Cargando…

The importance of the urologist in male oncology fertility preservation

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) and spermatogonial stem cell retrieval (SSCR) in an oncological context are safe and successful. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This a retrospective study in a tertiary hospital in the UK. Patients requiring fertility preservation from December 2...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Micol, Lionel A., Adenubi, Funmi, Williamson, Elizabeth, Lane, Sheila, Mitchell, Rod T., Sangster, Philippa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9796952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35535513
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15772
_version_ 1784860607703416832
author Micol, Lionel A.
Adenubi, Funmi
Williamson, Elizabeth
Lane, Sheila
Mitchell, Rod T.
Sangster, Philippa
author_facet Micol, Lionel A.
Adenubi, Funmi
Williamson, Elizabeth
Lane, Sheila
Mitchell, Rod T.
Sangster, Philippa
author_sort Micol, Lionel A.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) and spermatogonial stem cell retrieval (SSCR) in an oncological context are safe and successful. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This a retrospective study in a tertiary hospital in the UK. Patients requiring fertility preservation from December 2017 to January 2020 were included. Data were analysed with Microsoft Excel 2016 and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 20). RESULTS: Among 1264 patients referred to the Reproductive Medical Unit at the University College of London Hospitals for cryopreservation prior to gonadotoxic treatment, 39 chose to go forward with SSR/SSCR because they presented as azoo‐/cryptozoospermic or an inability to masturbate/ejaculate. Interventions were testicular sperm extraction (23 patients) or aspiration (one), electroejaculation (one), and testicular wedge biopsy for SSCR (14). The median (range) age was 15.0 (10–65) years and the median testosterone level was 4.4 nmoL/L. Primary diagnoses were sarcoma in 11 patients, leukaemia in nine, lymphoma in eight, testicular tumour in five, other oncological haematological entities in two, other solid cancers in two, while two patients had non‐oncological haematological diseases. SSR/SSCR could be offered within 7.5 days on average. Chemotherapy could follow within 2 days from SSR/SSCR, and bone marrow transplant occurred within 19.5 days (all expressed as medians). The success rate for SSR was 68.0% (at least one vial/straw collected). The mean (SD) Johnsen score of testicular biopsies was 5.23 (2.25) with a trend towards positive correlation with SSR success (P = 0.07). However, age, hormonal profile and type of cancer did not predict SSR outcome. CONCLUSION: We show that SSR and SSCR in an oncological context are valid treatment options with a high success rate for patients in which sperm cryopreservation from semen is impossible. By providing an effective pathway, fertility preservation is possible with minimal delay to oncological treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9796952
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97969522023-01-04 The importance of the urologist in male oncology fertility preservation Micol, Lionel A. Adenubi, Funmi Williamson, Elizabeth Lane, Sheila Mitchell, Rod T. Sangster, Philippa BJU Int Original Articles OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) and spermatogonial stem cell retrieval (SSCR) in an oncological context are safe and successful. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This a retrospective study in a tertiary hospital in the UK. Patients requiring fertility preservation from December 2017 to January 2020 were included. Data were analysed with Microsoft Excel 2016 and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 20). RESULTS: Among 1264 patients referred to the Reproductive Medical Unit at the University College of London Hospitals for cryopreservation prior to gonadotoxic treatment, 39 chose to go forward with SSR/SSCR because they presented as azoo‐/cryptozoospermic or an inability to masturbate/ejaculate. Interventions were testicular sperm extraction (23 patients) or aspiration (one), electroejaculation (one), and testicular wedge biopsy for SSCR (14). The median (range) age was 15.0 (10–65) years and the median testosterone level was 4.4 nmoL/L. Primary diagnoses were sarcoma in 11 patients, leukaemia in nine, lymphoma in eight, testicular tumour in five, other oncological haematological entities in two, other solid cancers in two, while two patients had non‐oncological haematological diseases. SSR/SSCR could be offered within 7.5 days on average. Chemotherapy could follow within 2 days from SSR/SSCR, and bone marrow transplant occurred within 19.5 days (all expressed as medians). The success rate for SSR was 68.0% (at least one vial/straw collected). The mean (SD) Johnsen score of testicular biopsies was 5.23 (2.25) with a trend towards positive correlation with SSR success (P = 0.07). However, age, hormonal profile and type of cancer did not predict SSR outcome. CONCLUSION: We show that SSR and SSCR in an oncological context are valid treatment options with a high success rate for patients in which sperm cryopreservation from semen is impossible. By providing an effective pathway, fertility preservation is possible with minimal delay to oncological treatment. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-31 2022-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9796952/ /pubmed/35535513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15772 Text en © 2022 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Micol, Lionel A.
Adenubi, Funmi
Williamson, Elizabeth
Lane, Sheila
Mitchell, Rod T.
Sangster, Philippa
The importance of the urologist in male oncology fertility preservation
title The importance of the urologist in male oncology fertility preservation
title_full The importance of the urologist in male oncology fertility preservation
title_fullStr The importance of the urologist in male oncology fertility preservation
title_full_unstemmed The importance of the urologist in male oncology fertility preservation
title_short The importance of the urologist in male oncology fertility preservation
title_sort importance of the urologist in male oncology fertility preservation
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9796952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35535513
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15772
work_keys_str_mv AT micollionela theimportanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT adenubifunmi theimportanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT williamsonelizabeth theimportanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT lanesheila theimportanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT mitchellrodt theimportanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT sangsterphilippa theimportanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT micollionela importanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT adenubifunmi importanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT williamsonelizabeth importanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT lanesheila importanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT mitchellrodt importanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation
AT sangsterphilippa importanceoftheurologistinmaleoncologyfertilitypreservation