Fertility preservation for female patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer: recommendations from the PanCareLIFE Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

<p class="first" id="d3842968e638">Female patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer are at increased risk for fertility impairment when treatment adversely affects the function of reproductive organs. Patients and their families desire biological children but substantial variations in clinical practice guidelines reduce consistent and timely implementation of effective interventions for fertility preservation across institutions. As part of the PanCareLIFE Consortium, and in collaboration with the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group, we reviewed the current literature and developed a clinical practice guideline for fertility preservation in female patients who were diagnosed with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer at age 25 years or younger, including guidance on risk assessment and available methods for fertility preservation. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to grade the available evidence and to form the recommendations. This clinical practice guideline leverages existing evidence and international expertise to develop transparent recommendations that are easy to use to facilitate the care of female patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who are at high risk for fertility impairment. A complete review of the existing evidence, including a quality assessment, transparent reporting of the guideline panel's decisions, and achievement of global interdisciplinary consensus, is an important result of this intensive collaboration. </p>

Related collections

Most cited references 79

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Elie A. Akl … (2011)

This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 2105 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

David Atkins, Dana Best, Peter A Briss … (2004)

Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.

0 comments Cited 1150 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Fertility Preservation in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Erica Wang, Alison Loren, Joyce D Reinecke … (2018)

Purpose To provide current recommendations about fertility preservation for adults and children with cancer. Methods A systematic review of the literature published from January 2013 to March 2017 was completed using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. An Update Panel reviewed the identified publications. Results There were 61 publications identified and reviewed. None of these publications prompted a significant change in the 2013 recommendations. Recommendations Health care providers should initiate the discussion on the possibility of infertility with patients with cancer treated during their reproductive years or with parents/guardians of children as early as possible. Providers should be prepared to discuss fertility preservation options and/or to refer all potential patients to appropriate reproductive specialists. Although patients may be focused initially on their cancer diagnosis, providers should advise patients regarding potential threats to fertility as early as possible in the treatment process so as to allow for the widest array of options for fertility preservation. The discussion should be documented. Sperm, oocyte, and embryo cryopreservation are considered standard practice and are widely available. There is conflicting evidence to recommend gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) and other means of ovarian suppression for fertility preservation. The Panel recognizes that, when proven fertility preservation methods are not feasible, and in the setting of young women with breast cancer, GnRHa may be offered to patients in the hope of reducing the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced ovarian insufficiency. GnRHa should not be used in place of proven fertility preservation methods. The panel notes that the field of ovarian tissue cryopreservation is advancing quickly and may evolve to become standard therapy in the future. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .