OBJECTIVE: As a secondary report to elucidate the diverse spectrum of oncofertility practices for childhood cancer around the globe, we present and discuss the comparisons of oncofertility practices for childhood cancer in limited versus optimum resource settings based on data collected in the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II.
METHODS: We surveyed 39 oncofertility centers including 14 in limited resource settings from Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I), and 25 in optimum resource settings from the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part II). Survey questions covered the availability of fertility preservation and restoration options offered in case of childhood cancer as well as their degree of utilization.
RESULTS: In the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, responses for childhood cancer and calculated oncofertility scores showed the following characteristics: (1) higher oncofertility scores in optimum resource settings than in limited resource settings for ovarian and testicular tissue cryopreservation; (2) frequent utilization of gonadal shielding, fractionation of anticancer therapy, oophoropexy, and GnRH analogs; (3) promising utilization of oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM); and (4) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, in vitro spermatogenesis, and stem cells reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, we presented a plausible oncofertility best practice model to help optimize care for children with cancer in various resource settings. Special ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and innovative oncofertility options to children.

OBJECTIVE: As a further step to elucidate the actual diverse spectrum of oncofertility practices for breast cancer around the globe, we present and discuss the comparisons of oncofertility practices for breast cancer in limited versus optimum resource settings based on data collected in the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II.
METHODS: We surveyed 39 oncofertility centers including 14 in limited resource settings from Africa, Asia & Latin America (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I), and 25 in optimum resource settings from the United States, Europe, Australia and Japan (Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part II). Survey questions covered the availability of fertility preservation and restoration options offered to young female patients with breast cancer as well as the degree of utilization.
RESULTS: In the Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part I & II, responses for breast cancer and calculated oncofertility scores showed the following characteristics: (1) higher oncofertility scores in optimum resource settings than in limited resource settings especially for established options, (2) frequent utilization of egg freezing, embryo freezing, ovarian tissue freezing, GnRH analogs, and fractionation of chemo- and radiotherapy, (3) promising utilization of oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM), (4) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, and stem cells reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings, (5) recognition that technical and ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and innovative oncofertility options.
CONCLUSIONS: We presented a plausible oncofertility best practice model to guide oncofertility teams in optimizing care for breast cancer patients in various resource settings.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part 2 is to learn more about oncofertility practices in optimum resource settings to provide a roadmap to establish oncofertility best practice models.
METHODS: As an extrapolation for oncofertility best practice models in optimum resource settings, we surveyed 25 leading and well-resourced oncofertility centers and institutions from the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan. The survey included questions on the availability and degree of utilization of fertility preservation options in case of childhood cancer, breast cancer, and blood cancer.
RESULTS: All surveyed centers responded to all questions. Responses and their calculated oncofertility scores showed three major characteristics of oncofertility practice in optimum resource settings: (1) strong utilization of sperm freezing, egg freezing, embryo freezing, ovarian tissue freezing, gonadal shielding, and fractionation of chemo- and radiotherapy; (2) promising utilization of GnRH analogs, oophoropexy, testicular tissue freezing, and oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM); and (3) rare utilization of neoadjuvant cytoprotective pharmacotherapy, artificial ovary, in vitro spermatogenesis, and stem cell reproductive technology as they are still in preclinical or early clinical research settings. Proper technical and ethical concerns should be considered when offering advanced and experimental oncofertility options to patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Our Repro-Can-OPEN Study Part 2 proposed installing specific oncofertility programs for common cancers in optimum resource settings as an extrapolation for best practice models. This will provide efficient oncofertility edification and modeling to oncofertility teams and related healthcare providers around the globe and help them offer the best care possible to their patients.