Fertility preservation options for children and adolescents with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cancer in children and adolescents has seen a stark rise in survival rates in the last decades; overall survival in excess of 80% can be reasonably expected for many newly diagnosed patients with malignancies in this age group. Survivorship has unfolded several specific issues faced by these patients, including fertility concerns. Hence, fertility preservation efforts have been discussed and undertaken with increased frequency. METHODS: In this article, the authors provide a broad overview of the current recommendations surrounding fertility preservation in this patient population. Reasons to offer fertility preservation, target groups for interventions, and methods available based on age group and gender are discussed in detail. RESULTS: The medical literature and patient advocates strongly support a discussion about fertility preservation at the time of diagnosis; the risk of infertility is real and parents and families wish to be informed about it. In postpubertal males, sperm-banking is relatively straightforward and should be attempted by most newly diagnosed patients, ideally before commencement of treatment. Cryopreservation of testicular tissue in higher-risk prepubertal males is feasible, but still experimental. Female fertility preservation is more complex, requires more invasive procedures, and can delay initiation of treatment due to the requirement for hormone stimulation of follicles prior to harvesting. CONCLUSIONS: Oncofertility initiatives in children and youth are still in their early days and will continue to expand; urologists should be prepared to offer counselling and interventions when appropriate to this growing vulnerable population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".