Clinical Practice Guideline-Inconsistent Management of Fertility Preservation in Pediatric Cancer Patients in Community Settings: A Children’s Oncology Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The primary objective was to measure adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations for fertility preservation (FP) in pediatric cancer patients treated in National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites. Secondary objectives were to describe factors such as site size associated with CPG-inconsistent care delivery and cryopreservation completion. Methods:This retrospective, multicenter study included patients 15 to 21 years old with a first cancer diagnosis from January 2014 through December 2015 who were previously enrolled to a Children’s Oncology Group (COG) study and received care at a participating NCORP site. Patients were randomly selected from a list generated by the COG for chart review by participating sites. Primary outcome was care delivery that was inconsistent with a strong CPG recommendation on FP, namely discussion and offering of FP options before cancer treatment initiation, as adjudicated centrally by a panel. Results:A total of 129 patients from 25 sites were included. Among these, 48% (62/129) received CPG-inconsistent care. Most CPG-inconsistent care was due to lack of FP discussion documentation (93.5%, 58/62). Small site size, treatment at a pediatric (vs mixed adult/pediatric) site, and female sex were associated with higher odds of CPG-inconsistent care delivery. Conclusions:Newly diagnosed pediatric cancer patients often received CPG-inconsistent care for FP, with disproportionate gaps noted for females, and those treated at smaller or pediatric NCORP sites. The primary reason for CPG-inconsistent care is lack of FP discussion from clinicians. Opportunities to improve FP CPG implementation are highlighted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".