Pd29-10 trends in sperm cryopreservation and semen quality in male cancer patients: a single center experience spanning 20 years

You have accessJournal of UrologyInfertility: Epidemiology & Evaluation II (PD29)1 Sep 2021PD29-10 TRENDS IN SPERM CRYOPRESERVATION AND SEMEN QUALITY IN MALE CANCER PATIENTS: A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE SPANNING 20 YEARS John Sullivan, Kevin Campbell, Luwam Ghidei, Oscar Castro-Valesquez, Sagar Patel, Laurie McKenzie, and Larry Lipshultz John SullivanJohn Sullivan More articles by this author , Kevin CampbellKevin Campbell More articles by this author , Luwam GhideiLuwam Ghidei More articles by this author , Oscar Castro-ValesquezOscar Castro-Valesquez More articles by this author , Sagar PatelSagar Patel More articles by this author , Laurie McKenzieLaurie McKenzie More articles by this author , and Larry LipshultzLarry Lipshultz More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002030.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Improvements in cancer therapy have enhanced survivorship for many young cancer patients, resulting in heightened interest for future family building. Fertility preservation for these individuals continues to evolve, with an increased awareness of adverse effects of gonadotoxic therapies and the availability of pre-treatment sperm cryopreservation. Our primary aim was to describe the overall trends in fertility preservation at a single institution over the most recent ten years and compare these findings to an older cohort at the same facility. METHODS: All patients with a diagnosis of cancer who cryopreserved sperm at our facility between 2010 and 2020 were included in the study. Exclusion criteria consisted of having an inadequate sample for cryopreservation and/or incomplete medical records. Variables analyzed included patient age at time of banking, semen volume, sperm density, motility, forward progression, and cancer type. We compared this contemporary cohort to our previously reported historical cohort who underwent banking from 2000-2005. Descriptive statistics and paired t- tests were used for data analysis. RESULTS: 896 patients cryopreserved sperm prior to cancer treatment from January 2010 to December 2020. Distribution of cancer diagnoses, and patient age is presented in Table 1. We found a significant increase in patients with GI, CNS, sarcomas and rare malignancies in our contemporary cohort. Interestingly, the proportion of testicular cancer patients decreased (45% vs 26%) compared to previous data. A significant difference was observed in age at banking, 29.9 years (11.9-87.7) vs 28.6 years (11-77), (p=0.0002). Significant differences were also noted in sperm quality including decreases in sperm concentration (million/cc) (47.4 (0.1-320) vs 35.6 (0.1-364) <0.001), sperm motility (50.0% (1-90) vs 46.0% (0.0-90.0) <0.001) and forward progression (2.4% (1.0-3.5) vs 2.2% (0.0-3.5) <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed overall deterioration in semen parameters in cancer patients over a 20 year duration. We also found men with a broader range of cancer types presenting for sperm cryopreservation, reflecting an increased awareness of fertility preservation. Source of Funding: Nil © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e530-e530 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information John Sullivan More articles by this author Kevin Campbell More articles by this author Luwam Ghidei More articles by this author Oscar Castro-Valesquez More articles by this author Sagar Patel More articles by this author Laurie McKenzie More articles by this author Larry Lipshultz More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...