eISSN: 1897-4309
ISSN: 1428-2526
Contemporary Oncology/Współczesna Onkologia
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Supplements Addendum Special Issues Editorial board Reviewers Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Publication charge Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
3/2024
vol. 28
 
Share:
Share:
Original paper

Exploring the perspectives of female cancer patients on the donation of reproductive cells for fertility preservation and research purposes

Justyna Czekajewska
1
,
Dariusz Walkowiak
2
,
Rodryg Ramlau
3
,
Jan Domaradzki
1

  1. Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
  2. Department of Organisation and Management in Health Care, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
  3. Department of Oncology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
Contemp Oncol (Pozn) 2024; 28 (3): 217–226
Online publish date: 2024/10/15
Article file
Get citation
 
PlumX metrics:
 

Introduction

Cancer morbidity and mortality in Poland have been on the increase since 2010 and are 15% higher than the European Union average [1]. Apart from such common risk factors as alcohol, smoking, unhealthy diet, and family history of cancer, high rates of cancer in women are also caused by the postponement of motherhood from between 20–30 years to approximately 40 years, genetic predisposition (especially the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes), genetic anomalies of reproductive cells, no history of pregnancy or menstrual issues, use of contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy, and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection [24].

However, people’s fertility is also affected by the use of anti-cancer therapies, e.g. radio-chemotherapy, which not only destroys diseased cells but also has a damaging effect on healthy tissue and reproductive cells, leading to the disruption of reproductive functions [5]. Many chemotherapy drugs, especially those with high gonadotoxicity and radiotherapy, also deplete the ovarian reserve and destroy the growing population of ovarian follicles, which results in premature ovarian insufficiency [59]. Resumption of the menstrual cycle after completion of treatment indicates the maintenance of some ovarian function but does not guarantee fertility [5].

In Poland, following the recommendations of the Working Group on the Preservation of Fertility in Oncological Patients of the Polish Oncological Society in 2017, the cryopreservation of ovarian tissue should be used only in centres with appropriate experience by protocols approved by the Bioethics Committee [10]. There are currently 138 centres of medically assisted reproduction and banks of reproductive cells and embryos throughout the country, and they examine the causes of infertility, supporting fertility and preventing the loss of reproductive capacities [11]. Biomedical procedures such as the freezing of reproductive cells and tissues (ovarian tissues and unfertilised oocytes, testicular tissue and sperm, embryos) are used as fertility preservation methods in patients before oncological and gonadotoxic treatment [3, 12] because they help prevent the loss of fertility as a side effect of anti-cancer therapies.

The storage of eggs, sperm, and embryos in Poland is regulated by the Infertility Treatment Act and the Regulation of the Minister of Health of 15 October 2015, which state that human biological samples may be collected, stored, and distributed in biorepositories only as a part of a medically assisted procreation procedure. Simultaneously, while reproductive tissues cannot be transferred for other purposes (art. 45), on the donor’s request, surplus reproductive cells may be used for research purposes (art. 19) [13, 14]. At the same time, although these regulations protect donors and their biological material, they contain no detailed ethical or legal regulations regarding such vital issues as the transfer of reproductive material (cells and tissues) for research purposes and their preservation for reproductive purposes. This study, therefore, explores the attitudes of female cancer patients on the donation of cancer and reproductive cells for scientific and fertility research.

Material and methods

Study design

While this research is part of a larger project on the attitudes of oncology patients towards the biobanking of human biological material for research purposes [15], this study seeks to understand female cancer patients’ views on their willingness to donate cancer tissue and reproductive cells for both fertility preservation and research purposes. The data stem from an anonymous, self- administered pen-and-paper survey.

Participants and surroundings

The study involved 373 female cancer patients from 2 hospitals with oncology treatment units in Poznań. The survey was administered between 1 February and 30 June 2023.

The following inclusion criteria were used: participants had to be at least 18 years of age, have been diagnosed with cancer, be willing to participate in the survey, and provide written informed consent before completing the study.

Research tools

After having reviewed the literature on cancer patients’ perception of donating to cancer research, the questionnaire used in this study was developed with the assistance of several experts in the fields of oncology, public health, medical sociology, and bioethics in accordance with the guidelines of the European Statistical System [16]. The initial questionnaire was pilot tested on 20 cancer patients, resulting in the reformulation of 3 questions.

The questionnaire consisted of 3 parts. The first asked questions on female cancer patients’ opinions on the donation of cancer tissue and reproductive cells, including embryos, for research purposes. The second part included questions about preserving reproductive cells, including embryos, for reproductive purposes. The last part of the questionnaire included questions about the patients’ demographic characteristics and their disease.

All questions were designed as closed-ended items, offering respondents a limited set of predefined and straightforward answers to choose from. The survey questions were designed to elicit responses on a scale from Definitely no to Definitely yes, allowing participants to express the strength of their opinions.

Data collection

While convenience sampling was used in this study, the questionnaire was collected from women with cancer on 5 clinical wards at the Institute of Oncology of the University Clinical Hospital in Poznan (the Oncology Ward, the Gynaecological Oncology Ward, the Surgical Oncology Ward, the Clinical and Experimental Oncology Ward, and the Chemotherapy Ward) and the Outpatient Clinic and the Division of Gynaecological Oncology at the Gynaecological and Obstetrics Clinical Hospital of the Poznan University of Medical Sciences.

Before engaging in the survey, all respondents were instructed by one research team (JC) member on the study’s purpose and character. After providing written informed consent, all respondents completed the questionnaire using pen and paper with the assistance of the same research team member (JC). It took approximately 8–10 minutes to complete the survey.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics summarised participant responses, and Tables 1 and 2 show the distribution using counts and percentages. Statistical analysis was performed using JASP 0.18.1, with significance levels set at 0.05 and no imputation for missing data. Table 3 examined interrelationships among variables through odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to assess precision. The dependent variable was the likelihood of non-participation, and the independent variables included demographic factors, attitudes toward donation, and other pertinent variables from Table 1. Based on the p-value, the Vovk-Sellke maximum p-ratio (VS-MPR) also determined the maximum possible odds in favour of H1 over H0, equalling 1/[–e p log(p)] for p ≤ 0.37. Responses were consolidated to achieve statistical significance in cases of fragmented answers or small respondent groups. Respondents were categorised by the importance of religion in their lives, educational attainment, and places of residence (more than 100,000 vs. fewer than 100,000 inhabitants). Age groups were established using the median, creating categories for those above and below the median.

Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of female cancer patients

CharacteristicsNPercentage
Number of respondents373100
Patient’s age (in years)
Range19–78
Median50
IQR (1–3)42–60
Mean (95% CI)50.8 (49.6–52.1)
SD (95% CI)12.4 (11.6–13.2)
Education
Primary school51.3
Vocational school4211.3
High school11230
University20956
Medical university41.1
Missing10.3
Place of residence
Up to 10,000 inhabitants10728.7
10,000–50,000 inhabitants7219.3
51,000–100,000 inhabitants4111
101,000–500,000 inhabitants5113.7
above 500,000 inhabitants10227.3
Having children
Yes30581.8
No6617.7
Missing20.5
Planning offspring
Yes4913.1
No32486.9
Stage of oncological disease
0 (pre-invasive cancer)4512.1
1 (cancer in its early stages of development)10728.7
2 (intermediate stage cancer)9625.7
3 (advanced cancer)8623.1
4 (very advanced cancer with distant metastases)3910.4
Role of religion in one’s life
Significant9124.4
Rather significant11029.5
Little10828.9
None6417.2
Family history of oncological diseases
Yes25468.1
No/I don’t know11831.6
Missing10.3

Results

The patients’ ages ranged from 19 to 78 years, the median age was 50, and the mean age was 50.8 (Table 1). The level of education varied, with the majority (56%) having completed higher education. Respondents were scattered across various urban areas, with the most significant percentage living in areas with up to 10,000 inhabitants (28.7). While 81.8% declared having children, 13.1% said they were planning to have children. The distribution of tumour stages varied, with the majority being stages 1 and 2 (28.7% and 25.7%, respectively). 24.4% considered religion important in their lives, and 17.2% thought it unimportant. 68.1% of women reported cancer history in their families.

73.4% of respondents favoured allowing the donation of reproductive cells for scientific purposes, and 62.5% believed that these issues should be regulated by Polish law (Table 2). Whereas 87.9% of respondents declared the will to share their tumour sample collected during a test or procedure for fertility research, 82.3% would not donate their reproductive cells for research purposes. Similarly, 88.2% of women expressed a negative attitude towards donating embryos that remain after in vitro treatment for research purposes.

Table 2

Female cancer patients’ opinions on the issue of reproductive cell donation for research and reproductive purposes

CharacteristicsNPercentage
Should issues related to the donation of reproductive cells for research purposes be allowed in Poland?
Definitely yes14939.9
Rather yes12533.5
I do not know8222
Rather no82.1
Definitely no92.4
Should issues related to the donation of reproductive cells for research purposes be legally regulated?
Yes23362.5
No256.7
I don’t know11530.8
Would you consent to a cancer sample collected during an examination or procedure being used for fertility research?
Definitely yes22861.1
Rather yes10026.8
I do not know308
Rather no61.6
Definitely no92.4
Would you be willing to donate reproductive cells for research purposes?
Yes6617.7
No30782.3
Would you be willing to donate embryos that remain after in vitro treatment for research purposes?
Yes4411.8
No32988.2
Would you like to be able to freeze fertilised eggs before beginning cancer treatment?
Yes21357.1
No5915.8
I do not know10026.8
Missing10.3
Should egg freezing and sperm freezing in cancer patients be reimbursed by the National Health Fund?
Yes27674
No123.2
I do not know8222
Missing30.8

Simultaneously, while 57.1% were willing to freeze fertilised eggs before beginning cancer treatment, only 15.8% would refuse. Moreover, 74% believed that the National Health Fund (NHF) should reimburse the freezing of eggs and sperm in cancer patients, 3.2% disagreed, and 22% were unsure.

Table 3 presents OR, 95% CI, and p-values for factors influencing women’s views on the legal regulation of reproductive cell research in Poland. The findings indicate that the most important factors associated with female cancer patients’ support for reproductive cell donation were education and religiosity. Respondents with higher education were more eager to support the donation of reproductive cells (OR = 1.976, 95% CI: 1.239–3.155, p < 0.01) and its legal regulation (OR = 2.287, 95% CI: 1.489–3.513, p < 0.001). Similarly, patients with higher education (OR = 1.809, 95% CI: 1.126–2.905, p < 0.05) and those declaring as non-religious (OR = 2.534, 95% CI: 1.535–4.183, p < 0.001) were more willing to support the reimbursement for egg and sperm freezing by the National Health Fund. The stage of the disease does not significantly impact female cancer patients’ opinions on the legal regulation of reproductive cell research in Poland.

Table 3

Female cancer patients’ opinions on the issue of the legal regulation of research using reproductive cells in Poland according to demographic variables and stage of the disease

CharacteristicOR95% CIp-valueVS-MPR
Should issues related to the donation of reproductive cells for scientific and research purposes be allowed in Poland?
Age1.3000.820–2.060ns1.046
Education (higher vs. other)1.9761.239–3.155< 0.0116.821
Place of residence (bigger vs. smaller)2.1281.293–3.496< 0.0123.415
Parenthood status0.8700.469–1.613ns1.000
Family planning0.5000.226–1.107ns1.790
Role of religion in life (non-religious vs. religious)1.6291.016–2.604< 0.052.770
Family history of oncological diseases0.7990.491–1.299ns1.000
Stage of oncological disease
  0 (pre-invasive cancer)1.000
  1 (cancer in its early stages of development)0.6790.301–1.535ns1.001
  2 (intermediate stage cancer)0.8910.396–2.001ns1.000
  3 (advanced cancer)0.7830.337–1.822ns1.000
  4 (very advanced cancer with distant metastases)0.7910.292–2.147ns1.000
Should issues related to the donation of reproductive cells for scientific and research purposes be legally regulated?
Age0.8250.542–1.256ns1.000
Education (higher vs. other)2.2871.489–3.513< 0.001298.537
Place of residence1.2950.843–1.990ns1.077
Parenthood status0.7880.459–1.353ns1.000
Family planning1.2790.676–2.420ns1.000
Role of religion in life0.8940.587–1.361ns1.000
Family history of oncological diseases1.4860.952–2.321ns1.809
Stage of oncological disease
  0 (pre-invasive cancer)
  1 (cancer in its early stages of development)1.1790.561–2.479ns1.000
  2 (intermediate stage cancer)1.1710.548–2.501ns1.078
  3 (advanced cancer)1.6140.730–3.571ns1.000
  4 (very advanced cancer with distant metastases)1.0780.424–2.738ns1.000
In your opinion, should egg freezing and sperm freezing in cancer patients be reimbursed by the National Health Fund?
Age0.6590.412–1.055ns1.801
Education (higher vs. other)1.8091.126–2.905< 0.056.278
Place of residence1.3380.825–2.245ns1.077
Parenthood status0.7820.431–1.419ns1.000
Family planning1.8760.845–4.161ns1.465
Role of religion in life (non-religious vs. religious)2.5341.535–4.183< 0.001201.500
Family history of oncological diseases1.1990.728–1.974ns1.000
Stage of oncological disease
  0 (pre-invasive cancer)1.000
  1 (cancer in its early stages of development)1.4470.638–3.282ns1.001
  2 (intermediate stage cancer)2.3380.983–5.560ns2.329
  3 (advanced cancer)1.3430.573–3.146ns1.000
  4 (very advanced cancer with distant metastases)1.1140.415–2.992ns1.000

[i] ns – not significant, significant result are written in bold

Table 4 presents OR, 95% CI, and p-values for factors influencing women’s views on donating reproductive cells for research and fertility preservation. The findings demonstrate that female cancer patients’ opinions were associated with age, education, family planning, and religiosity. Patients who were more willing to freeze fertilised eggs before cancer treatment were younger (OR = 0.516, 95% CI: 0.340–0.782, p < 0.01), more highly educated (OR = 2.132, 95% CI: 1.400–3.248, p < 0.001), non-religious (OR = 1.968, 95% CI: 1.292–2.996, p < 0.01), and planned future offspring (OR = 2.284, 95% CI: 1.168–4.468, p < 0.05). Similarly, female cancer patients who planned future offspring (OR = 5.780, 95% CI: 1.368–24.390, p < 0.01) and declared themselves as non-religious (OR = 2.040, 95% CI: 1.185–3.510, p < 0.01) were more willing to donate reproductive cells for research purposes. Finally, younger patients declared the will to donate embryos left after in vitro treatment more often (OR = 0.470, 95% CI: 0.240–0.918, p < 0.05). The stage of disease did not significantly impact female cancer patients’ opinions on donating reproductive cells for research or fertility preservation.

Table 4

Female cancer patients’ opinions on the issue of the donation of reproductive cells for research purposes and the preservation of fertility in Poland according to demographic variables and stage of the disease

CharacteristicOR95% CIp-valueVS-MPR
Would you like to be able to freeze fertilized eggs before beginning cancer treatment?
Age (older vs. younger)0.5160.340–0.782< 0.0133.160
Education (higher vs. other)2.1321.400–3.248< 0.001120.858
Place of residence1.1450.753–1.740ns1.000
Parenthood status1.3610.785–2.360ns1.040
Family planning (planning to have children vs. not)2.2841.168–4.468< 0.056.215
Role of religion in life (non-religious vs. religious)1.9681.292–2.996< 0.0137.543
Family history of oncological diseases (oncological diseases vs. others)1.6361.053–2.542< 0.053.675
Stage of oncological disease
  0 (pre-invasive cancer)1.000
  1 (cancer in its early stages of development)1.4640.693–3.093ns1.010
  2 (intermediate-stage cancer)2.1290.986–4.598ns2.321
  3 (advanced cancer)1.5300.701–3.339ns1.028
  4 (very advanced cancer with distant metastases)1.8900.747–4.783ns1.195
Would you consent to a cancer sample collected during an examination or procedure being used for fertility research?
Age0.6640.352–1.254ns1.133
Education1.0630.528–2.017ns1.000
Place of residence1.1110.583–2.118ns1.000
Parenthood status2.2360.770–6.492ns1.388
Family planning0.7760.325–1.853ns1.000
Role of religion in life1.0240.544–1.926ns1.000
Family history of oncological diseases1.0010.509–1.967ns1.000
Stage of oncological disease
  0 (pre-invasive cancer)1.000
  1 (cancer in its early stages of development)1.1040.380–3.208ns1.000
  2 (intermediate stage cancer)1.3060.433–3.934ns1.000
  3 (advanced cancer)1.6690.512–5.445ns1.000
  4 (very advanced cancer with distant metastases)2.2300.491–10.135ns1.021
Would you be willing to donate reproductive cells for research purposes?
Age0.6140.356–1.059ns1.854
Education0.8750.512–1.493ns1.000
Place of residence1.4470.848–2.468ns1.209
Parenthood status0.6870.321–1.468ns1.005
Family planning (planning to have children vs. not)5.7801.368–24.390< 0.0110.153
Role of religion in life (non-religious vs. religious)2.0401.185–3.510< 0.018.511
Family history of oncological diseases0.7760.444–1.355ns1.000
Stage of oncological disease
  0 (pre-invasive cancer)1.000
  1 (cancer in its early stages of development)1.1880.412–3.424ns1.000
  2 (intermediate stage cancer)2.0160.715–5.689ns1.178
  3 (advanced cancer)1.1670.391–3.483ns1.000
  4 (very advanced cancer with distant metastases)1.7200.484–6.119ns1.000
Would you be willing to donate embryos that remain after in vitro treatment for research purposes?
Age (older vs. younger)0.4700.240–0.918< 0.054.045
Education0.9800.519–1.850ns1.000
Place of residence1.2280.652–2.313ns1.000
Parenthood status1.0310.455–2.333ns1.000
Family planning0.2860.067–1.220ns1.935
Role of religion in life1.4680.780–2.761ns1.085
Family history of oncological diseases1.1230.564–2.234ns1.000
Stage of oncological disease
  0 (pre-invasive cancer)1.000
  1 (cancer in its early stages of development)1.2430.361–4.286ns1.000
  2 (intermediate stage cancer)1.8600.556–6.224ns1.011
  3 (advanced cancer)1.6140.462–5.637ns1.000
  4 (very advanced cancer with distant metastases)1.4590.320–6.651ns1.000

[i] ns – non-significant, significant results are written in bold

Discussion

Most countries in the European Union have introduced legal regulations that require covering partial or complete financing of procedures for the use of assisted reproduction techniques, along with the possibility for oncological patients to store reproductive cells in biorepositories [18]. The Polish Parliament passed such regulation on 1 June 2024 with an amendment to the act on financing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) from the state budget on 29 November 2023, and people who have cancer are covered by this programme [19].

