Poster Session
Context: For many young cancer survivors, the ability to have biological children is a significant goal and concern. FP has being used routinely for relatively few years. Despite the ASCO guidelines, many cancer patients do not receive enough information about FP. Objetive: To evaluate first five years of development of a fertility preservation (FP) public program. Methods: Observational and retrospective study from 2013 to 2017 in a Spanish region over 1 million of habitants. Male and female patients who attended for FP are included. Patients: A total of 184 male and female patients were enrolled in this observational study since we started the FP program five years ago. Main Outcome Measures: We analyse: number of patients who receive information for FP, number of patients who undergo FP techniques, techniques employed and number of patients that return to use their gametes. Results: From 2013 to 2017, we attended 184 patients ( 62 women and 122 men) who asked about FP options. Most prevalent female indication were breast cancer (64,28%) and Hodgkin disease (14,28%). For no oncological indications, endometriosis was the most common. Male indications were testicular tumors (61.22%), hematological diseases (36%) and chromosomal disorders (Klinnefelter´s syndrome 2,04%). 89.85% opted to undergo treatment. There were significative differences between female (63%) and male (98%) percentages. Women´s reasons for not undergoin FP were lack of time to complete controlled ovarian hiperstimulation and lack of oncologist´s agreement. Techiques employed were oocyte vitrification as first option or embryo preservation (if there was low number of oocytes and partner´s agreement). Ovarian cortex preservation and ovarian transplantation are not legaly allowed at our hospital. All men used sperm banking. So far, only two male and a female, have returned to use their gametes or embryos. There was a pregnancy with a female newborn from one of the male cases. Conclusions: Not enough time has elapsed to evaluate the cost effectives results of FP techniques, but the simple fact of undergoing FP improves the patient´s experience with oncological treatments. There are gender disparities. Futures studies could examine the reasons physicians are less likely to adress FP with women (higher costs and the time needed for common methods). FP for oncological reasons seems out of question, but recomendations should be individualized.