# Fertility Preservation in Pediatric Oncology: Results of a Single-Center Retrospective Study (2000–2018)

## TL;DR

This study examines how fertility preservation was handled for young cancer patients at a single hospital from 2000 to 2018, revealing significant gaps in practice.

## Contribution

The study provides insights into fertility preservation practices in pediatric oncology, highlighting the lack of standardized procedures and gender disparities.

## Key findings

- Fertility preservation was documented in only 6.5% of patients, with a notable gender disparity.
- Systematic assessment of pubertal and hormonal parameters was lacking in most cases.
- The study emphasizes the need for standardized procedures and interdisciplinary collaboration.

## Abstract

Advances in cancer treatment have significantly increased survival rates among children and adolescents, but many therapies may affect future fertility and impact long-term quality of life. Preserving fertility has, therefore, become a key element of pediatric cancer care. This retrospective study analyzed how fertility preservation was managed for young patients treated for cancer at the Medical University of Innsbruck between January 2000 and December 2018. The aim was to better understand current practices, identify gaps, and raise awareness among physicians about possible long-term effects on fertility. As comprehensive international data on the extent to which fertility preservation is offered and performed in these contexts is still lacking, our findings contribute to closing this knowledge gap.

Background/Objectives: With increasing survival rates in pediatric oncology, late effects, such as therapy-induced infertility, are becoming more relevant. This study evaluated the management of fertility preservation in children and adolescents with cancer at the Medical University Innsbruck between 2000 and 2018. Methods: In this retrospective monocentric study, 552 patients (0–17 years) receiving chemotherapy were analyzed. Data was extracted from the Clinical Information System and the cryopreservation database. The assessed main variables included pubertal status, sex hormone levels, and use of fertility preservation methods. Results: Fertility preservation was documented in 6.5% of patients, more frequently in males (8.9%) than females (3.2%). Sperm cryopreservation was performed in twenty-eight males, ovarian tissue cryopreservation in six females, and oocyte cryopreservation in three. Pubertal status at diagnosis was recorded in 4.9% of patients and hormone levels in 29.7%. Conclusions: The findings highlight significant gaps in systematic fertility preservation, particularly in female patients. Consistent assessment of pubertal and hormonal parameters at diagnosis is essential to inform decision-making. Standardized procedures and closer interdisciplinary collaboration are needed to ensure equitable access to fertility preservation and safeguard long-term quality of life.