This research shows that although most women were in favour of donating reproductive cells for research purposes (73.4%), its legal regulation (62.5%), and the transfer of collected cancer samples for fertility research (87.9%), still 88.2% did not approve the use of embryos remaining after the IVF treatment for research purposes. These results are comparable with studies from the United Kingdom [20] showing that while respondents declared themselves willing to donate their cancer samples collected during the study (90%), less than half of the participants were willing to donate spare eggs (women only, 48%) or spare embryos remaining after in IVF treatment (44%) for scientific and research purposes. According to respondents, such research is ethically questionable because there are no detailed legal regulations regarding the embryo being considered spare and intended only for biomedical purposes.

Even documents such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act of 1990 and the amended HFE Act of 2008 lack clear regulations on this subject [21, 22]. As other research conducted by Kirkman has shown, donating eggs for research purposes is a more significant ethical challenge for women than donating sperm for men. One possible reason may be the limited number of eggs a woman has, and the more significant effort and risk required to make them available ex vivo, resulting in a more cautious approach to their use. Women, for example, may prefer to retain excess eggs after IVF for future use rather than donate them to research [23].

This research also showed that if reproductive cells were to be used for reproductive purposes, the ethical objections from cancer patients would be lower. More than half of the respondents claimed they would like to freeze fertilised eggs before beginning cancer treatment (57.1%), and 74% believed this medical procedure should be reimbursed by the NHF in Poland. Education and the role of religion in the respondents’ lives and age also greatly impacted women’s points of view.

Guaranteeing patients’ universal access to fertility preservation methods is a task that researchers and doctors might seek to implement [24]. According to another study that was conducted among 92 women with breast cancer aged 18–40 years, most patients stated that they had not received fertility preservation treatment (87.2%), 50.6% of women received no advice regarding fertility preservation, and 49.3% of patients informed about these options made no such decision because they were advised against getting pregnant. Young women with cancer rarely receive information about the possibility of preserving fertility and are often discouraged from making such a decision. Subsequent studies also confirm these conclusions. Although 90% of oncologists considered it essential to refer cancer patients to an infertility specialist for advice, as many as 86.4% of healthcare professionals failed to do so because, according to 50.5% of respondents, the urgent need to begin therapy was more important, and 34.5% justified the decision by stating that they feared for the health of any future children. Almost half of the respondents (45.6%) were unaware of any possibilities for preserving fertility in women [25]. Another study conducted in the Netherlands among 96 physicians (gynaecologists, oncologists, surgeons, radiotherapists, and haematologists) showed that although 62% of respondents took measures to protect ovarian function before or during gonadotoxic therapy, approximately one-third of oncologists failed to discuss fertility issues with women suffering from cancer due to poor prognosis for their health or the need to begin treatment immediately [26].

The intention among doctors to discuss the effects of gonadotoxic therapy on fertility appeared to be more common in the Netherlands than in the United Kingdom, as shown by the results of research by Anderson et al. Although the impact of cancer treatment on fertility was presented to 63% of younger patients, in practice, methods of fertility protection were used only in 4 girls out of 38 patients who underwent methods of fertility preservation such as oophoropexy, ovarian tissue cryopreservation, oocyte cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, and hormone protection were only discussed. In contrast, in 421 patients, this topic was not discussed at all. The most common reason for the lack of discussion was the fact that, in the opinion of the clinician, the remaining patients were too young (pre-pubertal), the disease was at an advanced stage of development, or, according to the respondents, there was no confirmation of the effectiveness of the techniques of fertility preservation used [27].

This last argument also appeared in the research results of other researchers. According to Rabah, Abu-Rafea, and Arafa, 80% of clinicians believe that cryopreservation is a complicated process and neglect to offer it to their patients [25]. According to Mazur-Roszak et al., cryopreservation of ovarian tissues and oocytes rather than embryos is an innovative, experimental, and invasive method [28].

In addition, the above methods of fertility preservation are also offered to patients with a specific type of cancer, but with certain reservations. According to research carried out by Dolmans et al., in the case of some diseases, such as myeloid leukaemia and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, there is a 33% and 70% risk, respectively, of metastases to the ovaries, so the decision to cryopreserve ovarian tissue with its repeated autograft after the patients’ treatment is considered risky because it may lead to a recurrence of the disease. The researchers, therefore, believe that after thawing the collected biological material, the autotransplantation of ovarian cortical fragments should be abandoned, and in vitro, maturation of primordial follicles should be used, or isolated primordial follicles should be transplanted [29, 30].

