Purpose: To estimate the prevalence of sperm banking among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer and to identify factors associated with banking outcomes.Patients and Methods: A prospective, single-group, observational study design was used to test the contribution of sociodemographic, medical, psychological/health belief, communication, and developmental factors to fertility preservation outcomes. At-risk adolescent males (N = 146; age 13.00 to 21.99 years; Tanner stage ≥ 3), their parents, and medical providers from eight leading pediatric oncology centers across the United States and Canada completed self-report questionnaires within 1 week of treatment initiation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for specified banking outcomes (collection attempt v no attempt and successful completion of banking v no banking).Results: Among adolescents (mean age, 16.49 years; standard deviation, 2.02 years), 53.4% (78 of 146) made a collection attempt, with 43.8% (64 of 146) successfully banking sperm (82.1% of attempters). The overall attempt model revealed adolescent consultation with a fertility specialist (OR, 29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P = .007), parent recommendation to bank (OR, 12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P = .007), and higher Tanner stage (OR, 5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P = .003) were associated with an increased likelihood of a collection attempt. Adolescent history of masturbation (OR, 5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P = .025), banking self-efficacy (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P = .012), and parent (OR, 4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P = .010) or medical team (OR, 4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P = .008) recommendation to bank were associated with increased likelihood of sperm banking completion.Conclusion: Although findings suggest that banking is underutilized, modifiable adolescent, parent, and provider factors associated with banking outcomes were identified and should be targeted in future intervention efforts.

Purpose: Cancer survivors are at high risk for human papillomavirus (HPV)-related morbidities; we estimated the prevalence of HPV vaccine initiation in cancer survivors versus the US population and examined predictors of noninitiation. Methods: Participants included 982 cancer survivors (9 to 26 years of age; 1 to 5 years postcompletion of therapy); we assessed HPV vaccine initiation, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and vaccine-specific health beliefs; age-, sex-, and year-matched US population comparisons were from the National Immunization Survey-Teen and the National Health Interview Survey (2012-2015). Results: The mean age at the time of the study was 16.3 ± 4.7 years; the mean time off therapy was 2.7 ± 1.2 years; participants were 55% male and 66% non-Hispanic white; 59% had leukemia/lymphoma. Vaccine initiation rates were significantly lower in cancer survivors versus the general population (23.8%; 95% CI, 20.6% to 27.0% v 40.5%; 95% CI, 40.2% to 40.7%; P < .001); survivors were more likely to be HPV vaccine–naïve than general population peers (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.09; P < .001). Initiation in adolescent survivors (ages 13 to 17 years) was 22.0% (95% CI, 17.3% to 26.7%), significantly lower than population peers (42.5%; 95% CI, 42.2% to 42.8%; P < .001). Initiation in young adult survivors and peers (ages 18 to 26 years) was comparably low (25.3%; 95% CI, 20.9% to 29.7% v 24.2%; 95% CI, 23.6% to 24.9%). Predictors of noninitiation included lack of provider recommendation (OR, 10.8; 95% CI, 6.5 to 18.0; P < .001), survivors’ perceived lack of insurance coverage for HPV vaccine (OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 3.9 to 11.0; P < .001), male sex (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.8; P < .001), endorsement of vaccine-related barriers (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6 to 4.6; P < .001), and younger age (9 to 12 years; OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.8-7.6; P < .001; comparison, 13 to 17 years). Conclusion: HPV vaccine initiation rates in cancer survivors are low. Lack of provider recommendation and barriers to vaccine receipt should be targeted in vaccine promotion efforts.

Although survivors of childhood cancer are at an increased risk, little is known about the prevalence of chronic pain, associated interference, and daily pain experiences. Survivors (N = 233; mean age = 40.8 years, range 22-64 years; mean time since diagnosis = 32.7 years) from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study completed pain and psychosocial measures. Survivors with chronic pain completed 2-week, daily measures assessing pain and psychological symptoms using mHealth-based ecological momentary assessment. Multivariable-modified Poisson and linear regression models estimated prevalence ratio estimates (PR) and mean effects with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations of key risk factors with chronic pain and pain interference, respectively. Multilevel mixed models examined outcomes of daily pain and pain interference with prior day symptoms. Ninety-six survivors (41%) reported chronic pain, of whom 23 (24%) had severe interference. Chronic pain was associated with previous intravenous methotrexate treatment (PR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3), respiratory (PR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.5), gastrointestinal (PR = 1.6, 95% CI 11.0-2.3), and neurological (PR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.1) chronic health conditions, unemployment (PR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.9) and clinically significant depression and anxiety (PR = 2.9, 95% CI 2.0-4.2), as well as a diagnosis of childhood Ewing sarcoma or osteosarcoma (PR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.5). Higher pain interference was associated with cardiovascular and neurological conditions, unemployment and clinical levels of depression and/or anxiety, and fear of cancer recurrence. For male, but not female survivors, low sleep quality, elevated anxiety, and elevated depression predicted high pain intensity and interference the next day. A substantial proportion of childhood cancer survivors experience chronic pain and significant associated interference. Chronic pain should be routinely evaluated, and interventions are needed.