James L Klosky1,2, Vicky Lehmann3, Jessica S Flynn3, Yin Su4, Hui Zhang4, Kathryn M Russell3, Lauren A M Schenck5, Leslie R Schover6. 1. The Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Psychology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee. 4. Department of Biostatistics, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee. 6. Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (retired).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although survivors of adolescent-onset cancers are at risk of infertility, the majority desire children. Fertility preservation options are available for adolescents, but sperm banking remains underused. To the authors' knowledge, patient factors that influence decisions to bank sperm are poorly understood. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 146 adolescent males who were newly diagnosed with cancer and who completed surveys within 1 week of treatment initiation was performed. Participants, 65% of whom were white, were aged 13 to 21 years (mean, 16.49 years; standard deviation, 2.02 years) and were at risk of infertility secondary to impending gonadotoxic treatment. Participating institutions included 8 leading pediatric oncology centers across the United States and Canada. RESULTS: Of the patients approached, approximately 80.6% participated. Parent recommendation to bank (odds ratio [OR], 4.88; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.15-20.71 [P = .03]), higher Tanner stage (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.60-11.27 [P < .01]), greater perceived benefits (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12-1.77 [P < .01]), and lower social barriers to banking (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96 [P < .01]) were found to be associated with adolescent collection attempts, whereas meeting with a fertility specialist (OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.00-11.83 [P = .05]), parent (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.10 [P = .03]) or provider (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.05-6.77 [P = .04]) recommendation to bank, and greater adolescent self-efficacy to bank (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33 [P = .03]) were found to be associated with successful sperm banking. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents' perceived benefits of sperm banking, higher Tanner stage, and parent recommendation were associated with collection attempts, whereas perceived social barriers decreased this likelihood. Successful banking was associated with greater adolescent self-efficacy, parent and provider recommendation to bank, and consultation with a fertility specialist. Providers should consult with both adolescents and parents regarding fertility preservation, and interventions should be tailored to address barriers to sperm banking while promoting its benefits.
BACKGROUND: Although survivors of adolescent-onset cancers are at risk of infertility, the majority desire children. Fertility preservation options are available for adolescents, but sperm banking remains underused. To the authors' knowledge, patient factors that influence decisions to bank sperm are poorly understood. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 146 adolescent males who were newly diagnosed with cancer and who completed surveys within 1 week of treatment initiation was performed. Participants, 65% of whom were white, were aged 13 to 21 years (mean, 16.49 years; standard deviation, 2.02 years) and were at risk of infertility secondary to impending gonadotoxic treatment. Participating institutions included 8 leading pediatric oncology centers across the United States and Canada. RESULTS: Of the patients approached, approximately 80.6% participated. Parent recommendation to bank (odds ratio [OR], 4.88; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.15-20.71 [P = .03]), higher Tanner stage (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.60-11.27 [P < .01]), greater perceived benefits (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12-1.77 [P < .01]), and lower social barriers to banking (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96 [P < .01]) were found to be associated with adolescent collection attempts, whereas meeting with a fertility specialist (OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.00-11.83 [P = .05]), parent (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.10 [P = .03]) or provider (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.05-6.77 [P = .04]) recommendation to bank, and greater adolescent self-efficacy to bank (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33 [P = .03]) were found to be associated with successful sperm banking. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents' perceived benefits of sperm banking, higher Tanner stage, and parent recommendation were associated with collection attempts, whereas perceived social barriers decreased this likelihood. Successful banking was associated with greater adolescent self-efficacy, parent and provider recommendation to bank, and consultation with a fertility specialist. Providers should consult with both adolescents and parents regarding fertility preservation, and interventions should be tailored to address barriers to sperm banking while promoting its benefits.
Authors: Daniel M Green; Wei Liu; William H Kutteh; Raymond W Ke; Kyla C Shelton; Charles A Sklar; Wassim Chemaitilly; Ching-Hon Pui; James L Klosky; Sheri L Spunt; Monika L Metzger; DeoKumar Srivastava; Kirsten K Ness; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Alison W Loren; Pamela B Mangu; Lindsay Nohr Beck; Lawrence Brennan; Anthony J Magdalinski; Ann H Partridge; Gwendolyn Quinn; W Hamish Wallace; Kutluk Oktay Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James L Klosky; Mary E Randolph; Fariba Navid; Heather L Gamble; Sheri L Spunt; Monika L Metzger; Najat Daw; E Brannon Morris; Melissa M Hudson Journal: Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 1.969
Authors: Leena Nahata; Taylor L Morgan; Keagan G Lipak; Olivia E Clark; Nicholas D Yeager; Sarah H O'Brien; Stacy Whiteside; Anthony N Audino; Cynthia A Gerhardt; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Jessica S Flynn; Kathryn M Russell; Vicky Lehmann; Lauren A-M Schenck; James L Klosky Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 3.167
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: Leena Nahata; Antoinette Anazodo; Brooke Cherven; Shanna Logan; Lillian R Meacham; Cathy D Meade; Sara Zarnegar-Lumley; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Charis Stanek; Charleen I Theroux; Anna L Olsavsky; Kylie N Hill; Joseph R Rausch; Sarah H O'Brien; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Cynthia A Gerhardt; Leena Nahata Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Leena Nahata; Taylor M Dattilo; Anna L Olsavsky; Keagan G Lipak; Stacy Whiteside; Nicholas D Yeager; Anthony Audino; James L Klosky; Joseph Rausch; Amanda Saraf; Sarah H O'Brien; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Cynthia A Gerhardt Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 3.357