Male Factor Treatment · Medical Management
Grande G et al., 2025 · Andrology
In infertile couples whose male partner has alterations in semen parameters frequently, a comprehensive andrological approach is lacking and approximately 30-50% are classified as idiopathic infertility. These couples are often directly addressed to assisted reproduction techniques (ARTs). However, several clinical conditions may benefit from medical treatment. By acting on etiology and/or risk factors, this aims at improving seminal parameters and restoring natural fertility. To verify the impact of a comprehensive andrological assessment on the management of infertility (in particular, in couples with isolated male factor infertility) using as the primary outcome the natural pregnancy rate. A multicenter retrospective study was conducted between 2015 and 2022 in 1014 couples with primary infertility seeking natural conception (including 266 couples with previous ART failure). Each couple underwent a multidisciplinary evaluation. This involved: a gynecologist and an andrologist both with expertise in infertility, a psychologist when requested, and a fertility awareness practitioner according to a unique diagnostic and therapeutic multidisciplinary protocol. An isolated male factor was found in 23% of couples. In 45%, it was associated with female factors also. The comprehensive diagnostic approach reduced the proportion of idiopathic infertility to 8% of the couples. Targeted treatment, based on diagnostic categories, was associated with spontaneous pregnancy in 40.9% of the couples. In the 233 cases without female factors, normal semen parameters were observed only in 13% of patients. Male genital tract inflammation was observed in 48.8% of the patients, genital tract infection in 43.1%, and hypospermatogenesis in 16.7%. Patients with infections were treated with antibiotics and probiotics. If further inflammation was documented, this was followed by low-dose corticosteroids and antioxidants. Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) treatment was used in patients with hypospermatogenesis, and varicocele repair surgery was performed in four patients. Our data underline the efficacy of a comprehensive approach to the diagnostic process of male factor infertility, both in reducing the percentage of idiopathic infertility and in restoring natural fertility based on a targeted treatment.
Male Factor Treatment · Medical Management
Weibring K et al., 2024 · Frontiers in endocrinology
The possibility of future parenthood is a highly relevant issue for patients of reproductive age facing oncologic treatment. This study aimed to investigate how fatherhood was achieved in a patient cohort of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) banking semen at time of cancer diagnosis and to determine the effectiveness of cryopreservation aimed at fertility preservation in the cohort. Observational cohort study examining AYAs with a cancer diagnosis who underwent semen banking for fertility preservation at Karolinska University Hospital 1988-2020, as part of the Stockholm regional fertility preservation program. This cohort is being prospectively followed since time of referral to the program, with most individuals included when presenting with primary cancers (Study Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NTC04602962). Individuals achieving adulthood in the cohort were followed-up regarding their reproductive outcomes by linking to the Swedish Multi-generation Register, to identify fatherhood through natural conception or adoption, and to the Swedish National Quality Registry for Assisted Reproduction to identify parenthood through medical assistance, including the use of own sperm either cryopreserved or fresh, or donor sperm. Of the 1,378 patients referred during the study period, 1,357 were eligible for fatherhood analysis (aged >20 years at the end of follow-up, December 31, 2021). In total, 493 men became fathers following cancer treatment: 399 (81%) did so naturally, 87 (18%) via assisted reproductive techniques (including two using donor sperm), and 7 (1%) through adoption. Of the 92 patients who used their cryopreserved sperm for assisted reproductive techniques, 34 (37%) successfully fathered a child. The patients may have had children prior to cryopreservation. A large proportion of AYA cancer survivors achieved fatherhood through natural conception in this cohort, whereas less than 1 in 5 survivors needed medical assistance to conceive. Although a low utilization rate of cryopreserved sperm was found in this cohort, its use was highly effective in the group that developed infertility. At present there are no standardized predictors of testicular toxicity after cancer treatment, and inter-individual variability is high. Further research is needed to identify patients at risk of infertility who would benefit from fertility preservation.
