Background: Cancer survivors who received gonadotoxic treatment are at-risk for future infertility and may desire a fertility status assessment (FSA), defined as semen analysis for males and consultation with a reproductive specialist for females. The purpose of this study was to describe the proportion of, and factors associated with, interest in FSA among young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Methods: This retrospective single-institution review included patients with prior gonadotoxic treatment, aged 18–25 years and >1 year from cancer treatment completion, who received a fertility-focused discussion during survivorship. Documentation of interest in and completion of FSA, worry about infertility, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics were abstracted from medical records. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for factors associated with interest in FSA. Results: Survivors (N = 259) were on average 19.2 ± 1.2 years at their fertility discussion; 55.6% were male and 57.9% non-Hispanic white. Interest in FSA was reported by 50.7% of males and 46.1% of females. Factors related to interest in FSA for males and females respectively, included worry about infertility (OR 2.40, 95%CI 1.11–5.27, p = 0.026 and OR 4.37, 95%CI 1.71–12.43, p = 0.003) and ≥2 fertility discussions (OR 3.78, 95%CI 1.70–8.75, p = 0.001 and 2.45, 95%CI 1.08–5.67, p = 0.033). Among males, fertility preservation consult/procedure at diagnosis (OR 3.02, 95%CI 1.09–9.04, p = 0.039) and high-risk for infertility (OR 2.47, 95%CI 1.07–5.87, p = 0.036) were also associated with interest in FSA. Conclusions: Cancer survivors are interested in FSA, particularly those who have had repeated fertility-focused discussions during survivorship care and who report worry about infertility.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine differences in clinical characteristics and hospital length of stay (LOS) for adolescents with eating disorders (EDs) requiring medical stabilization during the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 time periods. Methods: Medical record data were abstracted for patients with EDs hospitalized for medical stabilization between 1/1/2019–2/29/2020 (pre-COVID-19) and 3/1/2020–12/31/2021 (during COVID-19). Patient demographics, clinical characteristics and LOS were compared between COVID-19 eras. Patients were categorized as boarding if they remained hospitalized ≥ 1 day after medical stabilization. Multivariate negative binomial linear regression models were performed to determine incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for factors related to increased LOS. Results: Of the 467 admissions during this study, 120 were pre-COVID-19 and 347 were during COVID-19. Monthly admissions for EDs were higher during COVID-19 versus pre-COVID-19 (15.8 vs. 8.6, p = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with increased LOS included admission during COVID-19 (IRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15–1.40), p = 0.001), boarding (IRR 1.77, 95% CI 1.63–1.93, p = 0.001), public insurance (IRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01–1.23, p = 0.032), nasogastric tube usage (IRR 1.62, 95% CI 1.48–1.76, p = 0.001), heart rate < 40 beats per minute (IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.11–1.33, p = 0.001) and abnormal electrocardiogram (IRR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14–1.37, p = 0.001). Conclusion: In addition to clinical factors, we found that admission during COVID-19, boarding, and public insurance were associated with increased LOS among patients with EDs. There is a need for greater availability of ED treatment centers to care for patients with EDs after medical stabilization.

Background: Young survivors of cancer are at increased risk for cancers that are related to human papillomavirus (HPV), primarily caused by oncogenic HPV types 16 and 18. We aimed to examine the immunogenicity and safety of the three-dose series of HPV vaccine in young survivors of cancer. Methods: We conducted an investigator-initiated, phase 2, single-arm, open-label, non-inferiority trial at five National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centres in the USA. Eligible participants were survivors of cancer who were HPV vaccine-naive, were aged 9–26 years, in remission, and had completed cancer therapy between 1 and 5 years previously. Participants received three intramuscular doses of either quadrivalent HPV vaccine (HPV4; enrolments on or before March 1, 2016) or nonavalent HPV vaccine (HPV9; enrolments after March 1, 2016) over 6 months (on day 1, at month 2, and at month 6). We also obtained data from published clinical trials assessing safety and immunogenicity of HPV4 and HPV9 in 9–26-year-olds from the general population, as a comparator group. The primary endpoint was antibody response against HPV types 16 and 18 at month 7 in the per-protocol population. A response was deemed non-inferior if the lower bound of the multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was greater than 0·5 for the ratio of anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 geometric mean titres (GMTs) in survivors of cancer versus the general population. Responses were examined separately in male and female participants by age group (ie, 9–15 years and 16–26 years). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one vaccine dose and for whom safety data were available. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01492582. This trial is now completed. Findings: Between Feb 18, 2013, and June 22, 2018, we enrolled 453 survivors of cancer, of whom 436 received one or more vaccine doses: 203 (47%) participants had survived leukaemia, 185 (42%) were female, and 280 (64%) were non-Hispanic white. Mean age at first dose was 15·6 years (SD 4·6). 378 (83%) of 453 participants had evaluable immunogenicity data; main reasons for exclusion from per-protocol analysis were to loss to follow-up, patient reasons, and medical reasons. Data were also obtained from 26 486 general population controls. The ratio of mean GMT for anti-HPV types 16 and 18 in survivors of cancer versus the general population was more than 1 for all subgroups (ie, aged 9–15 years, aged 16–26 years, male, and female groups) in both vaccine cohorts (ranging from 1·64 [95% CI 1·12–2·18] for anti-HPV type 16 in female participants aged 9–15 years who received HPV9, to 4·77 [2·48–7·18] for anti-HPV type 18 in male participants aged 16–26 years who received HPV4). Non-inferiority criteria were met within each age and sex subgroup, except against HPV type 18 in female participants aged 16–26 years receiving HPV9 (4·30 [0·00–9·05]). Adverse events were reported by 237 (54%) of 435 participants; injection site pain was most common (174 [40%] participants). One serious adverse event (ie, erythema nodosum) was possibly related to vaccine (HPV9; 16–26 year female cohort). Interpretation: Immunogenicity and safety of HPV vaccine three-dose series in survivors of cancer is similar to that in the general population, providing evidence for use in this clinically vulnerable population. Funding: US National Cancer Institute, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities.

Background: Young adult cancer survivors are at risk for subsequent human papillomavirus (HPV)-related malignancies. High-risk sexual behavior increases risk for HPV acquisition; HPV vaccination protects against infection. We aimed to determine the prevalence of sexual behaviors, factors related to high-risk sexual behaviors, and the relationship between sexual behaviors and HPV vaccine non-initiation among survivors. Methods: Survivors at comprehensive cancer centers, aged 18–26 years and 1–5 years post-treatment, reported sexual behaviors and HPV vaccine initiation (i.e., ≥ 1 dose). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for factors associated with high-risk sexual behaviors (age at first intercourse < 16 years, ≥ 3 lifetime sexual partners, or condom use ≤ 50% of the time) and to explore the relationship between sexual behaviors and vaccine non-initiation. Results: Of the 312 participants (48.1% female, median age at cancer diagnosis 17.2 years and at survey 20.9 years), sexual intercourse was reported by 63.1%. Of those reporting intercourse, 74.6% reported high-risk sexual behavior. Factors related to high-risk sexual behavior included currently dating/partnered (OR = 4.39, 95%CI 2.5–7.7, P < 0.001) and perceived susceptibility to HPV (OR = 1.76, 95%CI 1.3-2.5, P < 0.001). Most survivors (75.3%) reported HPV vaccine non-initiation; sexual behaviors were not associated with vaccine non-initiation (P = 0.4). Conclusions: Many survivors participate in high-risk sexual behaviors, yet HPV vaccine initiation rates are low. Factors related to high-risk sexual behaviors can inform interventions to reduce risk for HPV acquisition among survivors. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Cancer survivors participate in sexual behaviors that increase risk for HPV acquisition and would benefit from vaccination.

Background: Childhood cancer survivors are at high risk for developing new cancers (such as cervical and anal cancer) caused by persistent infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV vaccination is effective in preventing the infections that lead to these cancers, but HPV vaccine uptake is low among young cancer survivors. Lack of a healthcare provider recommendation is the most common reason that cancer survivors fail to initiate the HPV vaccine. Strategies that are most successful in increasing HPV vaccine uptake in the general population focus on enhancing healthcare provider skills to effectively recommend the vaccine, and reducing barriers faced by the young people and their parents in receiving the vaccine. This study will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an evidence-based healthcare provider-focused intervention (HPV PROTECT) adapted for use in pediatric oncology clinics, to increase HPV vaccine uptake among cancer survivors 9 to 17 years of age. Methods: This study uses a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation approach. We will test the effectiveness of the HPV PROTECT intervention using a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial across a multi-state sample of pediatric oncology clinics. We will evaluate implementation (provider perspectives regarding intervention feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness in the pediatric oncology setting, provider fidelity to intervention components and change in provider HPV vaccine-related knowledge and practices [e.g., providing vaccine recommendations, identifying and reducing barriers to vaccination]) using a mixed methods approach. Discussion: This multisite trial will address important gaps in knowledge relevant to the prevention of HPV-related malignancies in young cancer survivors by testing the effectiveness of an evidence-based provider-directed intervention, adapted for the pediatric oncology setting, to increase HPV vaccine initiation in young cancer survivors receiving care in pediatric oncology clinics, and by procuring information regarding intervention delivery to inform future implementation efforts. If proven effective, HPV PROTECT will be readily disseminable for testing in the larger pediatric oncology community to increase HPV vaccine uptake in cancer survivors, facilitating protection against HPV-related morbidities for this vulnerable population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04469569, prospectively registered on July 14, 2020.

Introduction Female cancer survivors who received gonadotoxic cancer treatment are at risk for profound diminished ovarian reserve and/or primary ovarian insufficiency with resulting infertility, which can be associated with distress and decreased quality of life.. Despite prioritizing future parenthood, many survivors are unsure of the impact of their treatment on their future fertility, and little is known about the perceived reproductive health needs and factors associated with receipt of a fertility status assessment (FSA). There is a lack of developmentally appropriate reproductive health decisional support interventions available for emerging adult cancer survivors. This study will explore the perceived reproductive health needs of emerging adult female survivors of childhood cancer and to identify decisional and contextual factors that influence pursuit of FSA using an explanatory sequential quantitative to qualitative mixed methods design. Methods and analysis This study will enroll 325 female survivors (aged 18 to 29 years and >1-year post treatment; diagnosed with cancer < age 21 years) from four cancer centers in the United States. Sociodemographic and developmental factors, reproductive knowledge and values, decisional needs, and receipt of an FSA will be assessed through a web-based survey. Informed by survey findings, a subset of participants will be recruited for qualitative interviews to explore decisional factors associated with uptake of an FSA. Clinical data will be abstracted from the medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models will be developed to identify factors associated with FSA and qualitative descriptive analysis will be used to develop themes from the interviews. Quantitative and qualitative findings will be merged using a joint display to develop integrated study conclusions and direct future interventional research.

PURPOSE Fertility preservation (FP) services are part of comprehensive care for those newly diagnosed with cancer. The capacity to offer these services to children and adolescents with cancer is unknown. METHODS A cross-sectional survey was sent to 220 Children's Oncology Group member institutions regarding institutional characteristics, structure and organization of FP services, and barriers to FP. Standard descriptive statistics were computed for all variables. The association between site-specific factors and selected outcomes was examined using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS One hundred forty-four programs (65.5%) returned surveys. Fifty-three (36.8%) reported a designated FP individual or team. Sperm banking was offered at 135 (97.8%) institutions, and testicular tissue cryopreservation at 37 (27.0%). Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation were offered at 91 (67.9%) and 62 (46.6%) institutions, respectively; ovarian tissue cryopreservation was offered at 64 (47.8%) institutions. The presence of dedicated FP personnel was independently associated with the ability to offer oocyte or embryo cryopreservation (odds ratio [OR], 4.7; 95% CI, 1.7 to 13.5), ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 6.0), and testicular tissue cryopreservation (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 97.8). Only 26 (18.1%) participating institutions offered all current nonexperimental FP interventions. Barriers included cost (70.9%), inadequate knowledge or training (60.7%), difficulty characterizing fertility risk (50.4%), inadequate staffing (45.5%), and logistics with reproductive specialties (38%-39%). CONCLUSION This study provides the most comprehensive view of the current landscape of FP infrastructure for children and adolescents with cancer and demonstrates that existing infrastructure is inadequate to offer comprehensive services to patients. We discuss modifiable factors to improve patient access to FP.

