Clinical Guidelines

MENU

Fertility preservation for people with cancer

Guideline development process

Introduction

These guidelines are an expanded update of the guidance for health professionals titled Fertility preservation for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer, produced by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) in partnership with Canteen and the Fertility Society of Australia, as part of a national Youth Cancer Networks Program project funded by the Australian Government in 2011.

The previous guidance provided evidence-based recommendations and good practice points to assist health professionals in effectively and fully discussing with their AYA patients and their families:

  • the potential risk of cancer treatments to fertility
  • fertility preservation options for AYAs diagnosed with cancer
  • potential late effects and the need for assessment and monitoring of reproductive, sexual and endocrine health after cancer treatment ends

The need to expand and update this guidance was identified as a priority by the Executive of the COSA AYA Group. The project was approved by COSA Council and a COSA Project Manager assigned. Cancer Council Australia was again approached to host the guidelines on the Cancer Guidelines Wiki. No external funding was received to develop these guidelines

The updated guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations and consensus-based recommendations to assist health professionals in discussing the risks to fertility associated with cancer patients and the management of fertility preservation including:

  • the potential risk of cancer treatments to fertility
  • fertility preservation options for people diagnosed with cancer
  • supporting and managing conception and pregnancy in cancer survivors

The guidelines were developed by a multidisciplinary working group, supported by the COSA Project Manager. The guideline development process involved conducting literature searches, appraising the literature, and formulating and grading recommendations as outlined below.

Working Group Members

COSA would like to thank all the members of the working group who contributed their expertise and time to the development of these guidelines. Membership of the working group can be found here.

Conflict of interest register

Working group members have declared the following conflicts of interest:

Kate White: Payment for education session from Bristol Myers in 2021.

Roger Hart: Medical Director of Fertility Specialists of Western Australia; has equity interests in Western IVF; has received educational grants from MSD, Merck and Ferring Pharmaceuticals; has received honoraria from Merck. No other conflicts of interest reported.

Kate Stern: Received prior to 2020 non-directional grants for Future Fertility Registry and Ovarian Tissue Grafting program.

Robert McLachlan: Consultancy and equity holder, Monash IVF Group.

Wanda Cui: Grant funding from BCT outside submitted work. Honoraria from Janssen and AstraZeneca.

Steps in preparing clinical practice guidelines

These clinical practice guidelines are based on a systematic review of published literature. The working group developed clinical questions which determined the scope for the guidelines. The search strategy and literature search was conducted by the Project Manager in consultation with the working group. Authors were assigned to appraise the relevant literature and to formulate evidence-based recommendations where possible and consensus-based recommendations where the evidence was of insufficient quality.

The steps followed by guidelines authors are outlined below:

  1. Structure the clinical questions
  2. Develop a search strategy
  3. Search the literature
  4. Critically appraise the literature
  5. Formulate and grade recommendations

Develop a search strategy

Appropriate search strategies were constructed for each clinical question. MeSH terms were agreed by working group members and were expanded by the Project Manager after conducting pilot searches and searching the MeSH vocabulary. Where there was no appropriate MeSH index term available a combination of free text words were used in order to capture the relevant data.

The following exclusion criteria was applied: languages other than English. This exclusion criteria was then refined for each individual clinical question. The search strategy was approved by the members of the working group and can be found in the appendices of each page of the guidelines.

Search the literature

Searches were completed primarily in PubMed. Search results were screened for relevance by the Project Manager. The relevant literature was collated, full-text articles obtained and sent to working group authors to include or exclude, critically appraise and use as the evidence base for their clinical question.

To view more detailed information about the literature search (such as inclusion and exclusion criteria) and the results of the search, please go to the relevant page of the guideline. The information can be found in the appendices on each page.

Critically appraise the literature

Relevant articles selected from the literature search were reviewed by the clinical question author and each article was critically appraised with respect to level of evidence, quality of the evidence, size of the effect and clinical importance and relevance. Level of evidence was assigned according to the following criteria from the NHMRC Evidence Hierarchy:

LevelInterventionDiagnosisPrognosisAetiologyScreening
IA systematic review of level II studiesA systematic review of level II studiesA systematic review of level II studiesA systematic review of level II studiesA systematic review of level II studies
IIA randomised controlled trialA study of test accuracy with: an independent, blinded comparison with a valid reference standard, among consecutive patients with a defined clinical presentationA prospective cohort studyA prospective cohort studyA randomised controlled trial
III-1A pseudo-randomised controlled trial (i.e. alternate allocation or some other method)A study of test accuracy with: an independent, blinded comparison with a valid reference standard, among non-consecutive patients with a defined clinical presentationAll or noneAll or noneA pseudo-randomised controlled trial (i.e. alternate allocation or some other method)
III-2

A comparative study with concurrent controls:

  • Non-randomised, experimental trial
  • Cohort study
  • Case-control study
  • Interrupted time series with a control group


A comparison with reference standard that does not meet the criteria required for Level II and III-1 evidenceAnalysis of prognostic factors among untreated control patients in a randomised controlled trialA retrospective cohort study

A comparative study with concurrent controls:

  • Non-randomised, experimental trial
  • Cohort study
  • Case-control study


III-3

A comparative study without concurrent controls:

  • Historical control study
  • Two or more single arm study
  • Interrupted time series without a parallel control group


Diagnostic case-control studyA retrospective cohort studyA case-control study

A comparative study without concurrent controls:

  • Historical control study
  • Two or more single arm study


IVCase series with either post-test or pre-test/post-test outcomesStudy of diagnostic yield (no reference standard)Case series, or cohort study of patients at different stages of diseaseA cross-sectional studyCase series

Source: National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC; 2009.[1] 

Formulate and grade recommendations

The body of literature was assessed by each author and recommendation grades were assigned using the following criteria adapted from the NHMRC body of evidence matrix:

Component of RecommendationRecommendation Grade



A  ExcellentB  GoodC  SatisfactoryD  Poor
Volume of evidence 1**one or more level I studies with a low risk of bias or several level II studies with a low risk of biasone or two level II studies with a low risk of bias or a systematic review/several level III studies with a low risk of biasone or two level III studies with a low risk of bias, or level I or II studies with a moderate risk of biaslevel IV studies, or level I to III studies/systematic reviews with a high risk of bias
Consistency 2**all studies consistentmost studies consistent and inconsistency may be explainedsome inconsistency reflecting genuine uncertainty around clinical questionevidence is inconsistent
Clinical impactvery largesubstantialmoderateslight or restricted
Generalisabilitypopulation/s studied in body of evidence are the same as the target population for the guidelinepopulation/s studied in the body of evidence are similar to the target population for the guidelinepopulation/s studied in body of evidence differ to target population for guideline but it is clinically sensible to apply this evidence to target population3population/s studied in body of evidence different to target population and hard to judge whether it is sensible to generalise to target population
Applicabilitydirectly applicable to Australian healthcare contextapplicable to Australian healthcare context with few caveatsprobably applicable to Australian healthcare context with some caveatsnot applicable to Australian healthcare context

1 Level of evidence determined from level of evidence criteria

2 If there is only one study, rank this component as ‘not applicable’

3 For example results in adults that are clinically sensible to apply children OR psychosocial outcomes for one cancer that may be applicable to patients with another cancer.

** For a recommendation to be graded A or B, the volume and consistency of evidence must also be graded either A or B!

Source: National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC; 2009.[1] 


Recommendation grades are indicated below:

Grade of recommendationDescription
ABody of evidence can be trusted to guide practice
BBody of evidence can be trusted to guide practice in most situations
CBody of evidence provides some support for recommendation(s) but care should be taken in its application
DBody of evidence is weak and recommendation must be applied with caution

PP

(practice point)

Where no good-quality evidence is available but there is consensus among guideline working group members, consensus-based guidance points are given, these are called "Practice points"

Adapted from: National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC; 2009.[1] 

Write the content

Question authors were asked to write the content for their guideline section using the following format:

  • background
  • review of the evidence
  • evidence summary with levels of evidence and numbered references
  • recommendation(s) and corresponding grade(s)
  • references

Review of question content

The body of evidence and recommendations for each question topic were reviewed by the working group and final recommendations agreed to, based on the evidence.

Public consultation

The draft guidelines were released for public consultation to all interested parties in Australia. The consultation process involved seeking public review of the draft guidelines through email to COSA members, posting on the Cancer Council Australia Cancer Guidelines Wiki (previous guideline hosting platform) and alerting stakeholders including professional societies and other interested groups by link to the site. All feedback on the draft received during the consultation period was reviewed by the guideline working group. Subsequent changes to the draft were agreed by consensus of the guideline working group, based on consideration of the evidence.

Public consultation open: 2 June 2021

Public consultation closed: 28 June 2021

References

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC; 2009 
Cancer Council would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we live and work. We would also like to pay respect to the elders past and present and extend that respect to all other Aboriginal people.
Acknowledgement Image Title
Cancer Council Australia