PURPOSE: Report the characteristics of cryopreserved semen from a cohort of male cancer patients, attitudes towards cryopreservation and outcomes of semen samples based on a 12-year cryopreservation program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from 98 male cancer patients whose sperm samples were banked were evaluated. Demographic parameters, semen characteristics, destination of sperm banked samples and questionnaires answered by the patients regarding cryopreservation time were evaluated. RESULTS: The cancer diagnoses were testicle (56.1%), prostate (15.3%), Hodgkin's lymphomas (9.2%), non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (7.1%), leukemia (3.1%) and other malignancies (9.2%). The patients with testicular cancer presented lower sperm concentration (p < 0.001); however, there were no differences with the percentage of normozoospermic patients among cancer type groups (p = 0.185). A shorter time between cancer diagnosis and sperm banking was observed for testicular and prostate cancer patients (p < 0.001). Most of the patients (89.5%) favored sperm banking as a fertility preservation method. CONCLUSIONS: Although less than 20% of banked sperm samples were disposed of, the majority of patients related sperm banking with safe for fertility preservation. Our results show that all male cancer patients of reproductive age facing cancer treatment could be offered sperm banking.
PURPOSE: Report the characteristics of cryopreserved semen from a cohort of male cancerpatients, attitudes towards cryopreservation and outcomes of semen samples based on a 12-year cryopreservation program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from 98 male cancerpatients whose sperm samples were banked were evaluated. Demographic parameters, semen characteristics, destination of sperm banked samples and questionnaires answered by the patients regarding cryopreservation time were evaluated. RESULTS: The cancer diagnoses were testicle (56.1%), prostate (15.3%), Hodgkin's lymphomas (9.2%), non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (7.1%), leukemia (3.1%) and other malignancies (9.2%). The patients with testicular cancer presented lower sperm concentration (p < 0.001); however, there were no differences with the percentage of normozoospermic patients among cancer type groups (p = 0.185). A shorter time between cancer diagnosis and sperm banking was observed for testicular and prostate cancerpatients (p < 0.001). Most of the patients (89.5%) favored sperm banking as a fertility preservation method. CONCLUSIONS: Although less than 20% of banked sperm samples were disposed of, the majority of patients related sperm banking with safe for fertility preservation. Our results show that all male cancerpatients of reproductive age facing cancer treatment could be offered sperm banking.
Authors: Holly C Evans; Thu T N Dinh; Madison L Hardcastle; Alicia A Gilmore; Muhammet R Ugur; Mustafa Hitit; Frank Dean Jousan; Molly C Nicodemus; Erdogan Memili Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2021-04-16