NCT04268004

Fertility Preservation in Male AYA With Cancer

Optimizing Fertility Preservation and Decision Quality in Male AYA With Cancer: A Family-centered Intervention

• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 53 (actual)
• Sponsor: Leena Nahata · Academic / Other
• Sex: Male
• Age: 12 Years – 25 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

Very little is known about how medical providers can help adolescent and young adults (AYAs) and their caregivers make decisions about fertility preservation (sperm banking) before beginning cancer treatment. The purpose of this study is to see if having a guided conversation about fertility preservation increases preservation rates and/or satisfaction with the decision among AYA males with cancer. The primary hypothesis is that compared to standard of care control group (routine fertility consult at diagnosis, n=20), AYAs in the intervention arm (routine fertility consult at diagnosis + FP Decision Tool and Facilitated Conversation by trained interventionist) will have higher rates of FP uptake. The secondary hypothesis is that families in the intervention group will report better FP decision quality compared to those in the control arm.

Detailed description

A rapidly growing population of male childhood cancer survivors are at risk for infertility and distress. As the number of male cancer survivors rises, it is essential to minimize treatment late effects. One of the most prevalent and significant complications among males is infertility, which can impair psychosocial development and reduce quality of life. National guidelines emphasize offering fertility preservation (FP) prior to initiation of cancer therapy, and sperm cryopreservation is an established and generally noninvasive FP method for pubertal males. Early research suggested only males receiving high doses of alkylating agents should bank sperm. However, variable sperm counts following equivalent doses of cyclophosphamide and scenarios in which patients have to move quickly from "low risk" treatments (which transiently impair sperm production) to "high risk" treatments, support the premise that all males receiving chemotherapy and/or gonadal radiation should consider FP at diagnosis. Despite studies showing \~50% of male childhood cancer survivors have fertility impairment, reports from many centers show only \~25% of pubertal males bank sperm prior to treatment. As survivors enter their reproductive years, many regret missed opportunities for FP and experience distress about potential infertility. Thus, interventions to improve FP uptake would have great potential for reproductive and psychological benefit. Individual and family factors associated with sperm banking decisions remain poorly understood. Young age, cost, inadequate knowledge, and urgency to start treatment are common barriers to FP among AYA males with newly diagnosed cancer. As a result, most fertility counseling and FP interventions have targeted healthcare providers and systems or provider-patient interactions. While these are critical factors, less than half of male AYA advised about FP in a recent study actually banked sperm, indicating knowledge is not sufficient. The purpose of this study is to test a decision tool and accompanying guided discussion as a method of improving decision making regarding FP, compared to a standard of care fertility consult.

Conditions

• Infertility, Male

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
BEHAVIORAL	FP Decision Tool and Discussion	The intervention will be administered by a trained interventionist. The interventionist will administer the digital FP Decision Tool to families in the intervention arm. The tool asks questions examining each AYA's thoughts or feelings regarding parenthood and fertility preservation. The parent version asks the same questions, plus additional questions asking the parent to rate their son's feelings on certain topics (i.e., whether their son wants to have a child, whether their son would be as happy with an adopted child versus a biological child). Items are coded based on the domains of the Health Belief Model (perceived benefits, perceived barriers, perceived threats, self-efficacy, and cues to action). Items are scored and the trained interventionist will facilitate a guided discussion based on the family's responses and discrepancies.

Timeline

• Start date: 2021-02-08
• Primary completion: 2024-01-04
• Completion: 2025-06-01
• First posted: 2020-02-13
• Last updated: 2025-07-29
• Results posted: 2025-07-01

Locations

1 site across 1 country: United States