Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 9/2015

01-09-2015 | Original Article

Utilization of sperm banking and barriers to its use in testicular cancer patients

Authors: D. W. Sonnenburg, M. J. Brames, S. Case-Eads, L. H. Einhorn

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 9/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Testicular cancer is the most common carcinoma in 20- to 40-year-old men. Eighty percent of patients with metastases achieve disease-free status with chemotherapy with or without surgical resection. Standard first-line chemotherapy is bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) for three to four courses or etoposide and cisplatin (EP) for four courses. Forty percent of patients receiving chemotherapy will have permanently reduced sperm counts impairing future fertility. Sperm banking is an effective method of maintaining fertility. This retrospective study was performed to assess utilization and results from sperm banking, as well as the barriers to its use.

Methods

Patients 18 and older who had received chemotherapy were given a five-item questionnaire on follow-up visit. This questionnaire included a mix of quantitative and qualitative questions.

Results

Two hundred patients enrolled in the study, and all 200 completed the questionnaire. Of the two hundred, 139 (70 %) patients chose not to bank sperm; 71 (51 %) of those were not interested, 25 (18 %) declined due to desire to start chemotherapy, 24 (17 %) were not offered, 12 (9 %) declined due to cost, and 7 (5 %) answered “other.” The average age at cancer diagnosis of patients who banked sperm was 28.4 as opposed to 32.6 for patients who did not (p = 0.003). The percentage of patients that had children before their diagnosis was 21 % in the sperm banking group, and 50 % in the group that did not (p = 0.0002). Sixty-one (30 %) chose to bank sperm; 11 of 61 patients (18 %) utilized the banked sperm; 9 of 11 (82 %) patients that utilized were successful; and 3 of 9 (33 %) successes resulted in multiple gestations.

Conclusions

Sperm banking provides the opportunity for paternity in testicular cancer patients with reduced sperm counts following treatment. However, the majority of these patients chose not to bank sperm or were not offered the opportunity. A range of factors such as time, emotional state, patient age, disease stage, prior children, institutional practices, and cost all influence whether banking is offered to patients and taken up. The authors provide recommendations to help clinicians overcome some of these barriers.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Johnson MD, Cooper AR, Jungheim ES et al (2013) Sperm banking for fertility preservation: a 20-year experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 170:177–182PubMedCrossRef Johnson MD, Cooper AR, Jungheim ES et al (2013) Sperm banking for fertility preservation: a 20-year experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 170:177–182PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Stoehr B, Schachtner L, Pichler R et al (2013) Influence of achieved paternity on quality of life in testicular cancer survivors. BJU Int 111:E207–E212PubMedCrossRef Stoehr B, Schachtner L, Pichler R et al (2013) Influence of achieved paternity on quality of life in testicular cancer survivors. BJU Int 111:E207–E212PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Brennemann W, Stoffel-Wagner B, Helmers A et al (1997) Gonadal function of patients treated with cisplatin based chemotherapy for germ cell cancer. J Urol 158:844–850PubMedCrossRef Brennemann W, Stoffel-Wagner B, Helmers A et al (1997) Gonadal function of patients treated with cisplatin based chemotherapy for germ cell cancer. J Urol 158:844–850PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Stephenson WT, Poirier SM, Rubin L et al (1995) Evaluation of reproductive capacity in germ cell tumor patients following treatment with cisplatin, etoposide, and bleomycin. J Clin Oncol 13:2278–2280PubMed Stephenson WT, Poirier SM, Rubin L et al (1995) Evaluation of reproductive capacity in germ cell tumor patients following treatment with cisplatin, etoposide, and bleomycin. J Clin Oncol 13:2278–2280PubMed
5.
go back to reference Matos E, Skrbinc B, Zakotnik B et al (2010) Fertility in patients treated for testicular cancer. J Cancer Surviv 4:274–278PubMedCrossRef Matos E, Skrbinc B, Zakotnik B et al (2010) Fertility in patients treated for testicular cancer. J Cancer Surviv 4:274–278PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hinton S, Catalano PJ, Einhorn LH et al (2003) Cisplatin, etoposide and either bleomycin or ifosfamide in the treatment of disseminated germ cell tumors. Cancer 97:1869–1875PubMedCrossRef Hinton S, Catalano PJ, Einhorn LH et al (2003) Cisplatin, etoposide and either bleomycin or ifosfamide in the treatment of disseminated germ cell tumors. Cancer 97:1869–1875PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Jahnukainen K, Ehmcke J, Hou M et al (2011) Testicular function and fertility preservation in male cancer patients. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 25:287–302PubMedCrossRef Jahnukainen K, Ehmcke J, Hou M et al (2011) Testicular function and fertility preservation in male cancer patients. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 25:287–302PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Lampe H, Horwich A, Norman A et al (1997) Fertility after chemotherapy for testicular germ cell cancers. J Clin Oncol 15:239–245PubMed Lampe H, Horwich A, Norman A et al (1997) Fertility after chemotherapy for testicular germ cell cancers. J Clin Oncol 15:239–245PubMed
9.
go back to reference Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH et al (2006) American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 24:2917–2931PubMedCrossRef Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH et al (2006) American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 24:2917–2931PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Schover LR, Brey K, Lichtin A et al (2002) Oncologists’ attitudes and practices regarding banking sperm before cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol 20:1890–1897PubMedCrossRef Schover LR, Brey K, Lichtin A et al (2002) Oncologists’ attitudes and practices regarding banking sperm before cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol 20:1890–1897PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Neal MS, Nagel K, Duckworth J et al (2007) Effectiveness of sperm banking in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a regional experience. Cancer 110:1125–1129PubMedCrossRef Neal MS, Nagel K, Duckworth J et al (2007) Effectiveness of sperm banking in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a regional experience. Cancer 110:1125–1129PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Nahata L, Cohen LE, Yu RN et al (2012) Barriers to fertility preservation in male adolescents with cancer: it's time for a multidisciplinary approach that includes urologists. Urology 79:1206–1209PubMedCrossRef Nahata L, Cohen LE, Yu RN et al (2012) Barriers to fertility preservation in male adolescents with cancer: it's time for a multidisciplinary approach that includes urologists. Urology 79:1206–1209PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Magelssen H, Haugen T, von During V et al (2005) Twenty years experience with semen cryopreservation in testicular cancer patients: who needs it? Eur Urol 48:779–785PubMedCrossRef Magelssen H, Haugen T, von During V et al (2005) Twenty years experience with semen cryopreservation in testicular cancer patients: who needs it? Eur Urol 48:779–785PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Schover LR, Brey K, Lichtin A et al (2002) Knowledge and experience regarding cancer, infertility, and sperm banking in younger male survivors. J Clin Oncol 20:1880–1889PubMedCrossRef Schover LR, Brey K, Lichtin A et al (2002) Knowledge and experience regarding cancer, infertility, and sperm banking in younger male survivors. J Clin Oncol 20:1880–1889PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Utilization of sperm banking and barriers to its use in testicular cancer patients
Authors
D. W. Sonnenburg
M. J. Brames
S. Case-Eads
L. H. Einhorn
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2641-9

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

Supportive Care in Cancer 9/2015 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine