Abstract
Purpose:
Our center is known as a pioneer center initiating oncofertility service since 2010 in Japan. We demonstrate our transition of this service in regional university hospitals ingenuously.
Methods:
We compared two phases of service: initial phase (2011 and 2012) and current phase (2019). The comparison included the number of women attending the oncofertility unit, diversity of breast cancer cases, the acceptability of preservation service, and the type of fertility preservation (FP) option offered in between these phases.
Results:
A total of 58 women were seen during the initial phase as compared with 41 women in the later phase. The mean age at diagnosis was not significantly different between the two periods. The majority of them were married and diagnosed with stage II luminar type. The current phase had a tendency to have a higher anti-Müllerian hormone level although not reaching significance. At least 50% of them declined FP and 84.5% never received ovarian control stimulation in the initial phase. Otherwise, 61% used aromatase inhibitor in the current phase. Only 15.5% in the initial phase received control ovarian stimulation whereas 63.4% in the current phase received it. The ovarian tissue cryopreservation was highly chosen during the initial phase (25.9%), whereas embryo cryopreservation (39%) was highly opted for during the current phase. All of our parameters are comparable between these two phases (p > 0.05).
Conclusion:
The significant changes of oncofertility practice were observed mainly due to the understanding of the oncofertility concept among reproductive physicians and the acceptance environment, including standard guidelines, supportive society, as well as advancements in cryobiology technique.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.