Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36542312›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023

Pediatric oncofertility care in limited versus optimum resource settings: results from 39 surveyed centers in Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II.

M Salama, L Nahata, Y Jayasinghe, V Gomez-Lobo, M M Laronda, M B Moravek, L R Meacham, M S Christianson, M Lambertini, A Anazodo and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

M SalamaOncofertility Consortium, Michigan State University, 965 Wilson Road, Room A626B, East Lansing, MI, 48824-1316, USA. salamam2@msu.edu.
L NahataEndocrinology and Center for Biobehavioral Health, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, 43205, USA.
Y JayasingheRoyal Children's Hospital, Flemington Rd, Parkville, Melbourne, Vic, 3054, Australia.
V Gomez-LoboChildren's National Hospital, 111 Michigan Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20010, USA.
M M LarondaAnn & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, 225 East Chicago Ave, Box 63, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
M B MoravekCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Michigan Medicine, 475 Market Place, Building 1, Suite B, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA.
L R MeachamAflac Cancer Center Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA.
M S ChristiansonJohns Hopkins Fertility Center, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 10751 Falls Road, Suite 280, Lutherville, MD, 21093, USA.
M LambertiniDepartment of Medical Oncology, UOC Clinica Di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
A AnazodoKids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street Randwick, Sydney, Randwick, 2031, Australia.
G P QuinnNew York University, NYU Langone Fertility Center, 660 First Ave, 5Th Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
T K WoodruffOncofertility Consortium, Michigan State University, 965 Wilson Road, Room A626B, East Lansing, MI, 48824-1316, USA. tkw@msu.edu.

Funding

Ovarian tissue for fertility preservation-which will involve 2 IRB approved protocols: 000106 and 000715ZIAHD009005 · NICHD · EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · PI GOMEZ-LOBO, VERONICA · 2022 to 2025
$2.4M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAs a secondary report to elucidate the diverse spectrum of oncofertility practices for childhood cancer around the globe, we present and discuss the comparisons of oncofertility practices for childhood cancer in limited versus optimum resource settings based on data collected in the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II.

methodsWe surveyed 39 oncofertility centers including 14 in limited resource settings from Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I), and 25 in optimum resource settings from the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part II). Survey questions covered the availability of fertility preservation and restoration options offered in case of childhood cancer as well as their degree of utilization.

resultsIn the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, responses for childhood cancer and calculated oncofertility scores showed the following characteristics: (1) higher oncofertility scores in optimum resource settings than in limited resource settings for ovarian and testicular tissue cryopreservation; (2) frequent utilization of gonadal shielding, fractionation of anticancer therapy, oophoropexy, and GnRH analogs; (3) promising utilization of oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM); and (4) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, in vitro spermatogenesis, and stem cells reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings.

conclusionsBased on Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, we presented a plausible oncofertility best practice model to help optimize care for children with cancer in various resource settings. Special ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and innovative oncofertility options to children.

Indexed as

Fertility PreservationNeoplasmsAustraliaCryopreservationFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesBest practiceChildhood cancerFertility preservationLimited resource settingsOncofertilityOptimum resource settings

Identifiers

PMID36542312
PMCPMC9768400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.