An assessment of oncofertility content on reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinic websites

• Published in: Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics Vol. 39; no. 4; pp. 957 - 962
• Main Authors: Mujumdar, Vaidehi, Shivashankar, Kavya, Madding, Rachel, Levy, Ariel T., Gordhandas, Sushmita, Rosenblum, Norman G., Richard, Scott, Monseur, Brent
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.04.2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Cancer; Endocrinology; Fertility; Fertility Clinics; Fertility Preservation; Gynecology; Human Genetics; Humans; Infertility; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neoplasms - complications; Preservation; Reproductive Medicine; Reproductive technologies; Reproductive technology; Statistical analysis; United States - epidemiology; Websites; United States; Oncology; Fertility preservation; Oncofertility; Fertility; NCI-designated; Cancer
• ISSN: 1058-0468; 1573-7330
• DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02442-y

Purpose To assess oncofertility content on fertility clinic websites as indicated by eight relevant keywords. Additionally, we sought to describe the relationship between oncofertility content and five predetermined clinic characteristics. Methods We examined 381 fertility clinic websites that are members of the Society for Associated Reproductive Technology (SART). Extracted data included clinic location, practice type (private vs academic), size (cycles/year), type of NCI designated center (cancer center vs comprehensive cancer center), and distance from the nearest NCI center. Additionally, we documented whether the clinic was located in a state mandating reproductive and infertility services and/or included fertility preservation for “iatrogenic infertility” as reported by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using chi-squared or t -test as appropriate. Results Of the 381 fertility clinic websites analyzed, 322 (85%) contained at least one oncofertility-related keyword. Most frequently used terms included cancer (79%) and fertility preservation (78%), while less frequently used terms included suppression (9.4%) and shielding (5.0%). Practices that initiated ≥ 501 cycles per year were more likely to mention one of the oncofertility keywords (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1–1.3). The associations of oncofertility website content with practice type, state-mandated fertility insurance coverage, and distance from an NCI-designated cancer center were not statistically significant. Large clinic size was the only predictive factor for inclusion of oncofertility website content. Further studies are required to evaluate whether inclusion of oncofertility content on clinic websites impacts the use of these services by patients with cancer. Conclusion This is the first study correlating availability of oncofertility content on SART fertility clinic websites with consideration of geographic proximity to NCI designated cancer centers. Large clinic size was the only predictive factor for inclusion of oncofertility website content.