Amanda M DiNofia1, Xingmei Wang2, Gia Yannekis3, Sue Ogle1, Wendy L Hobbie1, Claire A Carlson1, Jill P Ginsberg1,3. 1. Division of Oncology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infertility can be the result of some common cancer treatments and can significantly impact quality of life. Semen cryopreservation allows for fertility preservation. We analyzed the semen parameters of specimens collected from pubertal males from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) in order to expand current knowledge on the quality of these specimens and inform a standard clinical practice. PROCEDURE: Males who were at least Tanner stage III and newly diagnosed with cancer at CHOP were approached regarding sperm banking. The success and quality of the samples collected were analyzed and compared in relation to prior treatment, age, and diagnosis. RESULTS: From 399 patients approached for semen collection, 339 (85%) attempted to bank sperm, of which 265 (78%) were successful and 60 (15%) refused to participate. Therapy prior to sperm banking significantly impacted a successful collection (P < 0.01). Only 16.9% of the untreated patients were azoospermic, whereas 84.0% of the treated subjects were azoospermic. Older patients were less likely to be azoospermic and have a greater quality collection when compared with younger patients (P < 0.01). However, 65% of our youngest patients still were able to cryopreserve semen. There was no difference in azoospermia across diagnostic groups (P = 0.35), though there were differences in quality of semen parameters across diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Our data support that sperm banking pubertal males prior to the initiation of therapy is feasible. While there were differences in quality of semen parameters across age and diagnostic groups, most males, regardless of age or diagnosis, had adequate specimens for cryopreservation.
BACKGROUND: Infertility can be the result of some common cancer treatments and can significantly impact quality of life. Semen cryopreservation allows for fertility preservation. We analyzed the semen parameters of specimens collected from pubertal males from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) in order to expand current knowledge on the quality of these specimens and inform a standard clinical practice. PROCEDURE: Males who were at least Tanner stage III and newly diagnosed with cancer at CHOP were approached regarding sperm banking. The success and quality of the samples collected were analyzed and compared in relation to prior treatment, age, and diagnosis. RESULTS: From 399 patients approached for semen collection, 339 (85%) attempted to bank sperm, of which 265 (78%) were successful and 60 (15%) refused to participate. Therapy prior to sperm banking significantly impacted a successful collection (P < 0.01). Only 16.9% of the untreated patients were azoospermic, whereas 84.0% of the treated subjects were azoospermic. Older patients were less likely to be azoospermic and have a greater quality collection when compared with younger patients (P < 0.01). However, 65% of our youngest patients still were able to cryopreserve semen. There was no difference in azoospermia across diagnostic groups (P = 0.35), though there were differences in quality of semen parameters across diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Our data support that sperm banking pubertal males prior to the initiation of therapy is feasible. While there were differences in quality of semen parameters across age and diagnostic groups, most males, regardless of age or diagnosis, had adequate specimens for cryopreservation.
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: 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
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: Caroline S Dorfman; Juliann M Stalls; Coleman Mills; Shannon Voelkel; Mallori Thompson; Kelly S Acharya; Karen C Baker; Lars M Wagner; Nolan Miller; Amy Boswell; Cheyenne Corbett Journal: J Oncol Navig Surviv Date: 2021-10
Authors: F Cargnelutti; A Di Nisio; F Pallotti; M Spaziani; M G Tarsitano; D Paoli; C Foresta Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 5.467