Maria C Adank1, Wendy van Dorp2, Marij Smit3, Niels J van Casteren3, Joop S E Laven4, Rob Pieters1, Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink5. 1. Department of Pediatric Oncology/Hematology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Pediatric Oncology/Hematology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Division of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Division of Andrology, Department of Urology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Division of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Pediatric Oncology/Hematology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.vandenheuvel@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of electroejaculation to perform semen cryopreservation in pubertal boys before gonadotoxic therapy and to review the literature on this topic. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study and review of the literature. SETTING: Academic children's hospital. PATIENT(S): Boys diagnosed with cancer to whom sperm cryopreservation was offered before the start of gonadotoxic therapy. INTERVENTION(S): We studied the outcome of electroejaculation, including patient characteristics, hormone levels, and pretreatment semen parameters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Semen cryopreservation. RESULT(S): Pretreatment semen samples were obtained by masturbation in 106/114 boys with cancer, of which 78/106 were adequate for preservation. Electroejaculation was offered to 11 boys, of which three of 11 samples appeared adequate for preservation. Reviewing all reported electroejaculation cases in children with cancer in the literature, 13/29 (45%) cases were successful. Testosterone levels were higher in patients with successful sperm yield obtained by electroejaculation (median, 8.3 nmol/L [5.2-42.4] in successful harvests, vs. median 1.7 nmol/L [0.01-17.9] in unsuccessful harvests). CONCLUSION(S): Semen cryopreservation should be offered to all pubertal boys diagnosed with cancer. If masturbation fails, electroejaculation can be considered as a useful option for semen cryopreservation and leads to adequate material for cryopreservation in about half of the cases.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of electroejaculation to perform semen cryopreservation in pubertal boys before gonadotoxic therapy and to review the literature on this topic. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study and review of the literature. SETTING: Academic children's hospital. PATIENT(S): Boys diagnosed with cancer to whom sperm cryopreservation was offered before the start of gonadotoxic therapy. INTERVENTION(S): We studied the outcome of electroejaculation, including patient characteristics, hormone levels, and pretreatment semen parameters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Semen cryopreservation. RESULT(S): Pretreatment semen samples were obtained by masturbation in 106/114 boys with cancer, of which 78/106 were adequate for preservation. Electroejaculation was offered to 11 boys, of which three of 11 samples appeared adequate for preservation. Reviewing all reported electroejaculation cases in children with cancer in the literature, 13/29 (45%) cases were successful. Testosterone levels were higher in patients with successful sperm yield obtained by electroejaculation (median, 8.3 nmol/L [5.2-42.4] in successful harvests, vs. median 1.7 nmol/L [0.01-17.9] in unsuccessful harvests). CONCLUSION(S): Semen cryopreservation should be offered to all pubertal boys diagnosed with cancer. If masturbation fails, electroejaculation can be considered as a useful option for semen cryopreservation and leads to adequate material for cryopreservation in about half of the cases.
Authors: A Balduzzi; J-H Dalle; K Jahnukainen; M von Wolff; G Lucchini; M Ifversen; K T Macklon; C Poirot; T Diesch; A Jarisch; D Bresters; I Yaniv; B Gibson; A M Willasch; R Fadini; L Ferrari; A Lawitschka; A Ahler; N Sänger; S Corbacioglu; M Ansari; R Moffat; A Dalissier; E Beohou; P Sedlacek; A Lankester; C D De Heredia Rubio; K Vettenranta; J Wachowiak; A Yesilipek; E Trigoso; T Klingebiel; C Peters; P Bader Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: J-H Dalle; G Lucchini; A Balduzzi; M Ifversen; K Jahnukainen; K T Macklon; A Ahler; A Jarisch; M Ansari; E Beohou; D Bresters; S Corbacioglu; A Dalissier; C Diaz de Heredia Rubio; T Diesch; B Gibson; T Klingebiel; A Lankester; A Lawitschka; R Moffat; C Peters; C Poirot; N Saenger; P Sedlacek; E Trigoso; K Vettenranta; J Wachowiak; A Willasch; M von Wolff; I Yaniv; A Yesilipek; P Bader Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 5.483
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
Authors: Christian F S Jensen; Lihua Dong; Murat Gul; Mikkel Fode; Simone Hildorf; Jorgen Thorup; Eva Hoffmann; Dina Cortes; Jens Fedder; Claus Y Andersen; Jens Sønksen Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Janella N Hudson; Nathanael B Stanley; Leena Nahata; Meghan Bowman-Curci; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: Expert Rev Qual Life Cancer Care Date: 2017-03-28
Authors: Angus Peri; Astrid Ahler; Debra Gook; Michele A O'Connell; Harold Bourne; Michael Nightingale; Michelle Telfer; Yasmin Jayasinghe; Ken C Pang Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 3.357