ArticleJCO oncology practice2025
Guidelines, Counseling Practices, and Fertility Preservation Options for Childhood Cancer Patients in the Nordic-Baltic Region.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Update and new advances in fertility preservation and cancer.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite new medicine and treatment options, fertility is impaired for many childhood cancer survivors after gonadotoxic treatment. In the current study, we compiled an overview on the state of fertility preservation (FP) care and limitations for childhood cancer patients throughout the Nordic-Baltic region. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn partnership with the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, an anonymous survey was conducted among 23 major pediatric oncology centers in Nordic and Baltic countries. The survey featured 22 multiple-choice and open-ended questions that provided insights into guidelines, available FP options, clinical indications, and counseling.
resultsThe response rate to the questionnaire was 74% (17 of 23 pediatric oncology centers). The survey revealed that only 65% of the centers have national guidelines on FP at the time. Although all centers offer counseling before treatment by oncologists (88%) or gynecologists (65%), 76% of the centers provide it only to those fulfill inclusion criteria. Additionally, counseling is unavailable for some patients because of age (35%), communication issues (29%), or lack of time (24%). Predominantly, sperm cryopreservation is offered across all centers for pubertal boys, while testicular tissue cryopreservation is provided at 41% of pediatric oncology centers for prepubertal boys. Oocyte cryopreservation is offered to pubertal girls at 88% of the centers, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation is offered to prepubertal and pubertal girls at 82% of the questioned centers.
conclusionThe survey highlights the implementation of FP services status in the Nordic and Baltic countries. However, standardizing FP indications and disseminating guidelines widely is crucial to reduce clinical variability. Addressing issues such as inconsistent counseling, limited collaboration, and unclear risk stratification can drive further improvements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.