Fertility preservation and fulfillment of parenthood after treatment of hematological malignancies: results from the 'Aftercare in Blood Cancer Survivors' (ABC) study.

Introduction

Overall survival in patients with hematological malignancies has markedly improved. In some types of aggressive disease, such as lymphoma, cure rates are high, and in indolent malignancies, long-lasting remissions can be achieved [ 1 ]. Due to a growing number of long-term survivors, patient care is increasingly being focused on the optimal management of treatment side effects.

Lasting infertility is one of the most crucial side effects of chemotherapy as it can sustainably affect a cancer survivor’s concept of life. The majority of young cancer survivors express a desire for a child [ 2 – 5 ], and fear of persisting infertility causes distress and limits the quality of life [ 6 ]. Fertility preservation, such as cryopreservation of sperm, oocytes, or ovarian tissue, is a promising approach to enable post-treatment parenthood [ 7 – 9 ]. Moreover, the use of fertility preservation was shown to help patients cope with their diagnosis of cancer [ 10 ]. However, fertility preservation is often insufficiently discussed [ 4 , 11 , 12 ], and referral rates to fertility institutes are low [ 4 , 12 – 14 ]. On the part of the treating oncologist, one of the main reasons accounting for this situation is fear to lose time when treatment is urgent [ 15 – 17 ]. Only a few studies focus on the patterns of fertility preservation in hematological patients [ 13 , 18 ].

The present report is a sub-study of the ‘Aftercare in Blood Cancer Survivors’ (ABC) study which analyzed current patterns of follow-up in patients with hematological malignancies. The core study focused on medical events, quality of life, and costs during follow-up, and the results will be presented separately. Here, we report on receipt of pre-treatment information about the risk of treatment-induced infertility, use of fertility preservation as well as wish and fulfillment of post-treatment parenthood, as reported by the patients in the retrospective part of the ABC study. We also identified patient- and disease-specific factors associated with these issues.

Methods

Design

The ABC study is an observational cohort study designed to analyze the current practice of follow-up care in patients with hematological malignancies. It included patients and their treating physicians and recorded events occurring during follow-up from 2014 to 2017. In the retrospective part of the study, patients reported on medical, psychological and social aspects of treatment and follow-up using a 118-item questionnaire. In the second part, medical events, quality of life, and costs were recorded prospectively by involving the physicians providing follow-up care. The fertility sub-study was part of the retrospective investigation.

Patients’ ≥ 18 years with a hematological malignancy or premalignant hematological disorder presenting between 1998 and 2010 for evaluation, therapy or follow-up at the West German Cancer Center in Essen, Germany were eligible. Their disease had to be untreated or in treatment-free remission for at least 3 years. Patients with stable myeloproliferative neoplasms under continuous medication were also included. Questionnaires were sent out to the patients between April and September 2014. With regard to fertility issues, we restricted our analysis to patients who underwent cancer-specific treatment. Women > 45 years and men > 65 years as well as patients with a history of infertility at the time of diagnosis were excluded. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Duisburg-Essen under reference no. 14-5692-BO.

Procedures

The participants were asked to answer a structured questionnaire developed by the investigators. It was subdivided into sections addressing aspects of follow-up care, general medical health issues, and psychosocial well-being. It included eight questions with additional free text options regarding the information received about the risk of therapy-induced infertility, access to and use of fertility preservation, desire and fulfillment of parenthood, need of assisted reproduction techniques, and children born before and after treatment. The questions regarding fertility are listed in the Online Appendix. Information on sociodemographic background, cancer-specific procedures, parenthood at time of diagnosis or marital status was collected using self-reports. Medical reports were used to check for correctness.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are given as means and frequencies as counts (%). The study included four separate analyses. Being informed about the risk of infertility (1) entered multiple logistic regression as endpoint, with patient characteristics and diagnosis as independent parameters. Using fertility preservation measures (2) was modeled similarly. Logistic models were also calculated for the wish to have children (3), and for the fulfilled wish (4). In models (3, 4) the therapy received was also taken into account. Results are given as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). In (1–3) calculations were performed with full multiple adjustments. Due to the lower number of endpoints in (4), adjustments were made only within diagnoses and therapies.

