ArticleThe Kobe journal of medical sciences2026
An Implementation Model for Oncofertility Support in a Regional Cancer Center without an In-House Reproductive Medicine Unit.
Article in The Kobe journal of medical sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeFertility loss related to cancer treatment can significantly affect quality of life among pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients. Many regional cancer centers lack an in-house reproductive medicine unit, which creates barriers to timely fertility preservation (FP). To address this gap, our hospital established a multidisciplinary Oncofertility Working Group in collaboration with nearby reproductive centers. This study evaluated referral activities and outcomes after working group establishment and aimed to propose a feasible FP support implementation model for cancer centers without reproductive medicine units.
methodsWe developed a standardized referral pathway and consultation checklist sheet in collaboration with a primary external reproductive center. We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients referred for FP using consultation checklist sheets and medical records. Questionnaire surveys were conducted at working group launch and 4 years later to assess institutional changes.
resultsBetween April 2022 and September 2025, 45 patients (24 female and 21 male) were referred for FP. The median interval from referral to reproductive consultation was 2 days. FP was performed in 70.8% of female patients and 95.2% of male patients. Survey results showed a shift from department-dependent practices to a standardized referral system.
conclusionEven in a regional cancer treatment cooperation base hospital without an in-house reproductive medicine unit, multidisciplinary coordination and structured external collaboration can deliver timely and practical FP support. This implementation model may help reduce regional disparities in oncofertility care, although further work should strengthen information sharing and long-term follow-up.
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.