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 .

Purpose The Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) community is an underserved population due to unique quality of life and late-effect issues, particularly future fertility. This study sought to establish rates of documentation of discussion of risk of infertility, fertility preservation (FP) options, and referrals to fertility specialists in AYA patients’ medical records at four cancer centers. Methods All centers reviewed randomized medical records within the four most common disease sites among AYAs (breast, leukemia/lymphoma, sarcoma, and testicular). Eligible patient records included: 1) diagnosed in 2011 with no prior gonadotoxic therapy; 2) ages 18–45; 3) no multiple primary cancers; and 4) not second opinions. Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) methods were used to evaluate documentation of: a) discussion of risk of infertility; b) discussion of FP options; and c) referral to a fertility specialist. Results A total of 231 records were analyzed. Overall, 61 (26%) of records documented item a; 56 (24%) documented item b; and 31 (13%) documented item c. Female (p = 0.030; p = 0.004) and breast cancer (p = 0.021; p < 0.001) records were less likely to contain evidence of a and b. Conclusion The overall rate of documentation is low and results show disparities among specific groups. While greater numbers of discussions may be occurring, there is need to create interventions to improve documentation. Rates may improve with increased provider education and other intervention efforts.