Results

Patients’ characteristics

Based on information extracted from the medical files of the West German Cancer Center, 2555 patients were identified to be eligible to participate in the study. After exclusion of recently relapsed or dead patients and patients not responding to the letter or unwilling to participate, 1562 patients were enrolled (Fig. 1 ). After further exclusion of patients beyond the selected age limits, with a history of infertility, or without treatment since diagnosis, the cohort of the fertility sub-study encompassed a total of 1031 patients (male 68.3%, female 31.7%). The vast majority had received treatment between 1989 and 2010. The median follow-up was 11.5 years (range 3.0–40.8). Patients’ characteristics are detailed in Table 1 . Fig. 1 Flow chart of patients Table 1 Patients’ characteristics Characteristic Male n = 704 (%) Female n = 327 (%) Total n = 1031 (%) Age at diagnosis Mean (years) 42.4 34.1 39.4 18–29 years 130 (18.5) 114 (34.9) 244 (23.7) 30–44 years 262 (37.2) 213 (65.1) 475 (46.1) 45–65 years 312 (44.3) – 312 (30.3) Partnership at diagnosis Yes 556 (79.0) 247 (75.5) 803 (77.9) No 130 (18.5) 78 (23.9) 208 (20.2) Missing information 18 (2.5) 2 (0.6) 20 (1.9) Children at diagnosis No 200 (28.4) 145 (44.3) 345 (33.5) ≥ 1 child 483 (68.6) 172 (52.6) 655 (63.5) Missing information 21 (3.0) 10 (3.1) 31 (3.0) Year of diagnosis < 1989 23 (3.3) 12 (3.7) 35 (3.4) 1989–2005 453 (64.4) 232 (71.0) 685 (66.4) > 2005 228 (32.4) 83 (25.4) 311 (30.2) Diagnosis MGUS 1 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.1) Multiple myeloma 24 (3.4) 2 (0.6) 26 (2.5) Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma 108 (15.3) 27 (8.3) 135 (13.0) Myeloproliferative neoplasm 167 (23.7) 92 (28.1) 259 (25.1) Myelodysplastic syndrome 19 (2.7) 1 (0.3) 20 (1.9) Aggressive non-Hodgkin or Hodgkin’s lymphoma 246 (35.0) 116 (35.5) 362 (35.1) Acute leukemia 139 (19.8) 89 (27.2) 228 (22.1) Therapy a (Immuno)Chemotherapy 483 (68.6) 212 (64.8) 695 (67.4) Autologous SCT 92 (13.1) 34 (10.4) 126 (12.2) Allogeneic SCT 283 (40.2) 157 (48.0) 440 (42.7) Others 36 (5.1) 12 (3.7) 48 (4.7) MGUS monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, SCT stem cell transplantation a Numbers exceed 100% due to multiple therapy regimens

Receipt of medical information about the risk of infertility

Among all patients included in the fertility sub-study, 72.4% (male 69.9%, female 77.6%) reported that the risk of infertility had been discussed before the start of treatment. The proportion of patients thus informed declined significantly with rising age ( p < 0.0001). In patients age 18–29 years, 83.6% of male and 83.9% of female patients reported to have been informed about the risk of infertility, while in patients age 30–44 years, the rate declined to 82.2% in male and 74.3% in female patients. Only 53.2% of men age 45–65 years received information about the risk of infertility.

