Joshua A Halpern1, Nannan Thirumavalavan2, Taylor P Kohn3, Amir S Patel4, Joon Yau Leong5, Raimondo M Cervellione6, David J B Keene6, Emad Ibrahim4, Nancy L Brackett4, Dolores J Lamb7, Ranjith Ramasamy8. 1. Department of Urology, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 2. Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 3. Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 4. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL. 5. Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, PA. 6. Department of Paediatric Urology, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 8. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL. Electronic address: Ramasamy@miami.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the distribution of semen parameters among adolescent and adult males presenting for fertility preservation. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study of adolescent males age 11-19 who underwent semen analysis for fertility preservation at 3 centers in 2 countries with a comparison cohort of adult men presenting for fertility preservation. Prevalence of azoospermia and distribution of semen parameters was compared across groups. RESULTS: A total of 197 adolescents and 95 adults underwent semen analysis for fertility preservation. Azoospermia was present in 17 (8.6%) adolescents and 3 (3.2%) adults. There was decline in the prevalence of azoospermia with increasing age. After exclusion of patients with azoospermia, the adolescent and adult cohorts were comprised of 180 and 92 patients, respectively. Median age at presentation among adolescents vs adults was 16.5years (interquartile range [IQR] 15.2-17.6) and 30.8years (IQR 22.7-43.8), respectively. Median semen volume was 1.0mL (IQR 0.5-2.0) vs 2.5mL (IQR 1.5-3.5), P <.001. Median sperm concentration was 30million/mL (IQR 10-57) vs 39million/mL (IQR 14-57), P = .2. Median sperm motility was 39% (IQR 20-55) vs 45% (IQR 35-55), P = .01. Median total motile sperm count was 11million (IQR 1.4-33) for adolescents vs 29million (IQR 13-69) for adults, P <.001. CONCLUSION: Young adolescent males had higher prevalence of azoospermia and lower semen parameters compared to adults. In conjunction with physical examination, Tanner stage, and specific clinical context, these data can help to inform patients and their families about potential for fertility preservation, even in very young adolescent patients.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the distribution of semen parameters among adolescent and adult males presenting for fertility preservation. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study of adolescent males age 11-19 who underwent semen analysis for fertility preservation at 3 centers in 2 countries with a comparison cohort of adult men presenting for fertility preservation. Prevalence of azoospermia and distribution of semen parameters was compared across groups. RESULTS: A total of 197 adolescents and 95 adults underwent semen analysis for fertility preservation. Azoospermia was present in 17 (8.6%) adolescents and 3 (3.2%) adults. There was decline in the prevalence of azoospermia with increasing age. After exclusion of patients with azoospermia, the adolescent and adult cohorts were comprised of 180 and 92 patients, respectively. Median age at presentation among adolescents vs adults was 16.5years (interquartile range [IQR] 15.2-17.6) and 30.8years (IQR 22.7-43.8), respectively. Median semen volume was 1.0mL (IQR 0.5-2.0) vs 2.5mL (IQR 1.5-3.5), P <.001. Median sperm concentration was 30million/mL (IQR 10-57) vs 39million/mL (IQR 14-57), P = .2. Median sperm motility was 39% (IQR 20-55) vs 45% (IQR 35-55), P = .01. Median total motile sperm count was 11million (IQR 1.4-33) for adolescents vs 29million (IQR 13-69) for adults, P <.001. CONCLUSION: Young adolescent males had higher prevalence of azoospermia and lower semen parameters compared to adults. In conjunction with physical examination, Tanner stage, and specific clinical context, these data can help to inform patients and their families about potential for fertility preservation, even in very young adolescent patients.
Authors: D S Guzick; J W Overstreet; P Factor-Litvak; C K Brazil; S T Nakajima; C Coutifaris; S A Carson; P Cisneros; M P Steinkampf; J A Hill; D Xu; D L Vogel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Semet; M Paci; J Saïas-Magnan; C Metzler-Guillemain; R Boissier; H Lejeune; J Perrin Journal: Andrology Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Michael P Kurtz; David Zurakowski; Ilina Rosoklija; Stuart B Bauer; Joseph G Borer; Kathryn L Johnson; Matthew Migliozzi; David A Diamond Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: E Filimberti; S Degl'Innocenti; M Borsotti; M Quercioli; P Piomboni; I Natali; M G Fino; C Caglieresi; L Criscuoli; L Gandini; A Biggeri; M Maggi; E Baldi Journal: Andrology Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: David I Chu; Stephen A Zderic; Aseem R Shukla; Arun K Srinivasan; Gregory E Tasian; Dana A Weiss; Christopher J Long; Douglas A Canning; Thomas F Kolon Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Elizabeth Ward; Carol DeSantis; Anthony Robbins; Betsy Kohler; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Amanda M DiNofia; Xingmei Wang; Gia Yannekis; Sue Ogle; Wendy L Hobbie; Claire A Carlson; Jill P Ginsberg Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Trevor G Cooper; Elizabeth Noonan; Sigrid von Eckardstein; Jacques Auger; H W Gordon Baker; Hermann M Behre; Trine B Haugen; Thinus Kruger; Christina Wang; Michael T Mbizvo; Kirsten M Vogelsong Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 15.610