Changing the Narrative, Starting With Us.

Infertility can affect anyone, including Black women who, contrary to popular belief, are most likely to suffer from infertility, less likely to seek fertility care, and more likely to delay or completely forgo fertility treatment (Chin et al Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 29(5):416-25, 5). These trends are likely fueled by deep-rooted stigma generated from a multitude of origins. Some black women may feel uncomfortable discussing their experience with infertility due to the pervasive stereotype that Black women are hyper-fertile (Ceballo et al Psychol Women Q 39(4):497-511, 20). This stereotype also has important implications within the medical field, in which provider implicit bias may affect referrals and treatment plans, further contributing to stratified reproduction (Chapman et al J Gen Intern Med 28(11):1504-10, 15, FitzGerald and Hurst BMC Med Ethics 18(1):19, 16). It is time for the medical community to shift our focus to what we can change, starting with how we perceive the narrative. In order to effect change, providers should first become and remain aware of racial/ethnic disparities within reproduction. We can make a concerted effort to effectively counsel Black women about their fertility and future childbearing goals, as well as strive to debunk false racial/ethnic fertility stereotypes with medical evidence. We should actively work to understand our biases, where they stem from, and how to resolve them. We must aim to always provide respectful, equitable, and consistent care, especially when deciding how to counsel someone regarding fertility preservation and infertility treatment options. In sum, we can approach solving this complicated racial-ethnic gap in health equity by taking small intentional and parallel steps, starting now.

Has oncofertility information for male patients improved? Objective assessment of internet-based fertility preservation resources at NCI cancer centers from 2015 to 2020.

PURPOSE: Fertility preservation is a critical patient counseling component following cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare change and quality of fertility preservation information available to patients on the websites of National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers over 5 years (2015 to 2020) for both women and men. METHODS: All NCI-designated cancer center websites were queried for information on oncofertility in 2020 publicly available to patients using the methodology and rubric previously employed in 2015. Data was evaluated based on each center's city, county, and state by demographic data obtained from the US Census. Additionally, the yearly number of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles performed in the city, county, and state of each NCICC was included using websites of clinics reporting data to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. RESULTS: Significantly NCICCs have a standalone pages for fertility preservation in 2020 compared with 2015 (p = 0.004). There is a statistically significant association between discussion of male fertility and the number of fertility centers in the county and state of the NCICC (p = 0.04 and p = 0.001). NCICCs in counties in the highest quartile of per capita income were significantly more likely to address male fertility (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Oncofertility information on NCICC websites has improved between 2015 and 2020. The impact of cancer treatment on male fertility, while improved, is still limited, particularly in counties with lower per capita income.

Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Throughout the world, intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) are a frequently used, reversible, popular contraceptive method. They are usually placed without major complications. Uterine perforation is a rarely observed complication. Migration of the IUD to the pelvic/abdominal cavity or adjacent structures can occur after perforation. We present 3 cases of uterine perforation, possibly due to scarred myometrium associated with a cesarean delivery. We describe 3 perforations with IUDs lodged in the bladder serosa, the posterior cul-de-sac, and tissue adjacent to the cardinal ligament and external iliac artery. CASES: Case 1. 26-year-old, Gravid 4, Para 2113, nonpregnant female with a history of a cesarean delivery underwent placement of an IUD one year after an elective pregnancy termination, presenting with abdominal pain requesting removal of the IUD. On speculum, although the IUD strings were visualized, the IUD could not be removed. Sonogram imaging identified an empty endometrial cavity with the IUD in posterior cul-de-sac. The IUD was removed via laparoscopy. CASE 2: 34-year-old Gravida 5, Para 4004, at 27 weeks and 3 days gestation, female with history of two previous cesarean deliveries underwent a third cesarean after spontaneous rupture of membranes with comorbid chorioamnionitis. Reproductive history was significant for placement of an IUD that had not been removed or imaged during obstetrical sonograms. The clinical evaluation revealed that the IUD had been spontaneously expelled. On the fifth operative day, the patient is febrile with CT demonstrating the IUD penetrating the anterior surface of bladder. On cystoscopy the bladder mucosa was intact. The IUD was removed via laparotomy with repair of the bladder, serosa, and muscular layer. CASE 3: 26-year-old, Gravid 4, P3013, nonpregnant female with three previous Cesarean deliveries had an IUD in place. However, with the IUD in situ, the patient conceived and had a spontaneous abortion. After the spontaneous abortion, she presented to clinic to have the IUD removed due to pain that was present since placement. Although the IUD strings were visualized, attempts to remove it were unsuccessful. Imaging identified the IUD outside the uterine cavity. Palpation with a blunt probe laparoscopically revealed a hard object within the adhesion band, close to the cardinal ligament. As per radiology evaluation, IUD was embedded 1cm from the external iliac artery on the right side outside the uterus in the adnexal region. A multidisciplinary procedure with gynecologic-oncologist was scheduled for removal due to the high risk of perioperative bleeding. CONCLUSION: Patients in whom uterine perforation and IUD migration are suspected should have appropriate evaluation that includes transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound or radiographs to confirm the position of the IUD, regardless of whether they are asymptomatic or present with symptoms. It is particularly important in the presence of a scarred uterus that imaging is used to identify the location of a missing IUD. The uterine scar of a cesarean may facilitate migration of the IUD. Cross sectional imaging, such as CT or MRI scan, may be needed to rule out adjacent organ involvement before surgical removal.