Multivariable analysis was performed and revealed that higher age ( p < 0.0001), earlier calendar year of diagnosis ( p < 0.0001), and female sex ( p = 0.046) were associated with a lack of information about the risk of therapy-related infertility (Table 2 ). Table 2 Multivariable analyses for pre-treatment discussion about therapy-related risk of infertility and use of fertility preservation Not being informed about risk of infertility Use of fertility preservation Odds ratio 95% CI Odds ratio 95% CI Female sex 1.46 1.01–2.13 0.44 0.27–0.71 Age a 1.52 1.37–1.69 0.59 0.50–0.70 Calendar year of diagnosis a 0.75 0.65–0.86 1.69 1.38–2.07 ≥ 1 child at time of diagnosis 0.94 0.62–1.41 1.17 0.67–2.06 Completed family planning 0.60 0.37–0.99 0.12 0.06–0.25 Disease Acute leukemia (reference) 1.0 n.a 1.0 n.a Multiple myeloma 2.76 1.10–6.91 9.57 1.88–48.75 Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma 2.34 1.39–3.97 2.73 0.99–7.49 Myeloproliferative neoplasm 1.27 0.79–2.03 1.62 0.80–3.29 Aggressive non-Hodgkin or Hodgkin’s lymphoma 1.32 0.85–2.05 2.53 1.42–4.52 CI confidence interval, n.a . not applicable a Per 5 years

Fertility preservation

Fertility preservation was used by 15.0% of patients (male 14.6%, female 16.0%). It was strongly correlated with age ( p < 0.0001). In detail, 41.3% of patients younger than 30 years used fertility preservation (male 48.0%, female 33.3%). The proportion significantly decreased with rising age ( p < 0.001). Among patients age 30–44 years, only 11.2% underwent fertility preservation (male 14.7%, female 6.8%), while none of the men above 45 years underwent cryopreservation of sperm.

On multivariable analysis, female sex ( p = 0.0007), age ( p < 0.0001), calendar year of diagnosis ( p < 0.0001), and completed family planning ( p < 0.0001) were associated with less frequent use of fertility preservation. With regard to the type of hematological malignancy, patients diagnosed with aggressive non-Hodgkin or Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( p = 0.0017) or multiple myeloma ( p = 0.0031) underwent fertility preservation more often than patients suffering from acute leukemia (Table 2 ).

Desire for and fulfillment of parenthood after treatment

At the time of diagnosis, the majority of patients (65.7%) had already completed family planning. In patients below 45 years, this was true for 52.2% (male 50.3%, female 54.5%). A desire for a child after the end of treatment was reported by 19.3% of patients (male 17.8%, female 22.3%). Again, we found a strong association with age, as parenthood was desired by 51.2% of patients younger than 30 years (male 57.8%, female 45.1%), but by only 13.9% of patients age 30–44 years (male 17.1%, female 10.0%), and 1.3% of men age 45–65 years ( p < 0.0001).

Notably, patients that were childless at the time of diagnosis were more likely to express a desire for a child after successful treatment ( p = 0.012) than patients that already had a child, and patients who preserved fertility before the start of treatment were also more likely to develop a wish for post-treatment parenthood than patients forgoing fertility preservation ( p < 0.0001; Table 3 ). Table 3 Multivariable analysis for post-treatment wish for parenthood and univariable analysis for fulfillment of desired parenthood Wish for post-treatment parenthood Fulfillment of parenthood Odds ratio 95% CI Odds ratio 95% CI Female sex 0.69 0.45–1.05 0.82 0.42–1.62 Age a 0.60 0.52–0.69 0.92 0.72–1.18 Calendar year of diagnosis a 1.97 0.16–23.60 0.75 0.60–0.95 Time interval since last treatment a 2.12 0.18–25.66 1.34 1.06–1.69 Use of fertility preservation 2.84 1.75–4.61 1.12 0.58–2.16 ≥ 1 child at time of diagnosis 0.54 0.33–0.88 3.1 1.54–6.22 Disease Acute leukemia (reference) 1.0 n.a 1.0 n.a Multiple myeloma 0.34 0.03–3.95 – – Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma 0.61 0.22–1.70 5.13 1.06–24.87 Myeloproliferative neoplasm 0.87 0.48–1.58 0.62 0.17–2.25 Aggressive non-Hodgkin or Hodgkin’s lymphoma 0.83 0.40–1.72 4.39 1.83–10.58 Therapy Chemotherapy/exclusive (reference) 1.0 n.a 1.0 n.a Chemotherapy/combined 1.38 0.86–2.22 0.81 0.35–1.89 Autologous stem cell transplantation 1.53 0.77–3.05 1.52 0.56–4.17 Allogeneic stem cell transplantation 0.86 0.45–1.63 0.18 0.08–0.41 Other 1.07 0.59–1.93 0.84 0.32–2.20 CI confidence interval, n.a . not applicable a Per 5 years