One of the latest studies has also shown that in women who are carriers of the BRCA1 mutation, the risk of developing ovarian cancer is between 39% and 46%. In carriers of the BRCA2 mutation, the lifetime risk is between 12–20%, so it is not only recommended that regular screening tests for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer with the CA 125 marker and transvaginal ultrasound be used but also that women who are yet to have children are also offered first hormonal stimulation to collect a more significant number of oocytes, before resection of the ovaries and fallopian tubes and fertility preservation procedures [5, 31].

In addition, patients perceive oncologists as the best specialists who have the most extensive knowledge base about cancer, which is why they would like the information they receive to include fertility preservation issues. However, a recent study conducted in Poland showed that as many as 57% of patients admitted that the oncologist did not inform them about the latest infertility treatment methods. Additionally, only 19% were referred to a specialist for infertility treatment, and of this number, 17% decided to use fertility preservation methods [32]. Similar results were found by Hoffman et al., who showed that only 12% of women with cancer remember a discussion with a physician about preserving fertility [33]. Other studies have also shown that many female cancer patients do not feel adequately supported in making fertility decisions before starting treatment and, therefore, find it stressful [34].

Physicians understand the needs of their patients, but their views on fertility protection largely depend on factors such as the level of knowledge about the effectiveness of fertility protection methods, the patient’s cancer development, and access to infrastructure providing infertility treatment services in a given area/country. For example, a study conducted among British oncologists demonstrated that although 70% of respondents did not perceive the country’s existing infrastructure of fertility services as a primary barrier, 81% feared the effectiveness of fertility preservation methods [35]. A study by Alshamsan et al. also confirmed that 86% of Canadian oncologists were willing to discuss fertility preservation methods with patients. However, their decision to talk depended on the development of the patients’ oncological disease. If it was not advanced, 92.8–100% of doctors declared that they provide their patients with knowledge about fertility preservation methods [36]. However, research conducted in Oman showed that although 78% of oncologists believed that a discussion of the impact of treatment on fertility should be presented along with information about the diagnosis of cancer, and many physicians declared feeling comfortable raising this topic in conversations with their patients, as many as 82% of respondents said that the main obstacle to starting a discussion was the awareness of the lack of access to facilities providing infertility treatment services in the country. In addition, 53% of physicians expressed concerns about having the latest knowledge about effective fertility preservation methods [37].

It is also worth noting that over the last decade, the number of women referred for fertility preservation tests before starting anticancer treatment has been gradually increasing. A recent study conducted among approximately 7000 American oncology patients showed that women received advice on fertility preservation methods more often than men (56% vs. 32%) [38]. This result is similar to the conclusions presented by researchers from Japan, who showed that 48% of teenagers and young women received information about the impact of anticancer therapy on the health of the reproductive organs [39].

The data shows that oncologists from various regions of the world increasingly express the need to develop knowledge in the field of fertility preservation and learn new effective methods of communication with patients because they want to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary stress, as well as to provide factual information about methods to protect patients’ fertility before they start treatment. Secondly, they call for better access to fertility protection counselling. Therefore, they expect a clear strategy and new programs to facilitate cooperation between oncologists and reproductive specialists. The concept of cooperation with physicians from highly specialised clinics would offer not only faster access to clinical trials but also highly specialised care, informing patients about the risk of infertility related to chemotherapy and radiotherapy and the selection of an appropriate method to protect fertility, especially in young patients who are in their reproductive years and would like to have offspring in the future.

Study limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, because it included oncology patients from only 2 hospitals in one city in Poland, the results cannot be generalised to the entire population of cancer patients either in Poznan or Poland. Secondly, while we did not differentiate patients based on the cancer diagnosis, the views of gynaecological patients may differ from those of patients experiencing other types of cancer. Thirdly, since this study is based on a quantitative method only, further in-depth qualitative research is required to understand patients’ ethical and legal concerns related to oncofertility and research involving reproductive tissues.

Simultaneously, because this is one of the first Polish studies on the attitudes of female cancer patients towards the donation of reproductive cells for fertility preservation and research purposes, it may stimulate discussion on the availability and ethical and legal issues related to fertility preservation methods in Poland.

Conclusions

This research shows that most cancer patients believe that research using reproductive cells should be legally regulated in Poland. Moreover, while the majority expressed the will to donate their reproductive cells for reproductive purposes, they also believed that the State should reimburse medical costs of fertility preservation. Additionally, most patients supported donating cancer tissues left after surgery for research purposes.

