Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assisted reproductive outcomes of male cancer survivors

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Survivorship Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of our study was to evaluate the reproductive outcome of male cancer survivors treated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using cryopreserved sperm and compare it with the same treatment in non-cancer males.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed database derived from cancer and non-cancer patients undergoing sperm cryopreservation from August 2008 to August 2012 at a university-based center. We evaluated the reproductive outcome of those cancer and non-cancer patients that had frozen sperm and returned subsequently to the clinic for assisted reproduction.

Results

We studied 272 males with cancer and 296 infertile males. The most prevalent types of cancer in our cohort were lymphoma (25.3 %), testicular cancer (19.2 %), leukemia (7.3 %), and other malignancies including sarcoma, gastrointestinal, and central nervous system malignancies (48.2 %). The use rate of cryopreserved sperm was 10.7 % for cancer patients and 30.7 % for non-cancer patients. The mean age of males with cancer who returned to the clinic for fertility treatment was 36.7 ± 6 years, and the diagnoses were testis cancer (43.4 %), lymphoma (36.9 %), leukemia (13 %), and other malignancies (6.7 %). Live birth rate of the cancer cohort was 62.1 %, which was higher than that of the normospermic non-cancer population (p < 0.0047).

Conclusions

The use rate of cryopreserved sperm from oncofertility preservation cases is at around 10 %. The live birth rate using assisted reproductive technologies among these patients is at least comparable to that of the non-cancer population.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

To our knowledge, this was the first comparative study of male cancer survivors treated with ICSI using cryopreserved sperm, which were compared to non-cancer males undergoing the same treatment. Male fertility preservation is a highly valued service that should be strongly encouraged prior to beginning cytotoxic cancer treatment. These results can help healthcare professionals in oncology to improve the quality of counseling on fertility preservation when managing young men with newly diagnosed cancer that require gonadotoxic treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fernbach A, Lockart B, Armus CL, Bashore LM, Levine J, Kroon L, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for fertility preservation options for inclusion in treatment protocols for pediatric and adolescent patients diagnosed with cancer. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2014;31(4):211–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(1):9–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schover LR. Patient attitudes toward fertility preservation. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009;53(2):281–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1224–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, Patrizio P, Wallace WH, Hagerty K, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18):2917–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pacey AA, Eiser C. The importance of fertility preservation in cancer patients. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2014;14(5):487–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goossens E, Tournaye H. Male fertility preservation, where are we in 2014? Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 2014;75(2):115–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim ED. Controversy over the use of fresh versus frozen–thawed sperm for in vitro fertilization–intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(2):336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Anger JT, Gilbert BR, Goldstein M. Cryopreservation of sperm: indications, methods and results. J Urol. 2003;170(4 Pt 1):1079–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shufaro Y, Schenker JG. Cryopreservation of human genetic material. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1205:220–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. WHO. World Health Organization WHO laboratory manual for examination and processing of human semen. 5th edition: Cambridge University Press 2010