A wish for parenthood could be fulfilled by 29.4% of patients desiring a child (male 31.1%, female 26.4%), in most cases (78.5%) without medical assistance. Twenty-two men who decided to preserve fertility fathered a child after the end of treatment. Half of them ( n = 11) reported to have used their stored sperm. The number of patients that fulfilled their desire for parenthood was too low for multivariable analysis. In univariate analysis, fulfillment of desired parenthood was more likely in patients that were already parents at the time of diagnosis ( p = 0.0015), and in patients with a long interval between treatment and survey ( p = 0.013). Compared to patients treated with chemotherapy only, patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation were less likely to fulfill a desire for parenthood ( p < 0.0001).

Discussion

Support for post-treatment parenthood should begin before the start of cancer treatment. Patients must be informed about the risk of losing their fertility and the measures that can be taken to preserve it.

In our study, 72.4% of patients reported to have been informed about the risk of infertility. Compared to other studies [ 13 , 19 ] the rate of informed patients was high. The improvements observed over time are encouraging and suggest rising awareness of hematologists for therapy-induced infertility. At least in part, this may be the result of guidelines published by expert associations, such as the European Society of Medical Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology [ 20 – 23 ].

In contrast to other studies [ 13 , 19 ], only a minority of patients took steps to preserve fertility. Besides age, we found gender-specific differences to the disadvantage of women, relating both to the receipt of information about the risk of therapy-related infertility and the use of fertility preservation. This observation is in line with findings from other studies [ 24 – 26 ].

Both health care professionals and patients are actively involved in the decision-making process of using fertility preservation. Health care professionals provide information and offer options to preserve fertility, while the patients decide whether they want to make use of the information provided. An important issue not addressed in our study is the question whether the costs were covered by the insurance companies or the patients themselves. Reasons for low rates of fertility preservation may, therefore, be oncologist-related, patient-related or both.

Studies focusing on the behavior of health care professionals concerning fertility issues in cancer patients revealed that oncologists preselect patients on the basis of disease- and patient-specific factors. An urgent need for treatment was one of the main reasons for neglecting fertility-related discussions [ 15 , 16 ], especially in women [ 17 ]. Hematological malignancies often require immediate treatment. Thus, fear of jeopardizing the result of therapy by delaying it in favor of fertility preservation may be one explanation for our findings. This may also explain the differences observed between male and female patients. For men, cryopreservation of sperm is the method of choice, a procedure that is widely available and can be accomplished within a few days. In contrast, fertility preservation in women is more complex. Cryopreservation of embryos or unfertilized oocytes are favored procedures, while suppression of ovarian function by gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues has shown conflicting results [ 21 ]. Harvesting oocytes, however, is a time-consuming process, requiring weeks or months. Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue appears better suited, as it can be done within a few days. In particular, women requiring rapid induction of therapy may benefit from this procedure. However, most hematological malignancies including acute leukemia carry a risk of involving the ovaries [ 27 , 28 ], which limits the use of ovarian tissue cryopreservation in those who most urgently need it.

Other reasons for not undergoing fertility preservation include unavailability of fertility preservation services and high costs of the procedure that may have to be covered by the patients themselves [ 29 , 30 ]. As discussed by others, not being able to pay for fertility preservation may embarrass patients, who then deny having been referred to a fertility institute. As a consequence, referral rates are reported to have been lower than they actually were [ 13 ].

More than half of our patients reported to have completed family planning by the time the hematological malignancy was diagnosed. A desire for a child after the end of treatment was expressed by only 19.3%. An association of a desire for post-treatment parenthood with young age and childlessness at the time of diagnosis has been noticed before [ 18 , 31 ]. Not surprisingly, patients who decided to preserve fertility were more likely to express a desire for a child than patients not using fertility preservation. Parental status did not affect the choice to preserve fertility. This implies that patients who are already parents at the time the hematological malignancy is diagnosed refrain from planning to increase the size of their family after completion of therapy. The results of several studies are in line with this observation. While, at the time of diagnosis, patients that already had a child expressed a stronger desire for further parenthood than patients without a child, the opposite was true after the end of treatment [ 19 ]. In Hodgkin’s lymphoma, patients that already had a child at the time of diagnosis had lower post-treatment birth rates than patients without a child [ 32 ].

Unexpectedly, the desire for a child could only be fulfilled by 30% of the patients. Compared to previous studies [ 18 , 32 , 33 ], the rate found in our study is low. This is likely to be related to the fact that 40% of our patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which is known to cause lasting sterility in a high proportion of patients [ 34 – 36 ]. However, an unfulfilled desire for parenthood may not only originate from therapy-induced infertility. Our observation that pre- and post-treatment parenthood were positively correlated, suggests that an unfulfilled desire for a child may also be due to infertility unrelated to chemotherapy. Moreover, childlessness can be caused by infertility of the sexual partner, a possibility that was not investigated in the present study. Importantly, the rate of fulfillment of parenthood increased with increasing time since treatment termination, suggesting that fertility can be regained. Several studies reported that, depending on the gonadotoxicity of the therapy applied and the patients’ age at the time of diagnosis, gonadal function may recover [ 37 – 40 ]. However, these studies also revealed that women are at high risk of premature menopause, which may hamper family planning in women receiving chemotherapy at higher age. In this group of patients, pre-treatment information about the risk of infertility and the available options for fertility preservation are particularly important to enable post-treatment parenthood.

In conclusion, in the ABC study, a large proportion of patients with hematological malignancies received adequate information about the risk of losing fertility, but only a minority decided to preserve it. Women were less likely to be informed and undergo fertility preservation than men. Moreover, childlessness at the time of diagnosis was strongly associated with a desire for post-treatment parenthood, which, however, could only be fulfilled in 30% of cases.

Our observations may gain in importance because first parenthood is increasingly being delayed to higher ages. In the future, more patients are anticipated to express a wish for parenthood after successful therapy of a hematological malignancy. Options to preserve fertility should be considered in all patients and psychosocial support should be offered not only during the time of treatment but also beyond.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Electronic supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL. The authors would like to thank the patients for participation in the study.

Author contributions

CS, JB, and UD designed the study. CS, TG, DB, JB, and HL collected and analyzed the data. K-HJ and NL performed the statistical analysis. CS and UD wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to data interpretation, reviewed the draft, and approved the final version of this report.

Funding

The study was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 01GY1341).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the standards of the Ethics Committee of the University of Duisburg-Essen (Reference No. 14-5692-BO) which are based on the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

References

1. Sant M Minicozzi P Mounier M Survival for haematological malignancies in Europe between 1997 and 2008 by region and age: results of EUROCARE-5, a population-based study Lancet Oncol 2014 15 931 942 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70282-7 25030467

2. Zebrack BJ Casillas J Nohr L Fertility issues for young adult survivors of childhood cancer Psycho-Oncology 2004 13 689 699 10.1002/pon.784 15386645

3. Schover LR Rybicki LA Martin BA Having children after cancer Cancer 1999 86 697 709 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990815)86:4<697::AID-CNCR20>3.0.CO;2-J 10440699

4. Schover LR Brey K Lichtin A Knowledge and experience regarding cancer, infertility, and sperm banking in younger male survivors J Clin Oncol 2002 20 1880 1889 10.1200/JCO.2002.07.175 11919248

