| Literature DB >> 21352536 |
Sylvie Laporte1, Ana-Claudia Couto-Silva, Séverine Trabado, Pierre Lemaire, Sylvie Brailly-Tabard, Hélène Espérou, Jean Michon, André Baruchel, Alain Fischer, Christine Trivin, Raja Brauner.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is difficult to predict the reproductive capacity of children given hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) before pubertal age because the plasma concentrations of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) are not informative and no spermogram can be done.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21352536 PMCID: PMC3058047 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-11-20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Patient characteristics
| Boys (n = 38) | Girls (n = 34) | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at HCT, yr | 8.2 ± 0.6 | 7.0 ± 0.6 | |
| (1.0-15) | (0.6-13) | ||
| Age at evaluation, yr | 16.5 ± 0.3 | 13.9 ± 0.3 | |
| (13.2-21.3) | (11-17.3) | ||
| Interval between HCT and evaluation, yr | 8.3 ± 0.6 | 6.9 ± 0.6 | |
| (1.1-16.0) | (1.5-14.4) | ||
| Initial disease (n) | |||
| Malignant | 35 | 26 | 61 |
| Non malignant | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| Conditioning, n | |||
| TBI | 34 | 24 | 58 |
| TLI | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Chemotherapy alone | 1 | 7 | 8 |
| mean ± se (range) |
Features of testis function after HCT
| FSH | Normal | Abnormal |
|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | |
| Patients | 10 (26) | 28 (74) |
| Age at HCT, yr | 8.6 ± 1.3 | 8.1 ± 0.6 |
| Age at evaluation, yr | 15.8 ± 0.5 | 16.7 ± 0.4 |
| Interval between HCT and evaluation, yr | 7.3 ± 1.5 | 8.6 ± 0.6 |
| Conditioning | ||
| TBI | 8 (23) | 26 (77) |
| TLI | 1 (33) | 2 (67) |
| Chemotheray alone | 1 | |
| Cyclophosphamide | +9 (45) | 11 (55) |
| -1 (5) | 17 (95) | |
| Busulfan | +1 (100) | |
| -9 (24) | 28 (76) | |
| Melphalan | +0 | 16 (100) |
| -10 (45) | 12 (55) | |
| Inhibin B, pg/mL | 202 ± 58 | 35 ± 5* |
| n = 10 | ||
| Tubular failure, n = 16 | ||
| 47 ± 7** | ||
| Tubular and Leydig cell failures, n = 12 | ||
| 20 ± 3 | ||
| AMH, pmol/L | 195 ± 86 | 41 ± 6*** |
| n = 8 | ||
| Tubular failure, n = 14 | ||
| 51 ± 7**** | ||
| Tubular and Leydig cell failures, n = 9 | ||
| 24 ± 6 | ||
mean±se
P*<0.0001 compared to normal
P**=0.01 compared to tubular and Leydig cell failures
P***<0.005 compared to normal testis function
P****<0.02 compared to tubular and Leydig cell failure
Figure 1Distributions of plasma inhibin B and antimüllerian hormone (AMH) in boys given hematopoietic cell transplantation according to the conditioning protocol. Broken lines to the 5th and 95th percentiles9,12; * indicates those given melphalan; a indicates the 2 boys with increased FSH (10 and 11 IU/L) and normal inhibin B.
Features of ovarian function after HCT
| Ovarian function | Normal | Abnormal | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Patients | 7 (21) | 27 (79) | |
| Age at HCT, yr | 5.3 ± 1.2 | 7.4 ± 0.7 | |
| Age at evaluation, yr | 14.7 ± 0.6 | 13.7 ± 0.3 | |
| Interval between HCT and evaluation, yr | 9.4 ± 0.8 | 6.3 ± 0.7 | |
| Conditioning | |||
| TBI | 3 (13) | 21 (87) | |
| TLI | 1 (33) | 2 (67) | |
| Chemotheray alone | 3 (43) | 4 (57) | |
| Cyclophosphamide | + | 4 (18) | 18 (82) |
| - | 3 (25) | 9 (75) | |
| Busulfan | + | 1 (12) | 7 (88) |
| - | 6 (23) | 20 (77) | |
| Melphalan | + | 3 (30) | 7 (70) |
| - | 4 (17) | 20 (83) | |
| Inhibin B, pg/mL | 87 ± 20 | 18.6 ± 4.3* | |
| n = 7 | |||
| Partial ovarian failure, n = 11 | |||
| 26.9 ± 10ª | |||
| Complete ovarian failure, n = 16 | |||
| 12.9 ± 1.1 | |||
| AMH, pmol/L | 0.7 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.1ª | |
| n = 7 | n = 18 | ||
mean ± se
a: NS
P* = 0.0003 compared to normal ovarian function
Figure 2Distributions of plasma inhibin B in girls given hematopoietic cell transplantation according to the ovarian function and conditioning protocol. * indicates those given busulfan; a indicates the 2 girls with dissociations between gonadotropin and inhibin B concentrations.