Current literature reveals no increased risk for adverse non-hereditary health outcomes in the offspring of childhood cancer survivors (CCS), yet survivors reported concerns regarding their offspring's health. To investigate how the fear of cancer development in offspring influences parental behavior related to health and prevention, survey reports from 256 European adult CCS and 256 age- and sex-matched siblings who participated in a multicenter study on offspring health were analyzed in the present study. Analyses of covariance and chi-square tests were conducted to test for differences between CCS and siblings in outcome variables (all related to healthy parenting behavior). CCS reported higher fear levels (p = 0.044, Partial η2 = 0.01) and less alcohol consumption (p = 0.011, Phi = 0.12) and smoking (p = 0.022, Phi = 0.11) during pregnancy than siblings. In survivor families, children were breastfed less often (p < 0.001, Phi = 0.18). Partial correlation analyses showed that CCS' fear levels decreased with increasing age (r = -0.16, p = 0.014), time since oncological therapy (r = -0.19, p = 0.003), and number of children (r = -0.21, p = 0.001). Overall, due to their own experiences with cancer, many CCS harbor misperceptions regarding the health outcomes of their offspring. Although the fear decreases with increasing distance from the active disease, any fear should be taken seriously, even if unfounded, and combated through targeted educational measures.

• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

CCS often wish to have biological children yet harbour concerns about fertility impairment, pregnancy risks and the general health risks of prospective offspring. To clarify these concerns, health outcomes in survivor offspring born following ART (n = 74, 4.5%) or after spontaneous conception (n = 1585) were assessed in our European offspring study by descriptive and bivariate analysis. Outcomes were compared to a sibling offspring cohort (n = 387) in a 4:1 matched-pair analysis (n = 1681). (i) Survivors were more likely to employ ART than their siblings (4.5% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.501). Successful pregnancies were achieved after a median of one cycle with, most commonly, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using non-cryopreserved oocytes/sperm. (ii) Multiple-sibling births (p < 0.001, 29.7% vs. 2.5%), low birth weight (p < 0.001; OR = 3.035, 95%-CI = 1.615-5.706), and preterm birth (p < 0.001; OR = 2.499, 95%-CI = 1.401-4.459) occurred significantly more often in survivor offspring following ART utilisation than in spontaneously conceived children. ART did not increase the prevalence of childhood cancer, congenital malformations or heart defects. (iii) These outcomes had similar prevalences in the sibling population. In our explorative study, we could not detect an influence on health outcomes when known confounders, such as multiple births, were taken into account.

• MeSH
• Reproductive Techniques, Assisted adverse effects   MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Neoplasms * epidemiology   MeSH
• Infant, Newborn MeSH
• Premature Birth * epidemiology   MeSH
• Cancer Survivors * MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Semen MeSH
• Pregnancy MeSH
• Pregnancy Outcome MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Infant, Newborn MeSH
• Pregnancy MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH

PURPOSE: Long-term follow-up (LTFU) care is essential to optimise health outcomes in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LTFU services and providers. METHODS: A COVID-19 working group within the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group (IGHG) distributed a questionnaire to LTFU service providers in 37 countries across Europe, Asia, North America, Central/South America, and Australia. The questionnaire assessed how care delivery methods changed during the pandemic and respondents' level of worry about the pandemic's impact on LTFU care delivery, their finances, their health, and that of their family and friends. RESULTS: Among 226 institutions, providers from 178 (79%) responded. Shortly after the initial outbreak, 42% of LTFU clinics closed. Restrictions during the pandemic resulted in fewer in-person consultations and an increased use of telemedicine, telephone, and email consultations. The use of a risk assessment to prioritise the method of LTFU consultation for individual CCS increased from 12 to 47%. While respondents anticipated in-person consultations to remain the primary method for LTFU service delivery, they expected significantly increased use of telemedicine and telephone consultations after the pandemic. On average, respondents reported highest levels of worry about psychosocial well-being of survivors. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic necessitated changes in LTFU service delivery, including greater use of virtual LTFU care and risk-stratification to identify CCS that need in-person evaluations. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Increased utilisation of virtual LTFU care and risk stratification is likely to persist post-pandemic.

• MeSH
• COVID-19 * epidemiology   MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Neoplasms * psychology   MeSH
• Pandemics MeSH
• Cancer Survivors * psychology   MeSH
• Survivors MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

INTRODUCTION: Research on childhood cancer survivor offspring has been limited to genetic disease occurrence, malformations or non-hereditary cancers. However, previous surveys indicated that survivors harbor fears about their (prospective) children's overall health. Our Multicenter Offspring Study examined extensive health aspects in children born to survivors and their siblings providing comprehensive information to be used in patient counseling to elucidate and alleviate existing concerns. METHODS: Using a specifically designed questionnaire, childhood cancer survivors and their siblings were surveyed on their offspring's health (Supplementary material). Recruitment strategies depended on local infrastructures and standards of participating centers, including registry-based and direct approaches. Group differences were tested non-parametrically and effect sizes were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 1126 survivors reported on 1780 offspring and 271 siblings reported on 441 offspring. Response rates ranged from 32.1% (Czech Republic) to 85.0% (Austria). Respondents were more likely to be female (p = .007), older at time of survey (p < .001), diagnosed 1980-1999 (p < .001) and treated with chemotherapy (p < .001). Compared to siblings, survivors were younger at time of survey (35 years vs. 39 years, p < .001) and at first birth (29 years vs. 30 years, p < .001). Survivor and sibling offspring only differed in terms of age at survey (6.3 years vs. 8.9 years, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The Multicenter Offspring Study investigates a wide variety of health aspects in offspring born to survivors and their siblings in five European countries. Our study cohorts form a solid basis for future analyses; yet, certain limitations, due to differences in approach among participating centers, must be considered when interpreting findings.

• MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Neoplasms * epidemiology   MeSH
• Cancer Survivors * MeSH
• Survivors MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Siblings MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH

Purpose: Within a multicenter European study, we explored fertility-related wishes, concerns, and decision-making of adolescent cancer patients and their parents. Patients and Methods: Patients and parents were each asked to complete a fertility-related questionnaire 3 months after initial diagnosis. In total, 113 of 142 (79.6%) eligible patients participated; 53.1% were male and the median age was 16 years (range 13-20 years). The questionnaire was completed by 111 parents. Univariate analyses were conducted using nonparametric methods with alpha = 5%. For multivariate analyses, binary logistic regression was conducted. Results: Both patients (86.1%) and parents (96.3%) indicated a strong desire for biological parenthood for themselves/their children. Female patients (odds ratio [OR] = 3.70; confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-9.50) and parents (OR = 2.70; CI: 1.21-6.00) were more likely to report a high fear of cancer recurrence. Patients who estimated their risk for fertility impairment being high were more likely to be concerned about their fertility (OR = 5.69; CI: 1.41-22.98). Parents who received fertility preservation information were more likely to recommend its use to their children (OR = 5.50; CI: 1.07-28.40), whereas parents of female patients were less likely to do so (OR = 0.13; CI: 0.03-0.61). Conclusions: The prospect of fertility following cancer treatment is important for adolescent cancer patients and their parents, yet it is associated with many concerns. Counseling regarding fertility preservation can be more effective when the individual needs of patients and their parents are taken into consideration.

• MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Fertility physiology   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Young Adult MeSH
• Neoplasms complications   psychology   MeSH
• Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
• Parents psychology   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Young Adult MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH

OBJECTIVE: As adolescent cancer patients may suffer from infertility following treatment, fertility counselling is essential. Our aim was to explore the current situation in four European countries in terms of (I) education about the risk for infertility, (II) counselling on fertility preservation, (III) patients' knowledge on fertility, (IV) sufficiency of information and (V) uptake of cryopreservation. METHODS: In total, 113 patients (13-20 years) at 11 study centres completed a self-report questionnaire three and six months after cancer diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: As many as 80.2% of participants reported having received education about the risk for infertility prior to treatment, 73.2% recalled counselling on fertility preservation. Only 52.3% stated they felt sufficiently informed to make a decision. Inability to recall counselling on fertility preservation (OR = 0.03, CI: 0.00-0.47) and female gender (OR = 0.11, CI: 0.03-0.48) was associated with lower use of cryopreservation, whereas older age was associated with higher use. CONCLUSION: Fertility counselling was available to a relatively high proportion of patients, and it did influence the utilisation of cryopreservation. However, many patients did not feel sufficiently informed. Further improvement is needed to enable adolescent cancer patients to make an informed decision on fertility preservation.

• MeSH
• Infertility * prevention & control   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Neoplasms * therapy   MeSH
• Counseling MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Fertility Preservation * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Geographicals
• Europe MeSH