5. Nahata L Caltabellotta NM Yeager ND Fertility perspectives and priorities among male adolescents and young adults in cancer survivorship Pediatr Blood Cancer 2018 65 e27019 10.1002/pbc.27019 29537134

6. Wenzel L Dogan-Ates A Habbal R Defining and measuring reproductive concerns of female cancer survivors J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2005 2005 94 98 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi017 PMC6089610 15784834

7. Cobo A Meseguer M Remohi J Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial Hum Reprod (Oxford, England) 2010 25 2239 2246 10.1093/humrep/deq146 20591872

8. Bizet P Saias-Magnan J Jouve E Sperm cryopreservation before cancer treatment: a 15-year monocentric experience Reprod Biomed 2012 24 321 330 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.11.015 22285245

9. Jensen AK Macklon KT Fedder J 86 successful births and 9 ongoing pregnancies worldwide in women transplanted with frozen-thawed ovarian tissue: focus on birth and perinatal outcome in 40 of these children J Assist Reprod Genet 2017 34 325 336 10.1007/s10815-016-0843-9 28028773 PMC5360679

10. Saito K Suzuki K Iwasaki A Sperm cryopreservation before cancer chemotherapy helps in the emotional battle against cancer Cancer 2005 104 521 524 10.1002/cncr.21185 15968690

11. Quinn GP Vadaparampil ST Gwede CK Discussion of fertility preservation with newly diagnosed patients: oncologists' views J Cancer Surviv 2007 1 146 155 10.1007/s11764-007-0019-9 18648955

12. Partridge AH Gelber S Peppercorn J Web-based survey of fertility issues in young women with breast cancer J Clin Oncol 2004 22 4174 4183 10.1200/JCO.2004.01.159 15483028

13. Greaves P Sarker SJ Chowdhury K Fertility and sexual function in long-term survivors of haematological malignancy: using patient-reported outcome measures to assess a neglected area of need in the late effects clinic Br J Haematol 2014 164 526 535 10.1111/bjh.12651 24236665

14. Quinn GP Vadaparampil ST Lee J-H Physician referral for fertility preservation in oncology patients: a National Study of Practice Behaviors J Clin Oncol 2009 27 5952 5957 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.0250 19826115

15. Adams E Hill E Watson E Fertility preservation in cancer survivors: a national survey of oncologists' current knowledge, practice and attitudes Br J Cancer 2013 108 1602 1615 10.1038/bjc.2013.139 23579214 PMC3668471

16. Gilbert E Adams A Mehanna H Who should be offered sperm banking for fertility preservation? A survey of UK oncologists and haematologists Ann Oncol 2011 22 1209 1214 10.1093/annonc/mdq579 21030380

17. Micaux Obol C Armuand GM Rodriguez-Wallberg KA Oncologists and hematologists' perceptions of fertility-related communication - a nationwide survey Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 2017 56 1103 1110 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1310394 28379723

18. Kiserud CE Fossa A Holte H Post-treatment parenthood in Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors Br J Cancer 2007 96 1442 1449 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603711 17406362 PMC2360165

19. Geue K Richter D Schmidt R The desire for children and fertility issues among young German cancer survivors J Adolesc Health 2014 54 527 535 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.10.005 24315429

20. Lee SJ Schover LR Partridge AH American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients J Clin Oncol 2006 24 2917 2931 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5888 16651642

21. Oktay K Harvey BE Partridge AH Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update J Clin Oncol 2018 36 1994 2001 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.1914 29620997

22. Lambertini M Del Mastro L Pescio MC Cancer and fertility preservation: international recommendations from an expert meeting BMC Med 2016 14 1 10.1186/s12916-015-0545-7 26728489 PMC4700580

23. Peccatori FA Azim HA Jr Orecchia R Hoekstra HJ Pavlidis N Kesic V Cancer, pregnancy and fertility: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann Oncol 2013 24 Suppl 6 160 170 10.1093/annonc/mdt199 23813932

