Literature DB >> 20570975

Clinical and biochemical correlates of successful semen collection for cryopreservation from 12-18-year-old patients: a single-center study of 86 adolescents.

Isabella Hagenäs1, Niels Jørgensen, Catherine Rechnitzer, Peter Sommer, Mette Holm, Kjeld Schmiegelow, Gedske Daugaard, Niels Jacobsen, Anders Juul.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cryopreservation of semen should be offered to adults before gonadotoxic treatment. However, the experience with semen collection in adolescents is still limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate potential correlates of successful semen sampling in adolescents.
METHODS: A total of 86 boys (aged 12.2-17.9 years), referred for cryopreservation of semen prior to gonadotoxic treatment were included. Age, testicular volume, diagnosis and reproductive hormones were evaluated as correlates of successful semen collection.
RESULTS: Median sperm concentration was 9.6 (range 0-284) million/ml. Of the 86 included boys, 76 (88.4%) had spermatozoa in their ejaculate. Of the 76 patients for whom a semen sample was obtained, 71 (93.4%) had motile spermatozoa eligible for cryopreservation. Of the 86 boys, 74 produced a semen sample by masturbation, whereas semen samples were obtained from 12 patients by penile vibration or electroejaculation. The youngest patient with an ejaculate containing motile spermatozoa was 12.2 years old, and the smallest testicular volumes in boys associated with motile spermatozoa in the ejaculate were 6-7 ml. Testicular volume correlated with sperm concentration (R = 0.283, P = 0.046), and the percentage of motile spermatozoa (R = 0.410, P = 0.003). Chronological age, but not reproductive hormones, also correlated with sperm concentration (R = 0.25, P = 0.049).
CONCLUSIONS: Semen was successfully collected and cryopreserved in 71 out of 86 boys and adolescents. Testicular volume, but not age or reproductive hormone levels, was indicative of successful semen collection. Regardless of their age, adolescent boys with testicular volumes of more than 5 ml should be offered semen banking prior to gonadotoxic treatment or other procedures that could potentially damage future fertility.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20570975     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq147

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  17 in total

1.  Male reproductive health after childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancers: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Authors:  Lisa B Kenney; Laurie E Cohen; Margarett Shnorhavorian; Monika L Metzger; Barbara Lockart; Nobuko Hijiya; Eileen Duffey-Lind; Louis Constine; Daniel Green; Lillian Meacham
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Conducting reproductive research during a new childhood cancer diagnosis: ethical considerations and impact on participants.

Authors:  Leena Nahata; Taylor L Morgan; Keagan G Lipak; Olivia E Clark; Nicholas D Yeager; Sarah H O'Brien; Stacy Whiteside; Anthony N Audino; Cynthia A Gerhardt; Gwendolyn P Quinn
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 3.  Evidence-Based Recommendations for Fertility Preservation Options for Inclusion in Treatment Protocols for Pediatric and Adolescent Patients Diagnosed With Cancer.

Authors:  Alison Fernbach; Barbara Lockart; Cheryl L Armus; Lisa M Bashore; Jennifer Levine; Leah Kroon; Genevieve Sylvain; Cheryl Rodgers
Journal:  J Pediatr Oncol Nurs       Date:  2014-05-05       Impact factor: 1.636

Review 4.  Fertility counseling and preservation: considerations for the pediatric endocrinologist.

Authors:  Amanda J Saraf; Leena Nahata
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2017-10

Review 5.  Fertility preservation strategies for male patients with cancer.

Authors:  Darren J Katz; Thomas F Kolon; Darren R Feldman; John P Mulhall
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 6.  Development of a Pediatric Fertility Preservation Program: A Report From the Pediatric Initiative Network of the Oncofertility Consortium.

Authors:  Molly B Moravek; Leslie C Appiah; Antoinette Anazodo; Karen C Burns; Veronica Gomez-Lobo; Holly R Hoefgen; Olivia Jaworek Frias; Monica M Laronda; Jennifer Levine; Lillian R Meacham; Mary Ellen Pavone; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Erin E Rowell; Andrew C Strine; Teresa K Woodruff; Leena Nahata
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 5.012

7.  Future Directions in Oncofertility and Fertility Preservation: A Report from the 2011 Oncofertility Consortium Conference.

Authors:  Kate E Waimey; Francesca E Duncan; H Irene Su; Kristin Smith; Harlan Wallach; Kemi Jona; Christos Coutifaris; Clarisa R Gracia; Lonnie D Shea; Robert E Brannigan; R Jeffrey Chang; Mary B Zelinski; Richard L Stouffer; Robert L Taylor; Teresa K Woodruff
Journal:  J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.223

8.  Fertility Preservation Preferences and Perspectives Among Adult Male Survivors of Pediatric Cancer and Their Parents.

Authors:  Daniel M Stein; David E Victorson; Jeremy T Choy; Kate E Waimey; Timothy P Pearman; Kristin Smith; Justin Dreyfuss; Karen E Kinahan; Divya Sadhwani; Teresa K Woodruff; Robert E Brannigan
Journal:  J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 2.223

Review 9.  Pediatric and Adolescent Oncofertility in Male Patients-From Alpha to Omega.

Authors:  Ovidiu Bîcă; Ioan Sârbu; Carmen Iulia Ciongradi
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-08       Impact factor: 4.096

Review 10.  Fertility Options for the Transgender and Gender Nonbinary Patient.

Authors:  Allison C Mayhew; Veronica Gomez-Lobo
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 5.958

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.