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.
METHODS: Patients with CBHA in 176 families were genetically examined using exome sequencing. Patients with disease-causing variants were clinically evaluated.
RESULTS: Disease-causing variants were identified in 96 of the 176 families (54.5%). After excluding 6 families, 48 patients from 42 families were categorized as having syndromic associations with CBHA, whereas the remaining 51 patients from 48 families had isolated CBHA. In 51 patients, 26 aberrant genes were identified, of which, 20 (76.9%) caused disease in 1 family each. The most prevalent genes were CACNA1A, ITPR1, and KIF1A. Of the 26 aberrant genes, 21 and 1 were functionally annotated to atrophy and hypoplasia, respectively. CBHA+S was more clinically severe than CBHA-S. Notably, ARG1 and FOLR1 variants were identified in 2 families, leading to medical treatments.
CONCLUSION: A wide genetic and clinical diversity of CBHA was revealed through exome sequencing in this cohort, which highlights the importance of comprehensive genetic analyses. Furthermore, molecular-based treatment was available for 2 families.