No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeOncofertility focuses on providing fertility and endocrine-sparing options to patients who undergo life-preserving but gonadotoxic cancer treatment. The resources needed to meet patient demand often are fragmented along disciplinary lines. We quantify assets and gaps in oncofertility care on a global scale.MethodsSurvey-based questionnaires were provided to 191 members of the Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network, a National Institutes of Health–funded organization. Responses were analyzed to measure trends and regional subtleties about patient oncofertility experiences and to analyze barriers to care at sites that provide oncofertility services.ResultsSixty-three responses were received (response rate, 25%), and 40 were analyzed from oncofertility centers in 28 countries. Thirty of 40 survey results (75%) showed that formal referral processes and psychological care are provided to patients at the majority of sites. Fourteen of 23 respondents (61%) stated that some fertility preservation services are not offered because of cultural and legal barriers. The growth of oncofertility and its capacity to improve the lives of cancer survivors around the globe relies on concentrated efforts to increase awareness, promote collaboration, share best practices, and advocate for research funding.ConclusionThis survey reveals global and regional successes and challenges and provides insight into what is needed to advance the field and make the discussion of fertility preservation and endocrine health a standard component of the cancer treatment plan. As the field of oncofertility continues to develop around the globe, regular assessment of both international and regional barriers to quality care must continue to guide process improvements.

Background. The early integration of supportive care in oncology improves patient-centered outcomes. However, data is lacking regarding how to achieve this in resourcelimited settings. We studied whether patient navigation increased access to multidisciplinary supportive care among Mexican patients with advanced cancer. Materials and Methods. This randomized controlled trial was conducted between 08/17 and 04/2018 at a public hospital in Mexico City. Patients aged ≥18 with metastatic tumors ≤six weeks from diagnosis were randomized (1:1) to a patient navigation intervention or usual care. Patients randomized to patient navigation received personalized supportive care from a navigator and a multidisciplinary team. Patients randomized to usual care obtained supportive care referrals from treating oncologists. The primary outcome was the implementation of supportive care interventions at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included advance directive completion, supportive care needs, and quality of life. Results. 134 patients were randomized: 67 to patient navigation and 67 to usual care. Supportive care interventions were provided to 74% of patients in the patient navigation arm vs. 24% in usual care (difference 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.62; p<0.0001). In the patient navigation arm, 48% of eligible patients completed advance directives, compared to 0% in usual care (p<0.0001). At 12 weeks, patients randomized to patient navigation had less moderate/severe pain (10 vs. 33%; difference 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.38; p = 0.006), without differences in quality of life between arms. Conclusions and Relevance. Patient navigation improves access to early supportive care, advance care planning, and pain for patients with advanced cancer in resource-limited settings. The Oncologist 2020;9999:• •