Expansion of the fertility preservation program to all newly diagnosed prepubertal oncology patients at a pediatric hospital.

Abstract

10064 Background: As the majority of pediatric oncology patients survive their disease, generating a population of over 500,000 survivors in the United States, it is imperative to minimize the lifelong consequences of treatment, which includes temporary or permanent infertility caused by certain cancer treatments. Fertility preservation (FP), the opportunity to preserve one’s ability to have genetically-related children prior to damaging the reproductive system, is a young but rapidly expanding field and recent scientific advances have led to an expansion of options for prepubertal patients. A fertility consultation at diagnosis can provide patients and families with the opportunity to be informed regarding likelihood of gonadal dysfunction and to consider FP. Methods: After our pediatric hospital started to offer tissue cryopreservation, we initiated this evidence-based interventional quality improvement project. Our primary aim was to ensure that all newly diagnosed prepubertal oncology patients who met criteria for FP were correctly identified and offered an educational consultation and preservation. Inpatient admission lists and provider schedules were reviewed daily to identify patients. Treatment plans were discussed with providers to calculate infertility risk. All procedures were to be completed at the time of another procedure to increase likelihood of insurance coverage and minimize delays. Results: Between 07/15/22 and 11/30/22, 54 newly diagnosed prepubertal patients’ treatment plans were evaluated to determine treatment-related infertility risk using the Oncofertility Consortium Pediatric Initiative Network’s Risk Assessment tool. 15 patients were at a high level of significantly increased risk and were therefore eligible for consultation. 7 patients and their families received an educational consultation and 6 elected to undergo FP (3 TTCs; 3 OTCs). FP procedures did not cause a delay in starting treatment for any of these patients. 8 patients did not receive consultations. Reasons included the provider electing to proceed with treatment without consultation (4), the patient’s comorbidities (1), the inability to bundle FP with another procedure (1), and the family decision to decline consultation (1). Conclusions: Of the patients at high risk of infertility, only 46% received consultation with lack of referral prior to initiating treatment as the primary reason. Of the patients offered preservation methods, 86% elected to preserve their fertility, illustrating patient and family interest. Providers must acknowledge changes in practice and be informed on the impact that high-risk treatment protocols can have on fertility. An FP program with established policies processes can increase the likelihood that prepubertal patients at high risk for infertility are correctly identified, educated, and offered preservation.