Oncofertility: insights from IVF specialists—a worldwide web-based survey analysis

Purpose This research sought to understand IVF-physicians’ knowledge of, experience with, and attitudes toward fertility preservation for cancer patients. Methods A 35-question, self-report survey request was emailed to IVF providers who were registered on the IVF-Worldwide.com network (3826 clinics...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics 2019-05, Vol.36 (5), p.1013-1021
Hauptverfasser: Shoham, Gon, Levy-Toledano, Rachel, Leong, Milton, Weissman, Ariel, Yaron, Yuval, Shoham, Zeev
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1021
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1013
container_title Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
container_volume 36
creator Shoham, Gon
Levy-Toledano, Rachel
Leong, Milton
Weissman, Ariel
Yaron, Yuval
Shoham, Zeev
description Purpose This research sought to understand IVF-physicians’ knowledge of, experience with, and attitudes toward fertility preservation for cancer patients. Methods A 35-question, self-report survey request was emailed to IVF providers who were registered on the IVF-Worldwide.com network (3826 clinics). Physicians submitted responses on the IVF-Worldwide.com website. Survey results were reported as a proportion of the responding clinics. Results Survey responses were completed by 321 (8.4%) globally distributed IVF clinics, representing 299,800 IVF cycles. Of these clinics, 86.6% (278) performed fertility preservation, treating approximately 6300 patients annually. However, 18.4% of the centers reported that patients sought advice independently, without an oncologist’s referral. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation was performed by 37.7% of the clinics, yet 52.6% considered the procedure experimental. IVM was performed by 16.5% of responding clinics. A majority (63.6%) of the clinics selected treatment protocols based on each patient’s malignancy. Most respondents (76.3%) disagreed that fertility preservation was not yet successful enough to make it an available option. However, 44.2% believed that pregnancy rates following oocyte cryopreservation could not be determined because not enough oocyte cryopreservation patients had completed embryo transfer. Conclusions Most clinics performed fertility preservation, tailoring protocols to each patient’s disease and condition. Almost 20% of patients sought advice independently, indicating that more effort is needed to encourage oncologists to refer patients. Most survey respondents believed that data was not yet available on either live birth outcomes or the best protocol for each disease. Therefore, long-term study must continue, with the establishment of interim milestones and an outcome-tracking registry.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10815-019-01419-8
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6541670</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2183933514</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4558-ccc59977f0fd6f67e1ae48bd7091cedecbe9c059c0b7bccf3b2fb320eb83311d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi0EoqXwAhxQJC5cAuM4jh0OSFVFoVKlXgpXy3bGW1fZePEkXe2Nh-AJeRJMt5Q_Bw4zY2l-83lGH2PPObzmAOoNcdBc1sD7Em3J-gE75FKJWgkBD8sbpK6h7fQBe0J0DQC9bsRjdiBAad11_JBdXkw-BcxzHOO8e1vFieLqaqYq5LSuzj6fVrRBH-0YaabvX7_ZapvyOGzjgNUWXe0s4VDRkm9wV9nJjjuK9JQ9CnYkfHZXj9in0_eXJx_r84sPZyfH57VvZdnMey_7XqkAYehCp5BbbLUbFPTc44DeYe9BlnDKeR-Ea4ITDaDTQnA-iCP2bq-7WdwaB4_TnO1oNjmubd6ZZKP5uzPFK7NKN6aTLe8UFIFXdwI5fVmQZrOO5HEc7YRpIdNw3UrBddMV9OU_6HVacjn4lhK9EJK3hWr2lM-JKGO4X4aD-Wma2Ztmimnm1jSjy9CLP8-4H_nlUgHEHqDSmlaYf__9H9kfY_WlxA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2183933514</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Oncofertility: insights from IVF specialists—a worldwide web-based survey analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Shoham, Gon ; Levy-Toledano, Rachel ; Leong, Milton ; Weissman, Ariel ; Yaron, Yuval ; Shoham, Zeev</creator><creatorcontrib>Shoham, Gon ; Levy-Toledano, Rachel ; Leong, Milton ; Weissman, Ariel ; Yaron, Yuval ; Shoham, Zeev</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose This research sought to understand IVF-physicians’ knowledge of, experience with, and attitudes toward fertility preservation for cancer patients. Methods A 35-question, self-report survey request was emailed to IVF providers who were registered on the IVF-Worldwide.com network (3826 clinics). Physicians submitted responses on the IVF-Worldwide.com website. Survey results were reported as a proportion of the responding clinics. Results Survey responses were completed by 321 (8.4%) globally distributed IVF clinics, representing 299,800 IVF cycles. Of these clinics, 86.6% (278) performed fertility preservation, treating approximately 6300 patients annually. However, 18.4% of the centers reported that patients sought advice independently, without an oncologist’s referral. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation was performed by 37.7% of the clinics, yet 52.6% considered the procedure experimental. IVM was performed by 16.5% of responding clinics. A majority (63.6%) of the clinics selected treatment protocols based on each patient’s malignancy. Most respondents (76.3%) disagreed that fertility preservation was not yet successful enough to make it an available option. However, 44.2% believed that pregnancy rates following oocyte cryopreservation could not be determined because not enough oocyte cryopreservation patients had completed embryo transfer. Conclusions Most clinics performed fertility preservation, tailoring protocols to each patient’s disease and condition. Almost 20% of patients sought advice independently, indicating that more effort is needed to encourage oncologists to refer patients. Most survey respondents believed that data was not yet available on either live birth outcomes or the best protocol for each disease. Therefore, long-term study must continue, with the establishment of interim milestones and an outcome-tracking registry.