Fertility preservation counselling in women with cancer: knowledge, preferences, and unmet needs from a cross-sectional survey.
12 affiliations
- 1Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Department of Woman's and Child Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Rome, Italy.
- 2Infectious Disease Clinic, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
- 3Centre for Research and Studies on Procreative Health, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
- 4Department of Gynecology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek-Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
- 5Local Health Authority ASST Nord Milano, S. C. Hygienic Sanitary Processes of The Territorial Center Asst Nord Milan, Milan, Italy.
- 6Department of Women, Mother and Neonate, "Vittore Buzzi" Children's Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
- 7Clinical Psychology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Rome, Italy.
- 8Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Istituto Tumori 'Giovanni Paolo II', Bari, Italy.
- 9Obstetrics and Gynecology 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant Anna Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
- 10Regional Oncofertility Center, Sandro Pertini Hospital, Rome, Italy.
- 11Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Section of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
- 12Department of Life Sciences and Public Health Section of Hygiene, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Rome, Italy.
Abstract
Background
Fertility preservation (FP) is a critical survivorship issue for young women with cancer, yet gaps persist between guidelines and clinical practice. This study assesses knowledge, attitudes, and unmet needs among women referred for specialist counseling.Methods
An observational cross-sectional survey was conducted (November 2022 - June 2026) among women referred to a single tertiary oncofertility center in Rome. A Delphi-informed online questionnaire was completed before the clinical visit. Descriptive statistics and exploratory multivariable logistic regression examined post-diagnosis intention.Results
Among 284 women invited to participate, 260 completed the survey (response rate, 91.5%); 240 patients with a confirmed cancer diagnosis were included in the final analysis (median age, 32 years). Overall, 69.6% were interested in FP, and 94.2% recognized that gonadotoxic treatments could impair fertility. While 89.6% had heard of FP, only half received this information from healthcare professionals, and 24.2% knew of no specific options. Over half reported concerns regarding treatment delay, safety, effectiveness, and cost. Before diagnosis, 73.7% planned to have children; post-diagnosis, positive intention remained common, while those previously without intentions shifted toward uncertainty. In the 188-case model, pre-diagnosis intention showed the strongest association (OR 11.64, 95% CI 4.45-30.48). Given limited model performance (pseudo-R²=0.19), estimates warrant caution.Conclusions
In this single-center referred cohort, informational gaps and uncertainty remained despite high awareness. Findings confirm and contextualize prior evidence in an Italian tertiary setting and may inform similar referral pathways, but require validation in broader populations.
Related
- Bone graft preferences and cognitive dissonance in patient counselling: a cross-sectional survey of clinicians
- Knowledge attitude and practice toward fertility preservation in patients with gynecologic cancers in Zhejiang of China
- Beyond Fertility: Ethical and Psychosocial Dimensions of Fertility Preservation in Children and Adolescents
- Fertility Preservation in Women with Endometriosis: Indications, Timing, Techniques, and Reproductive Outcomes
- Fertility preservation with successful pregnancy outcome in a young patient with endometrial cancer
BibTeX
@article{corrado2026fertility,
title = {{Fertility preservation counselling in women with cancer: knowledge, preferences, and unmet needs from a cross-sectional survey.}},
author = {Giacomo Corrado and Drieda Zace and Inge Peters and Paola Villa and Luigi Petrella and Alessia Barreca and Lucrezia Massaro and Letizia Lafuenti and Erica Silvestris and Stefano Canosa and Cristina Fabiani and Daniela Rosaria Pia Chieffo and Anna Fagotti and Maria Luisa Di Pietro},
journal = {Frontiers in endocrinology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fendo.2026.1926475},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42909326},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Fertility preservation counselling in women with cancer: knowledge, preferences, and unmet needs from a cross-sectional survey.
AU - Giacomo Corrado
AU - Drieda Zace
AU - Inge Peters
AU - Paola Villa
AU - Luigi Petrella
AU - Alessia Barreca
AU - Lucrezia Massaro
AU - Letizia Lafuenti
AU - Erica Silvestris
AU - Stefano Canosa
AU - Cristina Fabiani
AU - Daniela Rosaria Pia Chieffo
AU - Anna Fagotti
AU - Maria Luisa Di Pietro
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
JO - Frontiers in endocrinology
DO - 10.3389/fendo.2026.1926475
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42909326
AB - Background Fertility preservation (FP) is a critical survivorship issue for young women with cancer, yet gaps persist between guidelines and clinical practice. This study assesses knowledge, attitudes, and unmet needs among women referred for specialist counseling.Methods An observational cross-sectional survey was conducted (November 2022 - June 2026) among women referred to a single tertiary oncofertility center in Rome. A Delphi-informed online questionnaire was completed before the clinical visit. Descriptive statistics and exploratory multivariable logistic regression examined post-diagnosis intention.Results Among 284 women invited to participate, 260 completed the survey (response rate, 91.5%); 240 patients with a confirmed cancer diagnosis were included in the final analysis (median age, 32 years). Overall, 69.6% were interested in FP, and 94.2% recognized that gonadotoxic treatments could impair fertility. While 89.6% had heard of FP, only half received this information from healthcare professionals, and 24.2% knew of no specific options. Over half reported concerns regarding treatment delay, safety, effectiveness, and cost. Before diagnosis, 73.7% planned to have children; post-diagnosis, positive intention remained common, while those previously without intentions shifted toward uncertainty. In the 188-case model, pre-diagnosis intention showed the strongest association (OR 11.64, 95% CI 4.45-30.48). Given limited model performance (pseudo-R²=0.19), estimates warrant caution.Conclusions In this single-center referred cohort, informational gaps and uncertainty remained despite high awareness. Findings confirm and contextualize prior evidence in an Italian tertiary setting and may inform similar referral pathways, but require validation in broader populations.
SN - 1664-2392
ER -