  12. Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A, Mollison J. Factors associated with failed treatment: an analysis of 121,744 women embarking on their first IVF cycles. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e82249.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Son WY, Chung JT, Henderson S, Reinblatt S, Buckett W, Chan PT, et al. Fertilization and embryo development with spermatozoa obtained from testicular sperm extraction into oocytes generated from human chorionic gonadotropin-primed in vitro maturation cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(4):989–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zarutskie PW, Muller CH, Magone M, Soules MR. The clinical relevance of sex selection techniques. Fertil Steril. 1989;52(6):891–905.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schover LR. Rates of postcancer parenthood. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(3):321–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Botchan A, Karpol S, Lehavi O, Paz G, Kleiman SE, Yogev L, et al. Preservation of sperm of cancer patients: extent of use and pregnancy outcome in a tertiary infertility center. Asian J Androl. 2013;15(3):382–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hourvitz A, Goldschlag DE, Davis OK, Gosden LV, Palermo GD, Rosenwaks Z. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using cryopreserved sperm from men with malignant neoplasm yields high pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):557–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ping P, Zhu WB, Zhang XZ, Yao KS, Xu P, Huang YR, et al. Sperm banking for male reproductive preservation: a 6-year retrospective multi-centre study in China. Asian J Androl. 2010;12(3):356–62.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmidt KL, Larsen E, Bangsboll S, Meinertz H, Carlsen E, Andersen AN. Assisted reproduction in male cancer survivors: fertility treatment and outcome in 67 couples. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2806–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van Casteren NJ, van Santbrink EJ, van Inzen W, Romijn JC, Dohle GR. Use rate and assisted reproduction technologies outcome of cryopreserved semen from 629 cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(6):2245–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dohle GR. Male infertility in cancer patients: review of the literature. Int J Urol. 2010;17(4):327–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bahadur G, Ozturk O, Muneer A, Wafa R, Ashraf A, Jaman N, et al. Semen quality before and after gonadotoxic treatment. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(3):774–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bonetti TC, Pasqualotto FF, Queiroz P, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. Sperm banking for male cancer patients: social and semen profiles. Int Braz J Urol. 2009;35(2):190–7. discussion 7–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hotaling JM, Lopushnyan NA, Davenport M, Christensen H, Pagel ER, Muller CH, et al. Raw and test-thaw semen parameters after cryopreservation among men with newly diagnosed cancer. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):464–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson MD, Cooper AR, Jungheim ES, Lanzendorf SE, Odem RR, Ratts VS. Sperm banking for fertility preservation: a 20-year experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(1):177–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grigorescu V, Zhang Y, Kissin DM, Sauber-Schatz E, Sunderam M, Kirby RS, et al. Maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology by infertility diagnosis: ovulatory dysfunction versus tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(4):1019–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Harb HM, Gallos ID, Chu J, Harb M, Coomarasamy A. The effect of endometriosis on in vitro fertilisation outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2013;120(11):1308–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Templeton A, Morris JK, Parslow W. Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Lancet. 1996;348(9039):1402–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dean JH, Chapman MG, Sullivan EA. The effect on human sex ratio at birth by assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures—an assessment of babies born following single embryo transfers, Australia and New Zealand, 2002–2006. BJOG. 2010;117(13):1628–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hesketh T, Min JM. The effects of artificial gender imbalance. Science & society series on sex and science. EMBO Rep. 2012;13(6):487–92.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Check JH, Kwirenk D, Katsoff D, Press M, Breen E, Baker A. Male:female sex ratio in births resulting from IVF according to swim-up versus Percoll preparation of inseminated sperm. Arch Androl. 1994;33(1):63–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hentemann MA, Briskemyr S, Bertheussen K. Blastocyst transfer and gender: IVF versus ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(8):433–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Maalouf WE, Mincheva MN, Campbell BK, Hardy IC. Effects of assisted reproductive technologies on human sex ratio at birth. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1321–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chang HJ, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2381–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lin PY, Huang FJ, Kung FT, Wang LJ, Chang SY, Lan KC. Comparison of the offspring sex ratio between cleavage stage embryo transfer and blastocyst transfer. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;49(1):35–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Luna M, Duke M, Copperman A, Grunfeld L, Sandler B, Barritt J. Blastocyst embryo transfer is associated with a sex-ratio imbalance in favor of male offspring. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):519–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Setti AS, Figueira RC, Braga DP, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. Gender incidence of intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection-derived embryos: a prospective randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(4):420–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fedder J, Loft A, Parner ET, Rasmussen S, Pinborg A. Neonatal outcome and congenital malformations in children born after ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm: a controlled national cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(1):230–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Xun Zhang for his expertise in statistical analysis for all data in this study. This study was supported by a research grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) (SUR-103396) to Dr Peter Chan.

Conflict of interest

Ainhoa García, María Belén Herrero, Hananel Holzer, Togas Tulandi, and Peter Chan declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MUHC Reproductive Center, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Ainhoa García, María Belén Herrero, Hananel Holzer, Togas Tulandi & Peter Chan

  2. Urology Research Department, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Peter Chan

  3. Department of Urology, McGill University Health Center, Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1A1

    Peter Chan

Authors
  1. Ainhoa García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. María Belén Herrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hananel Holzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Togas Tulandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Chan.

Additional information

Ainhoa García and María Belén Herrero contributed equally to the development of the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

García, A., Herrero, M.B., Holzer, H. et al. Assisted reproductive outcomes of male cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv 9, 208–214 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-014-0398-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-014-0398-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation