Public funding of IVF without age limits: a cautionary tale from Quebec

Ouhilal, S.; Lachgar, H.; Bissonnette, F.; Buckett, B.; Kadoch, Isaac-Jacques; St-Michel, P.; Mahutte, Neal G.

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.643

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The decision to pursue FP intervention is the patient's choice and will be influenced by the estimated risk to fertility and current patient age (3). Although the success for FP in women over 40 is low (13), information is key, and discussions regarding risk to fertility should occur irrespective of age. The likelihood of achieving successful preservation if pursued is a secondary issue.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fertility preservation in post-pubescent female cancer patients: A practical guideline for clinicians

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Increasing accessibility of fertility preservation (FP) options has permitted women to retain fertility following anticancer therapies. Several published guidelines have made recommendations for FP however their implementation into practice is currently unknown. In this review, we aim to provide oncology clinicians practical information about FP options for post-pubescent female cancer patients and recommendations for care delivery in order to answer preliminary questions and help triage whether FP referral is appropriate. Herein, we present a resource for oncology providers to guide them with FP discussions. Key points that are discussed in this critical review include: i) All cancer patients beginning a new plan of care should be informed of potential fertility risk. ii) If a woman requests further information on FP interventions, referral to a FP clinic should be made. iii) Given the evolving technologies in this area, patients should be informed of those which are proven and unproven, with oocyte and embryo preservation recognized as standard practice. iv) Random start (independent of menstrual cycle day) techniques are available to minimize oncologic treatment delays. v) Specific protocols for ovarian stimulation may be center-specific. vi) There is unlikely an increased cancer recurrence risk as a result of stimulation protocols in women with hormone-sensitive cancers. vii) Lastly, given the absence of consensus in the literature, routine use of GnRH analogs is not recommended for all cancer patients, however may be considered in select cases, such as high-risk women in whom definitive FP is not possible or feasible.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%