15 (41.7%) were unsure of future wishes to raise children. And most children expressed some degree of understanding of the treatment being planned for the underlying disease (34, 94.4%). Similarly, most children understood that the treatment would affect their fertility (33, 91.7%). When asked if they would like to hear a story about how to become a mother or father after FP which including information of FP, half answered "Don't mind" (18, 50.0%). After being provided with information about FP treatment, all participants answered that they understood the adverse effects on fertility of treatments for the underlying disease. Regarding FP treatment, 32 children (88.9%) expressed understanding for FP and 26 (72.2%) wished to receive FP. "Fear" and "Pain" and "Costs" were frequently cited as concerns about FP. Following explanations, 33 children (91.7%) answered "Happy I heard the story" and no children answered, "Wish I hadn't heard the story". Finally, 28 of the 34 girls (82.4%) underwent OTC and one girl underwent OC.
DISCUSSION: The fact that all patients responded positively to the explanations of FP treatment is very informative. This is considered largely attributable to the patients themselves being involved in the decision-making process for FP.
CONCLUSIONS: Explanations of FP for children appear valid if age-appropriate explanations are provided.

Filters

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links