Little information about fertility preservation is provided for cancer patients: A survey of oncologists’ knowledge, attitude and current practice

Abstract

The objective of this survey was to explore the knowledge, attitude and current practice of Iranian oncologists about fertility preservation (FP) services provided to cancer patients. Oncologists who completed this survey were a convenience sample of 103 specialists in radiation oncology and haematology who attended large national and international congresses and symposia across Iran. A 23‐item self‐administered questionnaire included questions on knowledge, attitudes and practice. The most well known of the FP methods among Iranian oncologists were gonadotropin‐releasing hormone therapy and sperm cryopreservation, with scores of 2.77 (1.10) and 2.64 (1.00) respectively. These scores were above the median value of 2.5 on a 4‐point Likert scale, in contrast to a mean knowledge score across all the FP options of 2.25 (0.71). With regard to attitudes, age was the most important reason for discussing FP with patients, mean score 3.75 (0.54), while heredity was the least important, mean score 2.98 (0.87). In terms of practice, most oncologists did not provide their patients with written information about FP. However, 74 (72.5%) said they referred cancer patients on to reproductive specialists. This sample of Iranian oncologists would benefit from more information on FP methods and prevent loss of fertility among cancer patients.

The Knowledge, Attitude, and Self-Reported Behaviors of Oncology Physicians Regarding Fertility Preservation in Adult Cancer Patients

“…In contrast, one study revealed that the likelihood of referring was associated with the gender of the practicing oncologists, with female oncologists more likely to refer [15]. However, a newly published research showed that no statistically significant differences were observed between male and female oncologists regarding the referral behaviors [20]. These differences could be due to the various cultural contexts in which the surveys took place.…”

“…It is worth noting that the time required for FP is different based on the cancer type and patients' physical condition, so some physicians refuse to discuss the FP issues with the perception that patients could not delay treatment to pursue options when the patients requiring immediate cancer treatment [15,18]. On the contrary, one study showed that some oncologists who believed that discussion should not be held if patients had an exceedingly aggressive form of cancer and required immediate treatment were more likely to discuss FP issues [20]. Thus, it can be seen that preventing a delay in an urgent treatment might not be a barrier for discussing.…”

Fertility education for adolescent cancer patients: Gaps in current clinical practice in Europe

“…Although not statistically significant, especially females did not feel sufficiently informed. An explanation may be that healthcare providers have different knowledge about preservation options for male and female patients (Vesali, Navid, Mohammadi, Karimi, & Omani‐Samani, 2019) and young women tend to receive incomplete information (Wright, Coad, Morgan, Stark, & Cable, 2014).…”

Infrastructure of Fertility Preservation Services for Pediatric Cancer Patients: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group

“…Despite the introduction of guidelines over 15 years ago, studies continue to show that FP services are inadequately provided to adolescent and young adult patients newly diagnosed with cancer. 9,10 This is particularly concerning, given that surveys document that adolescents and young adults prioritize fertility risk conversations and potential pursuit of preservation strategies before initiation of treatment. [11][12][13] Although several studies have shown that establishing structured FP services increases both patient satisfaction and FP utilization rates, their general availability and uptake in pediatric oncology programs are not well defined.…”