[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-352554-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-352554-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","predictors-of-referral-for-fertility-preservation-counseling-in-patients-diagnosed-with-cancer","Predictors of referral for fertility preservation counseling in patients diagnosed with cancer","","Fertility preservation (FP) is critical for reproductive-aged cancer patients, yet referral rates to fertility preservation counseling remain low despite professional guidance. This cross-sectional study analyzed 510 patients aged 14–42 with new cancer diagnoses at a large academic institution, focusing on referrals from oncologists to Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) physicians. Referral likelihood was assessed using patient demographics and cancer/oncologist characteristics with chi-square, Fisher’s exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/predictors-of-referral-for-fertility-preservation-counseling-in-patients-diagnosed-with-cancer/352554/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/predictors-of-referral-for-fertility-preservation-counseling-in-patients-diagnosed-with-cancer/352554.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Margaret","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-22",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the main goal of this study?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The study evaluated predictors of fertility preservation (FP) referrals from oncologists to REI physicians for reproductive-aged cancer patients.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How many patients were referred for fertility preservation counseling?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Among 510 patients, 127 (22.5%) were referred for FP counseling.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Which factors were associated with higher or lower referral rates?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Patients older than 30 were less likely to be referred, while younger patients and those with breast cancer had higher referral rates; physician gender showed no difference, and oncologists with 21–30 years of experience referred more than those with under 10 years.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},352554,1790169721,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":107,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146},137451207643,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics (2026) 43:873–893  \n[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-025-03784-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-025-03784-z)  \nPredictors of referral for fertility preservation counseling in patients diagnosed with cancer  \nParis N. Chey1,4 · Miranda L. M. Delwalla2 · Julia Shuford1 · Natalie Albright1 · Katharina Goebel1 · Julia Grigorian1 · Sheila Rajagopalan1 · D. Austin Schirmer3 · Heather S. Hipp3  \nReceived: 10 June 2025 / Accepted: 12 December 2025 / Published online: 2 January 2026 © The Author(s) 2026  \nAbstract  \nObjective Fertility preservation (FP) is an important aspect of care for reproductive-aged cancer patients since treatment can significantly impact fertility. Despite professional recommendations for early referral to FP, rates remain low. This study evaluates predictors of FP referrals by Oncologists to Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) physicians among reproductive-aged cancer patients at a large academic institution.  \nMaterials and methods This cross-sectional study evaluated patients ages 14–42 years seen by an Oncologist from 2022 to 2024 with a new diagnosis of cancer for whom planned treatment is either gonadotoxic or requires delayed pregnancy. Referral rates to REI physicians were assessed by patient demographics and cancer and Oncologist characteristics as potential predictors. Statistical analysis used chi-square tests, Fisher’s exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression.  \nResults Of 510 patients seen by an Oncologist for a newly diagnosed cancer, only 127 (22.5%) were referred for FP. Patients >30 years were less likely to be referred than younger patients (aOR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.47, p = 0.001) . Patients with breast cancer were most likely to be referred compared to other cancers. There was no difference in referral rates by physician gender. Physicians with 21–30 years of experience were more likely to refer than those with \u003C 10 years (aOR = 2.89, 95% CI = 1.50, 5.62, p = 0.002) .  \nConclusions There was a low rate ofFP referral and significant disparities based on patient demographics and clinical factors. Referral rates were higher among younger patients and breast cancer patients. Standardizing FP referrals across oncology specialties, consideration of electronic health record “soft stops” for referral and increasing patient and provider education are essential to improving referral rates.  \nKeywords Oncofertility · Reproductive health · Fertility preservation · Survivorship · Cancer  \n* Paris N. Chey [paris.chey@pennmedicine.upenn.edu](paris.chey@pennmedicine.upenn.edu)  \n1 Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA  \n2 Division of Research, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA  \n3 Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA  \n4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA  \nIntroduction  \nOncology patients of reproductive age face the dual challenge of fighting cancer and mitigating long-term negative effects of treatment, including infertility [1] . While cancer treatment has resulted in the improvement of 5-year survival rates since the 1970 s, 40–80% of reproductive-aged female cancer survivors will experience infertility or premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) [2] . Thus, fertility preservation (FP), including oocyte and sperm cryopreservation, is a crucial piece of care for patients of reproductive age to minimize the impact of cancer treatment on reproductive function [1] . The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends thorough FP discussions with patients before and at several steps throughout cancer treatment [3] .  \nDespite the acknowledged importance ofFP in oncology care, current care models have barriers to optimal implementation [4–7] . FP referral rates range from 10 to 40%[1 , 2, 8–10], ","cbCaiibNIOph3Epz","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiibNIOph3Epz","pdf",1355623,21,"English","# Abstract\n## Objective\n## Materials and methods\n## Results\n## Conclusions\n# Keywords\n# Introduction\n## Clinical importance of fertility preservation\n## Barriers and disparities in referral\n## Study aims\n# Materials and methods\n## Study design and setting\n## Eligibility criteria\n## Referral process","[{\"question\":\"What was the main goal of this study?\",\"answer\":\"The study evaluated predictors of fertility preservation (FP) referrals from oncologists to REI physicians for reproductive-aged cancer patients.\"},{\"question\":\"How many patients were referred for fertility preservation counseling?\",\"answer\":\"Among 510 patients, 127 (22.5%) were referred for FP counseling.\"},{\"question\":\"Which factors were associated with higher or lower referral rates?\",\"answer\":\"Patients older than 30 were less likely to be referred, while younger patients and those with breast cancer had higher referral rates; physician gender showed no difference, and oncologists with 21–30 years of experience referred more than those with under 10 years.\"}]","Predictors of referral for fertility preservation counseling in patients diagnosed with cancer | PDF",1790100238,53]