24. Armuand GM Rodriguez-Wallberg KA Wettergren L Sex differences in fertility-related information received by young adult cancer survivors J Clin Oncol 2012 30 2147 2153 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.6470 22585695

25. Armuand GM Wettergren L Rodriguez-Wallberg KA Women more vulnerable than men when facing risk for treatment-induced infertility: a qualitative study of young adults newly diagnosed with cancer Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 2015 54 243 252 10.3109/0284186X.2014.948573 25140859

26. Niemasik EE Letourneau J Dohan D Patient perceptions of reproductive health counseling at the time of cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study of female California cancer survivors J Cancer Surviv 2012 6 324 332 10.1007/s11764-012-0227-9 22752834

27. Dolmans MM Marinescu C Saussoy P Reimplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue from patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia is potentially unsafe Blood 2010 116 2908 2914 10.1182/blood-2010-01-265751 20595517

28. Meirow D Hardan I Dor J Searching for evidence of disease and malignant cell contamination in ovarian tissue stored from hematologic cancer patients Hum Reprod 2008 23 1007 1013 10.1093/humrep/den055 18344563

29. Mersereau JE Goodman LR Deal AM To preserve or not to preserve: how difficult is the decision about fertility preservation? Cancer 2013 119 4044 4050 10.1002/cncr.28317 24037854 PMC3935984

30. Flink DM Kondapalli LA Kellar-Guenther Y Priorities in fertility decisions for reproductive-aged cancer patients: fertility attitudes and cancer treatment study J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol 2017 6 435 443 10.1089/jayao.2016.0072 28221816 PMC5649415

31. Armuand GM Wettergren L Rodriguez-Wallberg KA Desire for children, difficulties achieving a pregnancy, and infertility distress 3 to 7 years after cancer diagnosis Support Care Cancer 2014 22 2805 2812 10.1007/s00520-014-2279-z 24817617 PMC4153973

32. van der Kaaij MA Heutte N Meijnders P Parenthood in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma: an EORTC-GELA general population case-control study J Clin Oncol 2012 30 3854 3863 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.8906 23008303

33. Meissner J Tichy D Dietrich S Parenthood in long-term survivors after CHOP with or without etoposide treatment for aggressive lymphoma Br J Haematol 2014 166 612 615 10.1111/bjh.12877 24689462

34. Gerstl B Sullivan E Koch J Reproductive outcomes following a stem cell transplant for a haematological malignancy in female cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis Support Care Cancer 2019 27 4451 4460 10.1007/s00520-019-05020-8 31541306

35. Chiodi S Spinelli S Bruzzi P Menstrual patterns, fertility and main pregnancy outcomes after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation J Obstet Gynaecol 2016 36 783 788 10.3109/01443615.2016.1154508 27153290

36. Borgmann-Staudt A Rendtorff R Reinmuth S Fertility after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in childhood and adolescence Bone Marrow Transplant 2012 47 271 276 10.1038/bmt.2011.78 21478918

37. Gharwan H Lai C Grant C Female fertility following dose-adjusted EPOCH-R chemotherapy in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphomas Leuk Lymph 2016 57 1616 1624 10.3109/10428194.2015.1118476 PMC7831158 27183887

38. Elis A Tevet A Yerushalmi R Fertility status among women treated for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Leuk Lymph 2006 47 623 627 10.1080/10428190500353877 16690520

39. Behringer K Mueller H Goergen H Gonadal function and fertility in survivors after Hodgkin lymphoma treatment within the German Hodgkin Study Group HD13 to HD15 trials J Clin Oncol 2013 31 231 239 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.3721 23150709

40. Anderson RA Remedios R Kirkwood AA Determinants of ovarian function after response-adapted therapy in patients with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma (RATHL): a secondary analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2018 19 1328 1337 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30500-X 30220622 PMC6167406