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.

This study suggests that targeted short-course fluconazole prophylaxis in very low birth weight and ELBW infants may be efficacious and cost effective.

Purpose To determine benefits of cleavage-stage preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) by array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). Methods A retrospective case-control study was performed at a tertiary care university-affiliated medical center. Implantation rate was looked at as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates, as well as multiple pregnancy and miscarriage rates. Thirty five patients underwent 39 fresh cycles with PGS by aCGH and 311 similar patients underwent 394 invitro fertilization cycles. Result(s) The implantation rate in the CGH group doubled when compared to the control group (52.63 % vs. 19.15 %, p=<0.001), clinical pregnancy rate was higher (69.23 % vs. 43.91 %, p=0.0002), ongoing pregnancy rate almost doubled (61.54 % vs. 32.49 %, p=<0.0001), multiple pregnancy rate decreased (8.33 % vs. 34.38 %, p=0.0082) and miscarriage rate trended lower (11.11 % vs. 26.01 %, p=0.13). Conclusion Cleavage stage PGS with CGH is a feasible and safe option for aneuploidy screening that shows excellent outcomes when used in fresh cycles. This is the first report of cleavage stage PGS by CGH showing improved ongoing pregnancy rates.

Older GA, male gender and higher platelet count at time of treatment of hemodynamically significant PDA are predictors of successful ductal closure with indomethacin.