MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Barriers to fertility preservation (FP) in a prospective pan-Canadian study of young women with breast cancer (YWBC).

2019· article· en· W2981221787 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ellen Warner, Samantha Yee, Maureen Seminsky, David P. Lipson, Karen Glass, Shu Foong, Erin Kennedy, Steven A. Narod, May Lynn Quan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreMount Sinai HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook HospitalWomen's College HospitalCReATe Fertility CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralFertility preservationFertilityBreast cancerFamily medicineOncofertilityGynecologyCancerDemographyPopulationInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

136 Background: Despite ASCO recommendations that oncologists routinely offer FP to young cancer patients prior to treatment, studies show that only a minority of YWBC are given this option. We sought to determine whether an intervention, including educational materials and regular reminders to breast surgeons, would improve FP referral. The current report examines the rates of FP discussion, referral, uptake and reasons for declining, according to participants’ self-reported pre-diagnosis fertility plans. Methods: Consecutive women ≤ age 40 newly diagnosed with breast cancer at 30 Canadian sites were offered enrolment in a national study of YWBC. At 3 months each participant was surveyed regarding her pre-diagnosis (dx) fertility plans and post-dx oncofertility management. Results: Of the 712 recruits (09/15 to 08/18) with invasive disease (mean age 36), 46%, 15% and 29% had 0, 1 or 2 children respectively and 77% were in a stable relationship. Among the 480 women who completed the fertility survey, 392 (82%) indicated they had a pre-treatment fertility discussion initiated by a health care provider (HCP) - in 232 cases (48%) the surgeon/nurse and in 130 cases (27%) the medical oncologist/ nurse. Only 14 (16%) of the 88 women not approached by a HCP initiated such a discussion. Rates of FP discussion, referral and uptake are shown below. Among the 38 women who definitely wanted (more) children prior to dx and were offered FP but declined the consult or procedure, the commonest reasons were cost (n = 9) and fear that treatment delay (n = 8) or FP (n = 4) could cause recurrence. Conclusions: Post-intervention FP discussion rates were higher than previously reported. Yet 26% of patients who had definitely/probably not completed their family were not referred for a FP consult. Cost remains a significant FP barrier. Studies are needed to confirm the long-term safety of FP for ER+ patients. [Table: see text]

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicReproductive Biology and Fertility→French-language works237,207→