How Can We Improve Oncofertility Care for Patients? A Systematic Scoping Review of Current International Practice and Models of Care

© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. BACKGROUND: Fertility preservation (FP) is an important quality of life issue for cancer survivors of reproductive age. Despite the existence of broad international guidelines, the delivery of oncofertility care, particularly amongst paediatric, adolescent and young adult patients, remains a challenge for healthcare professionals (HCPs). The quality of oncofertility care is variable and the uptake and utilization of FP remains low. Available guidelines fall short in providing adequate detail on how oncofertility models of care (MOC) allow for the real-world application of guidelines by HCPs. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the components of oncofertility care as defined by patient and clinician representatives, and identify the barriers, facilitators and challenges, so as to improve the implementation of oncofertility services. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic scoping review was conducted on oncofertility MOC literature published in English between 2007 and 2016, relating to 10 domains of care identified through consumer research: communication, oncofertility decision aids, age-appropriate care, referral pathways, documentation, training, supportive care during treatment, reproductive care after cancer treatment, psychosocial support and ethical practice of oncofertility care. A wide range of electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, AEIPT, Education Research Complete, ProQuest and VOCED) were searched in order to synthesize the evidence around delivery of oncofertility care. Related citations and reference lists were searched. The review was undertaken following registration (International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42017055837) and guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). OUTCOMES: A total of 846 potentially relevant studies were identified after the removal of duplicates. All titles and abstracts were screened by a single reviewer and the final 147 papers were screened by two reviewers. Ten papers on established MOC were identified amongst the included papers. Data were extracted from each paper and quality scores were then summarized in the oncofertility MOC summary matrix. The results identified a number of themes for improving MOC in each domain, which included: the importance of patients receiving communication that is of a higher quality and in different formats on their fertility risk and FP options; improving provision of oncofertility care in a timely manner; improving access to age-appropriate care; defining the role and scope of practice of all HCPs; and improving communication between different HCPs. Different forms of decision aids were found useful for assisting patients to understand FP options and weigh up choices. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This analysis identifies core components for delivery of oncofertility MOC. The provision of oncofertility services requires planning to ensure services have safe and reliable referral pathways and that they are age-appropriate and include medical and psychological oncofertility care into the survivorship period. In order for this to happen, collaboration needs to occur between clinicians, allied HCPs and executives within paediatric and adult hospitals, as well as fertility clinics across both public and private services. Training of both cancer and non-cancer HCPs is needed to improve the knowledge of HCPs, the quality of care provided and the confidence of HCPs with these consultations

Méthodologie de l'évaluation des médicaments chez la femme enceinte

Objet de réticences diverses, la prescription médicamenteuse chez la femme enceinte répond pourtant à une absolue nécessité dans un certain nombre de cas. Une évaluation correcte du médicament s'impose donc, axée sur l'efficacité et la sécurité ou essentiellement sur la sécurité, selon l'expérience disponible en dehors de la grossesse. La méthodologie d'évaluation ne répond pas nécessairement à des caractéristiques particulières. Des recommandations de développement sont formulées suivant les situations les plus fréquentes ainsi que des propositions concrètes, pour permettre une meilleure sensibilisation des différents partenaires de santé impliqués (institutions, industriels et prescripteurs). En particulier, des incitations d'ordre réglementaire et économique, superposables à celles adoptées en Europe et aux Etats-Unis pour les maladies orphelines, devraient être mises en place pour favoriser l'évaluation obstétricale du médicament

Methodology for the Evaluation of Drugs in Pregnant Women

Although drugs are prescribed during pregnancy with some reluctance, they fulfil a real need in some circumstances. Adequate drug evaluation is thus essential, either based on efficacy and safety or mainly safety, using available data from non-pregnant women. Evaluation methodology is not fundamentally different during pregnancy. Recommendations for drug development are formulated on the basis of the most common situations as well as specific suggestions, thus raising the awareness of the different partners participating in healthcare (institutions, the pharmaceutical industry and prescribers). In particular, regulatory and economic incentives superimposed upon those recommendations adopted in Europe and the US for orphan diseases should be put into place to assist in the evaluation of drugs used in obstetrics. Medical needs in obstetrics should be better identified, and labelling of drugs for use during pregnancy should be better directed towards prescribers; a national registry of pregnancies should be established in France

Méthodologie des essais cliniques de petits effectifs

International audienceSmall clinical trials are trials in which the number of patients does not enable the objective of the study to be appropriately met with the usual methodological rules. This situation is common in the case of rare diseases, in paediatrics, in certain cancer pathologies or when the number of patients exposed to the treatment needs to be limited. The principal methodological problems are initially identified, and the classical methods (controlled, randomised, double-blind trial using parallel groups, crossover trial, factorial design, trial performed with several measures repeated over time, add-on design, randomised withdrawal design or early-escape design) and more uncommon methods (sequential approaches, meta-analyses, the 'N of 1' method and other methods that facilitate decision making or modelling) are then discussed. Subsequently, recommendations are made to ensure that the results obtained are not a matter of chance, and to increase the level of proof.Les essais cliniques de petits effectifs sont les essais dont le nombre de patients ne permet pas de répondre de manière correcte à l’objectif d’une étude avec les règles méthodologiques communément appliquées. Cette situation est fréquente dans le cas de maladies rares, en pédiatrie, dans certaines pathologies cancérologiques ou lorsque l’on souhaite limiter le nombre de patients exposés au traitement. Après avoir identifié les principaux problèmes méthodologiques, sont abordées les méthodes classiques (essai contrôlé, randomisé et réalisé en double insu sur deux groupes parallèles, essai croisé, plan factoriel, essai réalisé avec plusieurs mesures répétées dans le temps, plan additionnel, plan de retrait aléatoire ou plan d’échappement précoce) et les méthodes moins usuelles (approches séquentielles, méta-analyses, méthode « N of 1 » et autres méthodes d’aide à la décision ou de modélisation). Des recommandations sont ensuite proposées pour s’assurer que les résultats obtenus ne sont pas le fait du hasard et augmenter le niveau de preuve