Simultaneously, while most respondents expressed the wish for fertility preservation and the planning of children after their cancer treatment is over, there is an urgent need for legal regulation of the surplus embryos that remain after in vitro treatment and their use for research purposes. The following guidelines should, therefore, also be implemented:

  1. Doctors should inform cancer patients about the possibilities of preserving fertility as early as at the stage of diagnosis;

  2. Nurses acting as oncology coordinators should be trained to talk to patients about the ethical and legal regulations in preserving fertility;

  3. Oncology coordinators should also be trained to talk to patients about the possibility of donating reproductive cells or cancer tissue to biobanks for research purposes.

Disclosures

The study was conducted in line with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki (revised in 2000) [17] and was granted approval by the Poznan University of Medical Sciences Bioethics Committee (KB – 1035/22, given on 14 December 2022). All patients who participated in the survey signed the informed consent form to join before completing the survey.

Authors’ contributions

JC, DW and JD supervised the conceptualisation and the original design of the research, RR supervised the study at the hospital, JC and JD collected the data. DW performed the statistical analyses and prepared tables. JC and DW wrote the research results. JC drafted the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

1 

EU Country Cancer Profile: Poland 2023. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/eu-country-cancer-profile-poland-2023_04cfc3ee-en (accessed: 26.06.2024).

2 

Sobierajski T, Rzymski P, Małecka I, Augustynowicz E. Trust in physicians in the context of HPV vaccination of children from the perspective of social exchange theory: a representative study of Polish parents. Vaccines 2023; 11: 1618.

3 

Kufel-Grabowska J, Łukaszuk K, Błażek M, et al. Fertility preservation during oncological treatment. Oncol Clin Practi 2024; 20: 100-116.

4 

Bashyam MD, Animireddy S, Bala P, Naz PA, George SA. The Yin and Yang of cancer genes. Gene 2019; 704: 121-133.

5 

Feichtinger M, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA. Fertility preservation in women with cervical, endometrial or ovarian cancers. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract 2016; 3: 2-13.

6 

Waimey KE, Smith BM, Confino R, Jeruss JS, Pavone ME. Understanding fertility in Young female cancer patients. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2015; 24: 812-818.

7 

Kashi O, Meirow D. Overactivation or apoptosis: which mechanisms affect chemotherapy–inducted ovarian reserve depletion? Int J Mol Sci 2023; 24: 16291.

8 

Wong QHY, Anderson RA. The role of antimullerian hormone in assessing ovarian damage from chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2018; 25: 391-398.

9 

Meirow D, Biederman H, Anderson RA, Wallace WHB. Toxicity of chemotherapy and radiation on female reproduction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2010; 53: 727-739.

10 

Aktualizacja zaleceń Grupy Roboczej ds. Zachowania Płodności u Chorych Onkologicznych i Chorych Hematologicznych oraz Innych Chorych Leczonych Terapiami Gonadotoksycznymi „Oncoferility” (GROF) Polskiego Towarzystwa Ginekologii Onkologicznej, dotyczącej krioprezerwacji i transplantacji autologicznej tkanki jajnikowej. Availible from: https://ptgo.pl/archiwa/rekomendacje/rekomendacje-zespolu-roboczego-d-s-zachowania-plodnosci-u-kobiet-leczonych-z-powodu-nowotworow-oncofertility-przy-konsultancie-krajowym-w-dziedzinie-ginekologii-onkologicznej (accessed: 26.06.2024).

11 

Rejestr Ośrodków Medycznie Wspomaganej Prokreacji i Banków Komórek Rozrodczych i Zarodków. Available from: https://roib.ezdrowie.gov.pl/?page=11&HasValidPermission=False&HasNotValidPermission=False (accessed: 26.06.2024).

12 

Razik M, Bator P, Rozwadowska P, et al. Fertility preservation strategies in cancer patients: a comprehensive review. J Edu Health Sport. Online 2024; 61: 129-139.

13 

Ustawadnia 25 czerwca 2015 o leczeniu niepłodności. Availible from: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20150001087 (accessed 26.06.2024).

14 

Rozporządzenie Ministra Zdrowia z dnia 15 października 2015 r. w sprawie szczegółowych wymagań, jakim powinna odpowiadać dokumentacja dotycząca komórek rozrodczych i zarodków. Availible from: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20150001686/O/D20151686.pdf (accessed 26.06.2024).

15 

Domaradzki J, Czekajewska J, Walkowiak D. Attitudes of oncology patients’ towards biospecimen donation for biobank research. BMC Cancer 2024; 24: 1-13.

16 

Brancato G, Macchia S, Murgia M, et al., The handbook of recommended practices for questionnaire development and testing in the European Statistical System. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/64157/4374310/13-Handbook-recommended-practices-questionnaire-development-and-testing-methods-2005.pdf/52bd85c2-2dc5-44ad-8f5d-0c6ccb2c55a0 (accessed 26.06.2024).

17 

Sawicka-Gutaj N, Gruszczyński D, Guzik P, Mostowska A, Walkowiak J. Publication ethics of human studies in the light of the Declaration of Helsinki–a mini-review. J Med Sci 2022; 91: 81-85.

