OBJECTIVE: Sperm banking is an effective method to preserve fertility, but is not universally offered to males facing gonadotoxic treatment in the United States. We compared the disposition and semen parameters of cryopreserved sperm from individuals referred for sperm banking secondary to a cancer diagnosis to those of sperm from men banking for infertility reasons. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study that reviewed 1118 records from males who presented to bank sperm at Washington University between 1991 and 2010. We collected and analyzed demographics, semen parameters, and disposition of banked sperm. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-three men with cancer and 348 banking for infertility reasons attempted sperm cryopreservation in our unit during the specified time period. The most prevalent cancers in our cohort were testicular (32%), lymphoma (25%), and leukemia (11%). Patients with leukemia had the lowest pre-thaw counts and motility. Most cancer patients (57%) who banked elected to use, transfer to another facility, or keep their specimens in storage. The remaining samples were discarded electively (34%) or following death (8%). Overall semen parameters were similar between the cancer and infertility groups, but demographics, ability to bank a sample, azoospermia rates, length of storage, current banking status, and use of banked sperm differed significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of cancer patients who banked survived their cancer and chose to continue storage of banked samples. Cancer patients were more likely than infertility patients to use or continue storage of banked samples. Our study provides evidence that sperm banking is a utilized modality of fertility preservation in patients with a myriad of cancer diagnoses and should be offered to all men facing gonadotoxic therapies. Further work is needed to determine where disparities in access to sperm banking exist to improve the potential for future fertility in these males.
OBJECTIVE: Sperm banking is an effective method to preserve fertility, but is not universally offered to males facing gonadotoxic treatment in the United States. We compared the disposition and semen parameters of cryopreserved sperm from individuals referred for sperm banking secondary to a cancer diagnosis to those of sperm from men banking for infertility reasons. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study that reviewed 1118 records from males who presented to bank sperm at Washington University between 1991 and 2010. We collected and analyzed demographics, semen parameters, and disposition of banked sperm. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-three men with cancer and 348 banking for infertility reasons attempted sperm cryopreservation in our unit during the specified time period. The most prevalent cancers in our cohort were testicular (32%), lymphoma (25%), and leukemia (11%). Patients with leukemia had the lowest pre-thaw counts and motility. Most cancerpatients (57%) who banked elected to use, transfer to another facility, or keep their specimens in storage. The remaining samples were discarded electively (34%) or following death (8%). Overall semen parameters were similar between the cancer and infertility groups, but demographics, ability to bank a sample, azoospermia rates, length of storage, current banking status, and use of banked sperm differed significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of cancerpatients who banked survived their cancer and chose to continue storage of banked samples. Cancerpatients were more likely than infertilitypatients to use or continue storage of banked samples. Our study provides evidence that sperm banking is a utilized modality of fertility preservation in patients with a myriad of cancer diagnoses and should be offered to all men facing gonadotoxic therapies. Further work is needed to determine where disparities in access to sperm banking exist to improve the potential for future fertility in these males.
Authors: Graham Luke Machen; Stephanie E Harris; Erin T Bird; Monica L Brown; Dale A Ingalsbe; Milaida M East; Michelle Reyes; Thomas J Kuehl Journal: Investig Clin Urol Date: 2018-04-06
Authors: Sandro C Esteves; Francesco Lombardo; Nicolás Garrido; Juan Alvarez; Armand Zini; Giovanni M Colpi; Jackson Kirkman-Brown; Sheena E M Lewis; Lars Björndahl; Ahmad Majzoub; Chak-Lam Cho; Pedro Vendeira; Jorge Hallak; Edouard Amar; Marcello Cocuzza; Fabiola C Bento; Rita C Figueira; Romualdo Sciorio; Rita J Laursen; Ahmad M Metwalley; Sunil K Jindal; Sijo Parekattil; Ranjith Ramasamy; Carlo Alviggi; Peter Humaidan; John L Yovich; Ashok Agarwal Journal: Andrology Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 4.456