No abstract

Children, adolescent and young adult (CAYA) males with cancer are at an increased risk for infertility, if their treatment adversely impacts reproductive organ function. Future fertility is a primary concern of patients and their families. Variations in clinical practice are barriers to the timely implementation of fertility preserving interventions. The PanCareLIFE consortium in collaboration with the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group (IGHG) reviewed the current literature and developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for fertility preservation in male CAYA cancer patients diagnosed before age 25 years, including guidance on risk assessment and available fertility preservation methods. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to grade the evidence and recommendations. Recognizing the need for global consensus, this CPG used existing evidence and international expertise to develop transparent, easy-touse and rigorously-developed recommendations that can facilitate the care of CAYA males with cancer at risk of fertility impairment and enhance their quality of life.

Objective To study two neutrophil activation markers, myeloid-related protein (MRP) 8/14 and neutrophil elastase (NE), for their ability to predict treatment response and flare in patients with JIA. Methods Using samples from two cohorts (I and II), we determined MRP8/14 and NE levels of 32 (I) and 81 (II) patients with new-onset, DMARD-naïve arthritis and compared patients who responded to treatment (defined as fulfilling ≥ adjusted ACRpedi50 response and/or inactive disease) with non-responders (defined as fulfilling < adjusted ACRpedi50 response and/or active disease) at 6 and 12 months. Secondly, we compared biomarker levels of 54 (I) and 34 (II) patients with clinically inactive disease who did or did not suffer from a flare of arthritis after 6 or 12 months. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were carried out to study the predictive value of MRP8/14 and NE for treatment response and flare. Results For both cohorts, baseline MRP8/14 and NE levels for patients who did or did not respond to treatment were not different. Also, MRP8/14 and NE levels were not different in patients who did or did not flare. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of MRP8/14 and NE demonstrated areas under the curve <0.7 in both cohorts. Conclusion In our cohorts, MRP8/14 and NE could not predict treatment response. Also, when patients had inactive disease, neither marker could predict flares.