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-0468</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7330</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01419-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30788661</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel ; Cancer ; Cryopreservation ; Embryo transfer ; Female ; Fertility ; Fertility Preservation ; Fertility Preservation - psychology ; Fertilization in Vitro - methods ; Gynecology ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Human Genetics ; Humans ; Infertility, Female - therapy ; Internet ; Malignancy ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Neoplasms - physiopathology ; Patients ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Rate ; Reproductive Medicine ; Specialization ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2019-05, Vol.36 (5), p.1013-1021</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4558-ccc59977f0fd6f67e1ae48bd7091cedecbe9c059c0b7bccf3b2fb320eb83311d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4558-ccc59977f0fd6f67e1ae48bd7091cedecbe9c059c0b7bccf3b2fb320eb83311d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9225-3256</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6541670/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6541670/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30788661$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shoham, Gon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levy-Toledano, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leong, Milton</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weissman, Ariel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yaron, Yuval</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shoham, Zeev</creatorcontrib><title>Oncofertility: insights from IVF specialists—a worldwide web-based survey analysis</title><title>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics</title><addtitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</addtitle><addtitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</addtitle><description>Purpose This research sought to understand IVF-physicians’ knowledge of, experience with, and attitudes toward fertility preservation for cancer patients. Methods A 35-question, self-report survey request was emailed to IVF providers who were registered on the IVF-Worldwide.com network (3826 clinics). Physicians submitted responses on the IVF-Worldwide.com website. Survey results were reported as a proportion of the responding clinics. Results Survey responses were completed by 321 (8.4%) globally distributed IVF clinics, representing 299,800 IVF cycles. Of these clinics, 86.6% (278) performed fertility preservation, treating approximately 6300 patients annually. However, 18.4% of the centers reported that patients sought advice independently, without an oncologist’s referral. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation was performed by 37.7% of the clinics, yet 52.6% considered the procedure experimental. IVM was performed by 16.5% of responding clinics. A majority (63.6%) of the clinics selected treatment protocols based on each patient’s malignancy. Most respondents (76.3%) disagreed that fertility preservation was not yet successful enough to make it an available option. However, 44.2% believed that pregnancy rates following oocyte cryopreservation could not be determined because not enough oocyte cryopreservation patients had completed embryo transfer. Conclusions Most clinics performed fertility preservation, tailoring protocols to each patient’s disease and condition. Almost 20% of patients sought advice independently, indicating that more effort is needed to encourage oncologists to refer patients. Most survey respondents believed that data was not yet available on either live birth outcomes or the best protocol for each disease. Therefore, long-term study must continue, with the establishment of interim milestones and an outcome-tracking registry.</description><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cryopreservation</subject><subject>Embryo transfer</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fertility</subject><subject>Fertility Preservation</subject><subject>Fertility Preservation - psychology</subject><subject>Fertilization in Vitro - methods</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Human Genetics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infertility, Female - therapy</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Malignancy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Neoplasms - physiopathology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Rate</subject><subject>Reproductive Medicine</subject><subject>Specialization</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>1058-0468</issn><issn>1573-7330</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi0EoqXwAhxQJC5cAuM4jh0OSFVFoVKlXgpXy3bGW1fZePEkXe2Nh-AJeRJMt5Q_Bw4zY2l-83lGH2PPObzmAOoNcdBc1sD7Em3J-gE75FKJWgkBD8sbpK6h7fQBe0J0DQC9bsRjdiBAad11_JBdXkw-BcxzHOO8e1vFieLqaqYq5LSuzj6fVrRBH-0YaabvX7_ZapvyOGzjgNUWXe0s4VDRkm9wV9nJjjuK9JQ9CnYkfHZXj9in0_eXJx_r84sPZyfH57VvZdnMey_7XqkAYehCp5BbbLUbFPTc44DeYe9BlnDKeR-Ea4ITDaDTQnA-iCP2bq-7WdwaB4_TnO1oNjmubd6ZZKP5uzPFK7NKN6aTLe8UFIFXdwI5fVmQZrOO5HEc7YRpIdNw3UrBddMV9OU_6HVacjn4lhK9EJK3hWr2lM-JKGO4X4aD-Wma2Ztmimnm1jSjy9CLP8-4H_nlUgHEHqDSmlaYf__9H9kfY_WlxA</recordid><startdate>201905</startdate><enddate>201905</enddate><creator>Shoham, Gon</creator><creator>Levy-Toledano, Rachel</creator><creator>Leong, Milton</creator><creator>Weissman, Ariel</creator><creator>Yaron, Yuval</creator><creator>Shoham, Zeev</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9225-3256</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201905</creationdate><title>Oncofertility: insights from IVF specialists—a worldwide web-based survey analysis</title><author>Shoham, Gon ; Levy-Toledano, Rachel ; Leong, Milton ; Weissman, Ariel ; Yaron, Yuval ; Shoham, Zeev</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4558-ccc59977f0fd6f67e1ae48bd7091cedecbe9c059c0b7bccf3b2fb320eb83311d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cryopreservation</topic><topic>Embryo transfer</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fertility</topic><topic>Fertility Preservation</topic><topic>Fertility Preservation - psychology</topic><topic>Fertilization in Vitro - methods</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Human Genetics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infertility, Female - therapy</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Malignancy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Neoplasms - physiopathology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Rate</topic><topic>Reproductive Medicine</topic><topic>Specialization</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shoham, Gon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levy-Toledano, Rachel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leong, Milton</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weissman, Ariel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yaron, Yuval</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shoham, Zeev</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shoham, Gon</au><au>Levy-Toledano, Rachel</au><au>Leong, Milton</au><au>Weissman, Ariel</au><au>Yaron, Yuval</au><au>Shoham, Zeev</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Oncofertility: insights from IVF specialists—a worldwide web-based survey analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics</jtitle><stitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</stitle><addtitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</addtitle><date>2019-05</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1013</spage><epage>1021</epage><pages>1013-1021</pages><issn>1058-0468</issn><eissn>1573-7330</eissn><abstract>Purpose This research sought to understand IVF-physicians’ knowledge of, experience with, and attitudes toward fertility preservation for cancer patients. Methods A 35-question, self-report survey request was emailed to IVF providers who were registered on the IVF-Worldwide.com network (3826 clinics). Physicians submitted responses on the IVF-Worldwide.com website. Survey results were reported as a proportion of the responding clinics. Results Survey responses were completed by 321 (8.4%) globally distributed IVF clinics, representing 299,800 IVF cycles. Of these clinics, 86.6% (278) performed fertility preservation, treating approximately 6300 patients annually. However, 18.4% of the centers reported that patients sought advice independently, without an oncologist’s referral. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation was performed by 37.7% of the clinics, yet 52.6% considered the procedure experimental. IVM was performed by 16.5% of responding clinics. A majority (63.6%) of the clinics selected treatment protocols based on each patient’s malignancy. Most respondents (76.3%) disagreed that fertility preservation was not yet successful enough to make it an available option. However, 44.2% believed that pregnancy rates following oocyte cryopreservation could not be determined because not enough oocyte cryopreservation patients had completed embryo transfer. Conclusions Most clinics performed fertility preservation, tailoring protocols to each patient’s disease and condition. Almost 20% of patients sought advice independently, indicating that more effort is needed to encourage oncologists to refer patients. Most survey respondents believed that data was not yet available on either live birth outcomes or the best protocol for each disease. Therefore, long-term study must continue, with the establishment of interim milestones and an outcome-tracking registry.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>30788661</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10815-019-01419-8</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9225-3256</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1058-0468
ispartof Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2019-05, Vol.36 (5), p.1013-1021
issn 1058-0468
1573-7330
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6541670
source MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Attitude of Health Personnel
Cancer
Cryopreservation
Embryo transfer
Female
Fertility
Fertility Preservation
Fertility Preservation - psychology
Fertilization in Vitro - methods
Gynecology
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Human Genetics
Humans
Infertility, Female - therapy
Internet
Malignancy
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neoplasms - physiopathology
Patients
Polls & surveys
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Rate
Reproductive Medicine
Specialization
Surveys and Questionnaires
title Oncofertility: insights from IVF specialists—a worldwide web-based survey analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T20%3A49%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Oncofertility:%20insights%20from%20IVF%20specialists%E2%80%94a%20worldwide%20web-based%20survey%20analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20assisted%20reproduction%20and%20genetics&rft.au=Shoham,%20Gon&rft.date=2019-05&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1013&rft.epage=1021&rft.pages=1013-1021&rft.issn=1058-0468&rft.eissn=1573-7330&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10815-019-01419-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2183933514%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2183933514&rft_id=info:pmid/30788661&rfr_iscdi=true