18 

ESHRE. Female Fertility Preservation. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Guideline of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (2020). Available from: https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/Guidelines/Female-fertility-preservation (accessed 26.06.2024).

19 

Ustawa o zmianie ustawy o świadczeniach opieki zdrowotnej finansowanych ze środków publicznych (2023). Avalible from: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20230002730/T/D20232730L.pdf (accessed 26.06.2024).

20 

Lewis C, Clotworthy M, Hilton S, Magee C, Robertson MJ, Stubbins LJ, Corfield J. Public views on the donation and use of human biological samples in biomedical research: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e003056.

21 

Scott R, Williams C, Ehrich K, Frasides B. Donation of “spare” fresh or frozen embryos to research: who decides that an embryo is “spare” and how can we enhance the quality and protect the validity of consent? Medical Law Review 2012; 20: 255-303.

22 

The Human Fertilization and Embriology (HFE) ACT 1990. Available from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/272/27205.htm#note34 (accessed 26.06.2024).

23 

Kirkman M. Egg and embryo donation and the meaning of motherhood. Women Health 2003; 38: 1-18.

24 

Christianson MS, Kolp LA, Yates MM. Experiences of young breast cancer patients regarding fertility preservation, In: Psychology behavior and ethics of fertility preservation. J Assist Reprod Genet 2011; 28: 1031-1036.

25 

Rabah DM, El-Nimr N, Abo-Rafe B, Arafa MA. Fertility cryopreservation for female cancer patients: attitudes and clinical practices of oncologists in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. J Reprod Med 2012; 57: 431-434.

26 

Louwé LA, ter Kuile MM, Hilders CGJM, et al. Oncologists’ practice and attitudes regarding fertility preservation in female cancer patients: a pilot study in the Netherlands. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 34: 129-132.

27 

Anderson RA, Weddell A, Spoudeas HA, et al. Do doctors discuss fertility issues before they treat young patients with cancer? Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 2246-2251.

28 

Mazur-Roszak M, Tomczak P, Litwiniuk M, Markowska J. Niepłodność w onkologii–wybrane zagadnienia. Część II Ochrona funkcji rozrodczych. Współcz Onkol 2005; 9: 65-68.

29 

Dolmans MM, Marinescu C, Saussoy P, van Langendonckt A, Amorim C, Donnez J. Reimplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue from patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia is potentially unsafe. Blood 2010; 116: 2908-2914.

30 

Donnez J, Silber S, Andersen CY, et al. Children born after autotransplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue. a review of 13 live births. Ann Med 2011; 43: 437-450.

31 

Kufel-Grabowska J, Wasąg B. Diagnosis and treatment of patients with breast cancer and mutation in the BRCA1/2 genes. Oncol Clin Practi 2024; 20: 222-228.

32 

Walasik I, Falis M, Płaza O, Szymecka-Samaha N, Szymusik I. Polish female cancer survivors’ experiences related to fertility preservation procedures. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol 2023; 12: 727-734.

33 

Hoffman A, Crocker L, Mathur A, et al. Patients’ and providers’ needs and preferences when considering fertility preservation before cancer treatment: decision-making needs assessment. JMIR Form Res 2021; 5: e25083.

34 

Jones G, Hughes J, Mahmoodi N, Smith E, Skull J, Ledger W. What factors hinder the decision-making process for women with cancer and contemplating fertility preservation treatment? Hum Reprod Update 2017; 23: 433-457.

35 

Adams E, Hill E, Watson E. Fertility preservation in cancer survivors: a national survey of oncologists’ current knowledge, practice and attitudes. Br J Cancer 2013; 108: 1602-1615.

36 

Alshamsan B, Kushnir I, Al-Saadi S, Srikanthan A. Perceptions and attitudes of medical oncologists regarding fertility preservation and pregnancy in high-risk cancer patients: a survey among Canadian medical oncologists. Cancer Medicine 2022; 12: 1912-1921.

37 

Al Ghaithi A, Al Rashdi E, Al Shukri M, Al Ghabshi R, Albalushi H. oncologists’ knowledge, practice and attitude toward fertility preservation: a national survey. Life 2023; 13, 801: 1-12.

38 

Patel P, Kohn TP, Cohen J, Shiff B, Kohn J, Ramasamy R. Evaluation of reported fertility preservation counseling before chemotherapy using the quality oncology practice initiative survey. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: 1-11.

39 

Furui T, Takai Y, Kimura F, et al. Fertility preservation in adolescent and young adult cancer patients: from apart of a national survey on oncofertility in Japan. Reprod Med Biol 2018; 18: 97-104.

Copyright: © 2024 Termedia Sp. z o. o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.