Evaluating fertility preservation interventions for alignment with ASCO Guidelines for reproductive aged women undergoing cancer treatment: a systematic review

• Published in: Supportive care in cancer Vol. 31; no. 12; p. 689
• Main Authors: Pathak, Sarita, Vadaparampil, Susan T., Sutter, Megan E., Rice, Whitney S., McBride, Colleen M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-12-2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Cancer therapies; Clinical medicine; Cryopreservation; Female; Fertility; Fertility Preservation - methods; Health care; Humans; Infertility; Intervention; Medical diagnosis; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Mental health; Neoplasms - psychology; Neoplasms - therapy; Nursing; Nursing Research; Oncology; Ovaries; Pain Medicine; Patients; Public health; Rehabilitation Medicine; Reproduction; Review; Survivors; Sustainability; Systematic review; Womens health; ASCO Guidelines; Fertility preservation; Interventions; Oncofertility; Multi-level framework; Reproductive-aged women
• ISSN: 0941-4355; 1433-7339
• DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08133-3

Purpose
While cancer treatment advancements have increased the number of reproductive-aged women survivors, they can harm reproductive function. Despite national guidelines, oncofertility service uptake remains low. This review explores interventions for fertility preservation alignment with American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines and consideration of a multilevel framework.
Methods
We systematically reviewed literature from 2006 to 2022 across four databases. Identified interventions were assessed and scored for quality based on CONSORT and TREND statement checklists. Results were synthesized to assess for intervention alignment with ASCO guidelines and four multilevel intervention framework characteristics: targeted levels of influence, conceptual clarity, methodologic pragmatism, and sustainability.
Results
Of 407 articles identified, this review includes nine unique interventions. The average quality score was 7.7 out of 11. No intervention was guided by theory. Per ASCO guidelines, most (
n
=8) interventions included provider-led discussions of treatment-impaired fertility. Fewer noted discussions on fertility preservation approaches (
n
=5) and specified discussion timing (
n
=4). Most (
n
=8) referred patients to reproductive specialists, and few (
n
=2) included psychosocial service referrals. Most (
n
=8) were multilevel, with five targeting three levels of influence. Despite targeting multiple levels, all analyses were conducted at the individual level. Intervention strategies included: educational components (
n
=5), decision aids (
n
=2), and nurse navigators (
n
=2). Five interventions considered stakeholders’ views. All interventions were implemented in real-world contexts, and only three discussed sustainability.
Conclusions
This review identifies key gaps in ASCO guideline-concordant fertility preservation that could be filled by updating and adhering to standardized clinical practice guidelines and considering multilevel implementation frameworks elements.