Sex Differences in Fertility-Related Information Received by Young Adult Cancer Survivors

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (17) ◽  
pp. 2147-2153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela M. Armuand ◽  
Kenny A. Rodriguez-Wallberg ◽  
Lena Wettergren ◽  
Johan Ahlgren ◽  
Gunilla Enblad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Postal Questionnaire ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Young Adult Cancer Survivors ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Desire To Have Children ◽  
Adult Cancer Survivors ◽  
Male Sex

Purpose The aim was to investigate male and female cancer survivors' perception of fertility-related information and use of fertility preservation (FP) in connection with cancer treatment during reproductive age. Methods The study sample consisted of cancer survivors diagnosed from 2003 to 2007 identified in population-based registers in Sweden. Inclusion criteria included survivors who were age 18 to 45 years at diagnosis and had lymphoma, acute leukemia, testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, or female breast cancer treated with chemotherapy. Of 810 eligible participants, 484 survivors (60% response rate) completed a postal questionnaire. Results The majority of male participants reported having received information about treatment impact on fertility (80%) and FP (68%), and more than half of the men banked frozen sperm (54%). Among women, less than half (48%) reported that they received information about treatment impact on fertility, and 14% reported that they received information about FP. Only seven women (2%) underwent FP. Predictors for receiving information about treatment impact on fertility were a pretreatment desire to have children (odds ratio [OR], 3.5), male sex (OR, 3.2), and being ≤ 35 years of age at diagnosis (OR, 2.0). Predictors for receiving information about FP included male sex (OR, 14.4), age ≤ 35 at diagnosis (OR, 5.1), and having no children at diagnosis (OR, 2.5). Conclusion Our results show marked sex differences regarding the receipt of fertility-related information and use of FP. There is an urgent need to develop fertility-related information adapted to female patients with cancer to improve their opportunities to participate in informed decisions regarding their treatment and future reproductive ability.

scholarly journals Fear of cancer recurrence among young adult cancer survivors—exploring long-term contributing factors in a large, population-based cohort

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathrine F. Vandraas ◽  
Kristin V. Reinertsen ◽  
Cecilie E. Kiserud ◽  
Hanne C. Lie
Keyword(s):  
Young Adult ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Fear Of Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Young Adult Cancer Survivors ◽  
Adult Cancer Survivors ◽  
Fear Of Cancer ◽  
Young Adult Cancer

Abstract Purpose Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) may be debilitating, yet knowledge of FCR among the growing population of long-term young adult cancer survivors (YACS) is scarce. We explored risk of FCR and associated factors in a nation-wide, population-based cohort of YACS. Methods All 5-year survivors diagnosed at the ages of 19–39 years with breast cancer (BC), malignant melanoma (MM), colorectal cancer (CRC), leukemia (LEU), or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) between 1985 and 2009 in Norway were identified by the Cancer Registry of Norway and completed the cross-sectional comprehensive NOR-CAYACS health survey. Univariate and multivariate linear regression modeling was performed. Results In total, 936 survivors were included, with an average of 16 years since diagnoses. BC was the most prevalent cancer form (38.4%), followed by MM (24.7%), NHL (15.6%), CRC (11.8%), and LEU (9.6%). Survivors worried most about getting another cancer (74%), and (20%) reported quite a bit or a lot of FCR. BC and MM survivors had the highest FCR scores. Post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) had the strongest association with FCR (Std B 0.21, p < 0.01), above demographic and clinical variables. Conclusions FCR is prevalent even among long-term YACS, including survivors of MM with favorable prognoses. Implications for Cancer Survivors Attention to ongoing risks of PTSS and FCR in this growing survivor population is warranted to optimize future survivorship care.

Rates of diagnostic imaging in long-term survivors of young adult malignancies.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 69-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corinne Daly ◽  
David Urbach ◽  
Therese A. Stukel ◽  
Wayne Deitel ◽  
Paul C. Nathan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Young Adult ◽  
Diagnostic Imaging ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Ct Scanning ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Plain Radiography ◽  
Young Adult Cancer Survivors ◽  
Adult Cancer Survivors

69 Background: In general, clinical practice guidelines do not recommend the use of diagnostic imaging in long-term surveillance of cancer survivors. Although warranted diagnostic imaging has clinical benefits, the overuse of imaging in cancer survivors may lead to false-positive results, more invasive tests, economic burden and unnecessary radiation exposure. The objective of this study was to determine rates of diagnostic imaging in long-term young adult cancer survivors (YAS) compared to cancer-free controls in Ontario, Canada. Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective study. Young adults aged 20 to 44 diagnosed with an invasive malignancy between 1992 and 1999 who lived at least 5 years without recurrent disease were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry. YAS were matched 1:5 to randomly selected cancer-free controls on calendar year of birth, sex, and place of residence. The rate at which YAS received plain radiography, CT, ultrasound and nuclear medicine studies was compared to rates received by controls using Poisson regression. Results: 20,911 survivors and 104,524 controls met our inclusion criteria. YAS received all types of diagnostic imaging at significantly higher rates than controls in the 10 year period after 5-year recurrence-free survival. YAS received CT scanning at a rate 3.6-fold higher than controls (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.37, 3.62). In contract, the difference in rates of ultrasound between the two groups was more modest (rate ratio [RR] = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.38, 1.43). YAS also received plain radiography (RR =1.66, 95% CI: 1.64, 1.69) and nuclear studies (RR=1.97, 95% CI: 1.89, 2.04) at significantly higher rates than controls, resulting in a 4.6-fold adjusted higher diagnostic radiation dose than controls. Conclusions: Survivors received significantly higher rates of all diagnostic studies after 5-year survival compared to their age-matched cancer-free counterparts. Hazards associated with overuse of imaging such as radiation exposure and heightened anxiety about test results need to be considered. Both patients and providers should be educated about the role of diagnostic imaging in long-term surveillance including the utility of studies without radiation, such as ultrasound.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document