B Edge1, D Holmes, G Makin. 1. Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Semen cryopreservation is a widely available method of maintaining fertility in male cancer patients. However this facility is not always used. AIMS: To identify the barriers to successful sperm banking in a group of adolescent and young adult patients. METHODS: Questionnaires were administered to 55 patients aged 13-21 years who had received potentially gonadotoxic therapy between 1997 and 2001 and had been offered sperm banking. RESULTS: Forty five questionnaires were completed; 67% of respondents were able to bank sperm. Those who had been unsuccessful were younger and described higher levels of anxiety at diagnosis and greater difficulty in talking about fertility. They also described less understanding of sperm banking at the time of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Most adolescent cancer patients who have been offered fertility preservation are able to bank sperm. Younger patients may be helped by the provision of high quality information and more open discussion of the technique.
BACKGROUND: Semen cryopreservation is a widely available method of maintaining fertility in male cancerpatients. However this facility is not always used. AIMS: To identify the barriers to successful sperm banking in a group of adolescent and young adult patients. METHODS: Questionnaires were administered to 55 patients aged 13-21 years who had received potentially gonadotoxic therapy between 1997 and 2001 and had been offered sperm banking. RESULTS: Forty five questionnaires were completed; 67% of respondents were able to bank sperm. Those who had been unsuccessful were younger and described higher levels of anxiety at diagnosis and greater difficulty in talking about fertility. They also described less understanding of sperm banking at the time of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Most adolescent cancerpatients who have been offered fertility preservation are able to bank sperm. Younger patients may be helped by the provision of high quality information and more open discussion of the technique.
Authors: R Grundy; R G Gosden; M Hewitt; V Larcher; A Leiper; H A Spoudeas; D Walker; W H Wallace Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: F H Blackhall; A D Atkinson; M B Maaya; W D J Ryder; G Horne; D R Brison; B A Lieberman; J A Radford Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-08-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Devin Murphy; Caprice Knapp; Daniel K Stearsman; Kathy L Bradley-Klug; Kelly Sawczyn; Marla L Clayman Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Kate E Waimey; Brigid M Smith; Rafael Confino; Jacqueline S Jeruss; Mary Ellen Pavone Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: James L Klosky; Vicky Lehmann; Jessica S Flynn; Yin Su; Hui Zhang; Kathryn M Russell; Lauren A M Schenck; Leslie R Schover Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Vicky Lehmann; Jessica S Flynn; Rebecca H Foster; Kathryn M Russell; James L Klosky Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Alison W Loren; Pamela B Mangu; Lindsay Nohr Beck; Lawrence Brennan; Anthony J Magdalinski; Ann H Partridge; Gwendolyn Quinn; W Hamish Wallace; Kutluk Oktay Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James L Klosky; Jessica L Simmons; Kathryn M Russell; Rebecca H Foster; Gina M Sabbatini; Kristin E Canavera; Jason R Hodges; Leslie R Schover; Michael J McDermott Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-08-02 Impact factor: 3.603