A multidisciplinary evaluation of fertility preservation for oncology patients in Canada

The British Columbia perspective

Authors

  • Regina-Veronicka Kalaydina University of British Columbia
  • Kiera Liblik Queen's University
  • Amy Dhillon University of British Columbia
  • Kristin Marr University of British Columbia
  • Karen Goddard University of British Columbia
  • Alannah Smrke University of British Columbia
  • A. Fuchsia Howard University of British Columbia
  • Stuart Peacock Simon Fraser University
  • Julie Wong University of British Columbia
  • Luke Witherspoon University of Ottawa
  • Ryan Flannigan University of British Columbia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9215

Keywords:

Oncofertility, Fertility Preservation, Oncology, Fertility, interdisciplinary treatment

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Infertility represents a devastating side effect of antineoplastic agents, particularly in adolescents and young adults (AYA). A paucity of practitioner-initiated fertility preservation (FP) counseling has resulted in low uptake of assisted reproductive technologies. There is no dedicated FP program in British Columbia (BC) and few across Canada, leaving patients without adequate support. This study aimed to identify, analyze, and prioritize the FP needs of BC oncology patients, predominantly AYAs, according to healthcare providers.

METHODS: An online survey developed by a multidisciplinary team was distributed to practitioners across the British Columbia Cancer Network from March to September 2023. Survey data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS: Overall, our survey response rate was 74.2%. Of 120 responses recorded in total, 89 — from 27 oncologists, 58 nurses/nurse practitioners, two family physicians, one fertility specialist, and one care aide — were included in the analysis. While 43.6% of respondents indicated that their patients were likely to be impacted by treatment-related infertility, only 26.8% reported that their patients are usually referred to FP services, and 45.7% reported that their patients receive fertility counseling. Barriers to FP counseling included competing priorities, appointment length, lack of clinical knowledge, urgency to start treatment, perceived futility of FP, and perceived lack of financial resources. Facilitators of FP discussions were awareness, education, financial assistance, provider-initiated discussions, knowledgeable providers, and locally dedicated FP programs.

CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first characterization of interdisciplinary provider practices and beliefs surrounding FP among oncology patients in BC, highlighting the need for an FP program to improve patient care and quality of life. This data can be leveraged nationwide to inform the development and evolution of FP programs for this critically underserved patient population.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-08-28

How to Cite

Kalaydina, R.-V., Liblik, K., Dhillon, A., Marr, K., Goddard, K., Smrke, A., … Flannigan, R. (2025). A multidisciplinary evaluation of fertility preservation for oncology patients in Canada : The British Columbia perspective . Canadian Urological Association Journal, 19(12), 387–92. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9215

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 12 (2025): CUAJ December

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.