Background: Sexual health (SH) is an important concern for adolescents and young adults (AYAs). This study determined current SH communication practices, barriers, and additional resources needed among pediatric oncology clinicians who treat AYAs. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was developed by the Children's Oncology Group (COG) AYA Committee and sent to pediatric oncologists (n = 1,987; 85.9%) and advanced practice providers (APPs, n = 326; 14.1%) at 226 COG institutions. Responses were tabulated and compared using tests of proportion and trend. Results: The sample comprised 602 respondents from 168 institutions and was proportionally representative (468 oncologists [77.7%], 76 APPs [12.6%], 58 unidentified [9.6%]; institutional and provider response rates 74.3% and 26.2%, respectively). Almost half of respondents (41.7%) reported no/small role in SH care. Medical topics were discussed most often, including contraception (67.2%), puberty (43.5%), and sexual activity (37.5%). Topics never/rarely discussed included gender identity (64.5%), sexual orientation (53.7%), and sexual function (50.3%). Frequently cited communication barriers included lack of time, low priority, perceived patient discomfort, and the presence of a parent/guardian. Respondents endorsed the need for further education/resources on sexual function (66.1%), gender identity/sexual orientation (59.5%), and body image (46.6%). Preferred education modalities included dissemination of published guidelines (64.7%), skills training modules (62.9%), and webinars (45.3%). By provider type, responses were similar overall but differed for perception of role, barriers identified, and resources desired. Conclusions: Many pediatric oncology clinicians play minimal roles in SH care of AYAs and most SH topics are rarely discussed. Provider-directed education/training interventions have potential for improving SH care of AYA cancer patients.

Background Parents of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer offer primary support to their children and often experience their own high levels of distress, affecting parent-AYA communication and quality of life. Objective To reduce parent distress and improve communication during high-risk cancer treatment, we examined efficacy of a self-care and communication intervention for parents and indirect benefit for AYAs receiving a therapeutic music video (TMV) intervention. Methods In this study, we conducted a multisite, randomized controlled trial with AYAs and parents enrolled as dyads (n = 110). Parents were randomized to intervention or low-dose control; all AYAs received TMV. Data collection occurred at baseline, 2 weeks post intervention (T2), and 90 days post intervention (T3). Results There were no significant between-group differences on primary outcomes for parents or AYAs. We did find significant differences favoring the parent intervention group on parenting confidence at T2 and marginally better outcomes for family adaptability/cohesion at T3. Both groups exhibited significant within-group improvement for parent distress (state anxiety, T3; perceived stress, T2 and T3; mood, T3), state anxiety (T2) intervention only, and family strengths control group only. Qualitative data demonstrate the parent intervention raised self-awareness and parent confidence in the short term. Conclusion Parents found their intervention helpful. Absence of significant results may be due to short intervention duration, need for tailored content, underpowered sample, and potential indirect parent benefit from AYA participation in TMV. The parent intervention did not provide an indirect benefit for AYAs. Implications for Nursing Parents identified their own need for communication and support from nurses. Nurses can optimize AYA care by attending to parent needs through supportive listening and encouraging self-care.

Despite being considered “standard of care” by many organizations, fertility and reproductive health communications and counseling practices remain inconsistent for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) newly diagnosed with cancer and during survivorship. One factor known to affect how information is provided and received in the medical setting is health literacy. Providers should consider health literacy to optimize reproductive health communication with AYAs as they cope with their diagnosis, understand what it means for their future, process information about treatment options, learn about their potential harmful effects on fertility, make quick decisions about fertility preservation, and navigate a future family planning course. Thus, the objectives of this manuscript are to (a) summarize literature on reproductive health literacy; (b) describe health literacy frameworks; (c) examine ways to assess health literacy; and (d) identify ways to enhance clinician-patient communication in the AYA oncofertility setting.