Survey of Long-Term Experiences of Sperm Cryopreservation in Oncological and Non-Oncological Patients: Usage and Reproductive Outcomes of a Large Monocentric Cohort.
assisted reproduction techniques (ART)
cancer
cancer treatment
chemotherapy
fertility preservation
natural fertility
reproductive outcomes
sperm cryopreservation
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
08
09
2021
accepted:
19
10
2021
entrez:
22
11
2021
pubmed:
23
11
2021
medline:
23
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Progress in oncological treatment has led to an improved long-term survival of young male cancer patients over the last decades. However, standard cancer treatments frequently implicate fertility-damaging potential. Cryopreservation of sperm is the current standard option to preserve patient's fertility after treatment, yet long-term data on usage and reproductive experiences is still limited. Natural fertility after treatment and especially in relation to the type of treatment has been poorly analyzed so far. Therefore, we performed a retrospective survey including male patients with an indication for gonadotoxic treatment who cryopreserved reproductive material at our institution between 1994 and 2017. Study questionnaires regarding treatment, material usage, and reproductive outcomes were sent to eligible patients. Additionally, semen analyses of study participants from the time of cryopreservation were evaluated. A total of 99 patients were included in the study. Respondents' median age was 38.0 years. Most frequent diagnoses were testicular cancer (29.3%) and lymphoma (26.3%). A further 8.1% suffered from autoimmune diseases. Testicular cancer patients had a significantly lower pre-treatment median sperm concentration (18.0 million/ml) compared to non-testicular cancer patients (54.2 million/ml). Until November 2020, the determined sperm usage and cumulative live-birth rate per couple were 17.2% and 58.8%, respectively. Most sperm users received treatments with high (40.0%) or intermediate (33.3%) gonadotoxic potential. 20.7% of all patients reported to had fathered at least one naturally conceived child after treatment, this being the case especially if they had been treated with less or potentially gonadotoxic therapies. In conclusion, our findings emphasize the importance of sperm cryopreservation in the context of male fertility preservation. Furthermore, they indicate that the gonadotoxic potential of patients' treatments could represent a predictive factor for sperm usage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34804976
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.772809
pmc: PMC8602360
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
772809Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Lackamp, Wilkemeyer, Jelas, Keller, Bullinger, Stintzing and le Coutre.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Fertil Steril. 2017 Sep;108(3):407-415.e11
pubmed: 28739117
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jan 01;13(1):
pubmed: 33401381
World J Mens Health. 2019 May;37(2):219-225
pubmed: 30588786
Fertil Steril. 2013 Nov;100(5):1180-6
pubmed: 24012199
Hum Reprod. 2017 Dec 1;32(12):2423-2430
pubmed: 29045667
Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Feb;32(2):147-53
pubmed: 26687904
Reprod Med Biol. 2017 Jul 07;16(4):320-324
pubmed: 29259484
Support Care Cancer. 2020 Aug;28(8):3915-3919
pubmed: 31858247
Fertil Steril. 2008 Dec;90(6):2245-50
pubmed: 18191846
Hormones (Athens). 2015 Oct-Dec;14(4):579-89
pubmed: 26732148
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 1;35(34):3830-3836
pubmed: 28976795
World J Urol. 2015 May;33(5):623-31
pubmed: 25030752
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 1;36(19):1994-2001
pubmed: 29620997
BJU Int. 2007 Jan;99(1):33-6
pubmed: 17034492
Cancer. 2003 Apr 1;97(7):1624-9
pubmed: 12655518
Support Care Cancer. 2015 Sep;23(9):2763-8
pubmed: 25680764
Eur Urol. 2005 Nov;48(5):779-85
pubmed: 15963629
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Apr;99(15):e19589
pubmed: 32282708
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2016 Nov;8(6):412-420
pubmed: 27800030
Lancet. 2014 Oct 4;384(9950):1295-301
pubmed: 25283570
Andrology. 2021 Jan;9(1):204-211
pubmed: 32814364
Asian J Androl. 2014 Jan-Feb;16(1):107-11
pubmed: 24369141
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2019 Apr 09;3(1):pkz008
pubmed: 31360893
Cancer Manag Res. 2018 Jun 13;10:1517-1526
pubmed: 29942153
J Biomed Res. 2018 Nov 20;32(5):442-453
pubmed: 30333280
Med Sci Monit. 2019 May 03;25:3256-3261
pubmed: 31048670
Transl Androl Urol. 2020 Jan;9(Suppl 1):S14-S23
pubmed: 32055481
Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Jul;33(1):29-38
pubmed: 27156003
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Feb 01;13(3):
pubmed: 33535586
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Apr;49(4):477-84
pubmed: 24419521