Myriam Daudin1, Nathalie Rives2, Marie Walschaerts3, Véronique Drouineaud4, Ethel Szerman5, Isabelle Koscinski6, Florence Eustache7, Jacqueline Saïas-Magnan8, Aline Papaxanthos-Roche9, Rosalie Cabry-Goubet10, Florence Brugnon11, Dominique Le Lannou12, Claire Barthélémy13, Jean-Marc Rigot14, Thomas Fréour15, Isabelle Berthaut16, Sandrine Giscard d'Estaing17, Françoise Touati18, Marie-Claude Mélin-Blocquaux19, Oxana Blagosklonov20, Claire Thomas21, Mohamed Benhamed22, Françoise Schmitt23, Jean-Marie Kunstmann24, Patrick Thonneau3, Louis Bujan25. 1. CECOS Midi-Pyrénées, University Hospital of Toulouse, Hôpital Paule de Viguier, Toulouse, France; Groupe de Recherche en Fertilité Humaine (EA 3694, Human Fertility Research Group), Université de Toulouse-UPS, Toulouse, France. Electronic address: daudin.m@chu-toulouse.fr. 2. CECOS Haute-Normandie, Reproductive Biology Laboratory and EA 4308 (Spermatogenesis and Male Gamete Quality), Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 3. Groupe de Recherche en Fertilité Humaine (EA 3694, Human Fertility Research Group), Université de Toulouse-UPS, Toulouse, France. 4. CECOS de Dijon, Reproductive Biology Laboratory, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France. 5. CECOS de Caen, Département de Biologie, Unité de Biologie de la Reproduction, CHU de Caen, Caen, France. 6. CECOS Alsace, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, CHU de Strasbourg, Schiltigheim, and Institut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire (IGBMC), Institut National de Santé et de Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U964/Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) UMR 1704/Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 7. CECOS-Service d'Histologie-Embryologie-Cytogénétique, Hôpital Jean Verdier (AP-HP), Bondy, France. 8. CECOS de Marseille, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, Hôpital de la Conception, AP-HM, Marseille, France. 9. CECOS Aquitaine, Service de Biologie de la Reproduction, CHU de Bordeaux, Université Bordeaux II, Maternité Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France. 10. CECOS Picardie, Cytogenetic and Reproductive Biology and Medicine Department, University Hospital of Amiens, and Unité INERIS EA 4285-UMI 01, UFR Médecine d'Amiens, Amiens, France. 11. CECOS Auvergne, Assistance Médicale à la Procréation, CHU Estaing, and Biologie de la Reproduction (EA 975), Université d'Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 12. CECOS de l'Ouest, Unité Biologie de la Reproduction, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France. 13. CECOS Région Centre-Ouest, Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, Centre Olympe de Gouges, CHU Bretonneau, Tours, France. 14. CECOS Nord, Andrologie, Hôpital Calmette, CHRU de Lille, and EA 4308 Université Lille Nord, Lille, France. 15. CECOS de Nantes, Médecine et Biologie et Médecine de la Reproduction, CHU de Nantes, Nantes, France. 16. CECOS Paris-Tenon, Service d'Histologie-Biologie de la Reproduction, Hôpital Tenon (AP-HP), Paris, France. 17. CECOS de Lyon, Service de Médecine de la Reproduction, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Bron, and Université Claude Bernard, Biologie Humaine, Lyon, France. 18. CECOS de Nancy, Biologie du Développement et de la Reproduction, CHU Nancy, Maternité Régionale, Nancy, France. 19. CECOS Champagne-Ardennes, Service de Génétique, Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS, CHU Reims, Hôpital Maison Blanche, Reims, France. 20. CECOS Franche-Comté-Bourgogne, Service de Génétique Biologique, Histologie, Biologie du Développement et de la Reproduction, CHU Besançon, and Sciences Médicales et Pharmaceutiques de Besançon, Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon, France. 21. CECOS de Grenoble, Laboratoire d'Aide à la Procréation, CHU Grenoble, Hôpital Couple-Enfant, Grenoble, France. 22. CECOS de Nice, Hôpital Archet, CHU Nice, INSERM U895, Nice, France. 23. CECOS Alsace, Laboratoire de Microbiologie, Centre Hospitalier de Mulhouse, Mulhouse, France. 24. CECOS Paris-Cochin, Hôpital Cochin (AP-HP), Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. 25. CECOS Midi-Pyrénées, University Hospital of Toulouse, Hôpital Paule de Viguier, Toulouse, France; Groupe de Recherche en Fertilité Humaine (EA 3694, Human Fertility Research Group), Université de Toulouse-UPS, Toulouse, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of fertility preservation in adolescent males with cancer. DESIGN: Large multicenter retrospective study of male patients ≤20 years from 23 centers of a national network of sperm banks over a 34-year period. SETTING: Sperm banks. PATIENT(S): A total of 4,345 boys and young men aged 11 to 20 years. INTERVENTION(S): Age, cancer diagnosis, feasibility of sperm banking, and sperm parameters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Description of patients, and success of their fertility preservation. RESULT(S): We observed a mean yearly increase in referred patients of 9.5% (95% confidence interval, 9.1%-9.8%) between 1973 and 2007. Over the study period, the percentage of younger cancer patients who banked their sperm increased, especially in the 11-14 year age group, rising from 1% in 1986 to 9% in 2006. We found that 4,314 patients attempted to produce a semen sample, 4,004 succeeded, and sperm was banked for 3,616. The mean total sperm count was 61.75 × 10(6) for the 11-14 year age group, and 138.81 × 10(6) for the 18-20 year age group. It was noteworthy that intercenter variations in practices involving young patients seeking to preserve their fertility before cancer therapy were observed within this national network. CONCLUSION(S): Our results emphasize the need for decisive changes in public health policy to facilitate the access to reproductive health-care for young cancer patients.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of fertility preservation in adolescent males with cancer. DESIGN: Large multicenter retrospective study of male patients ≤20 years from 23 centers of a national network of sperm banks over a 34-year period. SETTING: Sperm banks. PATIENT(S): A total of 4,345 boys and young men aged 11 to 20 years. INTERVENTION(S): Age, cancer diagnosis, feasibility of sperm banking, and sperm parameters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Description of patients, and success of their fertility preservation. RESULT(S): We observed a mean yearly increase in referred patients of 9.5% (95% confidence interval, 9.1%-9.8%) between 1973 and 2007. Over the study period, the percentage of younger cancerpatients who banked their sperm increased, especially in the 11-14 year age group, rising from 1% in 1986 to 9% in 2006. We found that 4,314 patients attempted to produce a semen sample, 4,004 succeeded, and sperm was banked for 3,616. The mean total sperm count was 61.75 × 10(6) for the 11-14 year age group, and 138.81 × 10(6) for the 18-20 year age group. It was noteworthy that intercenter variations in practices involving young patients seeking to preserve their fertility before cancer therapy were observed within this national network. CONCLUSION(S): Our results emphasize the need for decisive changes in public health policy to facilitate the access to reproductive health-care for young cancerpatients.
Authors: Joshua A Halpern; Nannan Thirumavalavan; Taylor P Kohn; Amir S Patel; Joon Yau Leong; Raimondo M Cervellione; David J B Keene; Emad Ibrahim; Nancy L Brackett; Dolores J Lamb; Ranjith Ramasamy Journal: Urology Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 2.649