Méthodologie des essais cliniques de petits effectifs

Les essais cliniques de petits effectifs sont les essais dont le nombre de patients ne permet pas de répondre de manière correcte à l'objectif d'une étude avec les règles méthodologiques communément appliquées. Cette situation est fréquente dans le cas de maladies rares, en pédiatrie, dans certaines pathologies cancérologiques ou lorsque l'on souhaite limiter le nombre de patients exposés au traitement. Après avoir identifié les principaux problèmes méthodologiques, sont abordées les méthodes classiques (essai contrôlé, randomisé et réalisé en double insu sur deux groupes parallèles, essai croisé, plan factoriel, essai réalisé avec plusieurs mesures répétées dans le temps, plan additionnel, plan de retrait aléatoire ou plan d'échappement précoce) et les méthodes moins usuelles (approches séquentielles, méta-analyses, méthode "N of 1" et autres méthodes d'aide à la décision ou de modélisation). Des recommandations sont ensuite proposées pour s'assurer que les résultats obtenus ne sont pas le fait du hasard et augmenter le niveau de preuve

Methodology for Small Clinical Trials

Small clinical trials are trials in which the number of patients does not enable the objective of the study to be appropriately met with the usual methodological rules. This situation is common in the case of rare diseases, in paediatrics, in certain cancer pathologies or when the number of patients exposed to the treatment needs to be limited. The principal methodological problems are initially identified, and the classical methods (controlled, randomised, double-blind trial using parallel groups, crossover trial, factorial design, trial performed with several measures repeated over time, add-on design, randomised withdrawal design or early-escape design) and more uncommon methods (sequential approaches, meta-analyses, the "N of 1" method and other methods that facilitate decision making or modelling) are then discussed. Subsequently, recommendations are made to ensure that the results obtained are not a matter of chance, and to increase the level of proof

Fertility preservation and cancer: How many persons are concerned?

International audienceOBJECTIVE:A significant proportion of cancer survivors experience chronic health sequelae, one of them being fertility impairment. However, even if many reports, guidelines and positions papers focus on fertility preservation and its needs, access to fertility preservation is not currently offered to all the patients concerned, and the targeted population is not well counted.STUDY DESIGN:A cross sectional study was conducted using the French cancer cohort, a cohort covering the whole French population and including around 7 million of cancer patients. Women under the age of 40 and men under the age of 60 included in the cancer cohort in 2013 who had, in the first year, cancer surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy were considered. Patients treated by surgery alone for cancers in locations distant from the reproductive organs, or being treated for a cancer the past 3 years were excluded. The number of patients concerned by fertility preservation was estimated at a national and regional level, and by cancer types.RESULTS:40,000 patients - 30,000 men under the age of 60 years and 10,000 women under the age of 40 years - were identified. A second estimation concerning women under the age of 35 and men under 50 reduced the number of patients to 17,200-10,400 men and 6800 women. The most frequent locations were malignant neoplasm of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue, lung cancer, cervix uteri, prostate and colorectal cancer. In 2014, around 5 400 persons had a preservation.CONCLUSION:Around 17,200 cancer patients of reproductive age should be informed about the fertility preservation options available. Medical professionals have to better integrate in their daily practice fertility preservation

From single-arm studies to externally controlled studies. Methodological considerations and guidelines

International audienceSingle-arm studies are sometimes used as pivotal studies but they have methodological limitations which prevent them from obtaining the high level of reliability as for a randomised controlled study which remains the gold standard in the evaluation of new treatments. The objective of this roundtable was to discuss the limitations of these single-arm studies, to analyse available and acceptable solutions in order to propose guidelines for their conduct and assessment. Single-arm studies themselves are intrinsically inappropriate for demonstrating the benefit of a new treatment because it is impossible to infer the benefit from a value obtained under treatment without knowing what it would have been in the absence of the new treatment. The implication is that comparison with other data is necessary. However this comparison has limitations due to (1) the post hoc choice of the reference used for comparison, (2) the confusion bias for which an adjustment approach is imperative and, (3) the other biases, measure and attrition among others. When these limitations are taken into account this should, first and foremost, lead to the conduct of externally controlled trials instead of single-arm trials as is proposed by the latest version of ICH E10. Moreover, the external control must be formalised in the study protocol with a priori selection of both the reference control and the formal method of comparison test in relation to a standard, adjustment on individual data, a synthetic control group or matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC). Lastly, externally controlled studies must be restricted to situations where randomisation is infeasible. To be acceptable, these studies must be able to guarantee freedom from residual confusion bias, which is only truly acceptable if the observed effect is dramatic and the usual course of the disease is highly predicable