Ashok Agarwal1, Reecha Sharma2, Sajal Gupta3, Rakesh Sharma3. 1. Department of Urology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: agarwaa@ccf.org. 2. Department of Urology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Health Services Department, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Urology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare cryosurvival rates between remote collections with NextGen kit (offsite) and onsite collection of semen samples from infertile men and those with cancer. METHODS: Prefreeze and post-thaw sperm motility, total motile sperm, and percent cryosurvival rates were compared between samples collected from infertile men onsite at the Andrology Center (n = 10) and samples collected from infertile patients at home (offsite; n = 9), which were shipped by NextGen to our laboratory. A second group (n = 17) consisted of 10 semen samples from cancer patients collected onsite, which were compared with 7 semen samples from cancer patients shipped by the NextGen. All semen samples were assessed within 18 hours of collection. RESULTS: In the infertile men, percent cryosurvival rates were similar with NextGen compared with those of onsite collection (53.14 ± 28.9% vs 61.90 ± 20.46%; P = .51). Similarly, in the cancer patients, all 4 parameters were comparable between the onsite and NextGen. Cryosurvival rates were also similar between NextGen compared with those of onsite collection (52.71 ± 20.37% vs 58.90 ± 22.68%; P = .46). CONCLUSION: Cancer patients can bank sperm as effectively as men banking for infertility reasons using the NextGen kit.
OBJECTIVE: To compare cryosurvival rates between remote collections with NextGen kit (offsite) and onsite collection of semen samples from infertile men and those with cancer. METHODS: Prefreeze and post-thaw sperm motility, total motile sperm, and percent cryosurvival rates were compared between samples collected from infertile men onsite at the Andrology Center (n = 10) and samples collected from infertile patients at home (offsite; n = 9), which were shipped by NextGen to our laboratory. A second group (n = 17) consisted of 10 semen samples from cancerpatients collected onsite, which were compared with 7 semen samples from cancerpatients shipped by the NextGen. All semen samples were assessed within 18 hours of collection. RESULTS: In the infertile men, percent cryosurvival rates were similar with NextGen compared with those of onsite collection (53.14 ± 28.9% vs 61.90 ± 20.46%; P = .51). Similarly, in the cancerpatients, all 4 parameters were comparable between the onsite and NextGen. Cryosurvival rates were also similar between NextGen compared with those of onsite collection (52.71 ± 20.37% vs 58.90 ± 22.68%; P = .46). CONCLUSION:Cancerpatients can bank sperm as effectively as men banking for infertility reasons using the NextGen kit.