Freezing and Storage · Embryo Freezing and Storage
Chen T et al., 2024 · BMJ open
Many cancer treatments pose a threat to fertility for patients. Semen cryopreservation before cancer treatment is an effective method to preserve fertility. There are sparse long-term data on the usage of samples from Canadian oncology sperm banks. A retrospective chart review of all oncology sperm banking samples at a Canadian academic fertility centre from 2001 to 2020 was conducted. From 2001 to 2020, 4521 samples were banked by 2504 patients. The most frequent diagnoses among these patients were testicular cancer (29.5%) and lymphoma (26.9%). Of these patients, only 81 (3.2%) patients returned to use their samples with intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment and 62 (2.5%) patients transferred their samples to another clinic. The time between banking and return for usage of the sperm ranged from 1 to 131 months with a median of 18 months after banking. A total of 66 IVF cycles (104 embryo transfers) and 101 IUI cycles from 67 patients were reviewed. Of the 67 couples who used their samples, 53.7% achieved a clinical pregnancy. The clinical pregnancy rate was 6.6% per cycle for IUI and 30.8% per embryo transfer for IVF. Higher sperm concentration or total motile count was not associated with a higher chance of pregnancy. Patients who conceived had on average 1.9 ± 0.8 (p=0.02) more usable embryos per cycle than those who did not conceive. Sperm cryopreservation provides a valuable option for patients with cancer to achieve parenthood after potentially gonadotoxic cancer treatment. However, the overall usage of banked oncology sperm samples is very low.
Male Factor Treatment · Medical Management
Li Q et al., 2024 · Human reproduction open
Does sperm cryopreservation serve as a feasible and effective method for preserving fertility in adult male patients with cancer? Sperm cryopreservation is an effective fertility preservation method and may benefit patients with cancer. Sperm cryopreservation is the only way to efficiently preserve male fertility. It is an important procedure in ART. Recently, due to remarkable advances in cancer treatment, an increasing number of studies have reported the outcomes of sperm cryopreservation in patients with cancer. We conducted an extensive literature search for relevant studies published through to 31 December 2021, in the following databases: CENTRAL, CNKI, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Web of Science. The search terms used were '(cryopreservation OR freeze OR freezing OR banking OR cryostorage OR storage) AND (sperm OR semen OR spermatozoon) AND (cancer OR tumor OR malignancy OR neoplasm)'. We included all studies that reported offering or attempting to cryopreserve sperm before or during cancer treatment in male patients considered at risk of treatment-related fertility impairment. We evaluated the eligibility of all data in each study. The major exclusion criteria were as follows: non-cancer patients; pediatric and adolescent cancer patients; not reporting the use of cryopreserved sperm; use of fresh semen for ART; not reporting the number of patients with cancer offered sperm cryopreservation or attempting to do so before or during treatment; using an experimental fertility preservation technique such as preservation of testicular tissue or spermatogonial stem cells; duplicate data; abstracts, case report, comments, reviews, or editorials; insufficient data reported. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. This meta-analysis included 69 non-randomized studies, with 32 234 patients referred for sperm analysis and 23 178 patients cryopreserving at least one sperm sample. The pooled failed-to-cryopreserve rate was 10% (95% CI, 8-12%), and the sperm disposal and sperm use rates were 23% (95% CI, 16-30%) and 9% (95% CI, 8-10%), respectively. The pregnancy, miscarriage, and delivery rates were 28% (95% CI, 22-33%), 13% (95% CI, 10-17%), and 20% (95% CI, 15-25%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed higher pregnancy and delivery rates, as well as a lower failed-to-cryopreserve rate, in recent studies compared to those released a decade ago. The studies from Asia reported higher sperm disposal and pregnancy rates than in other continents. Our analysis showed clinical pregnancy rates per cycle of 34% (27-41%), 24% (14-35%), and 9% (5-15%) and delivery rates per cycle of 23% (17-30%), 18% (11-26%), and 5% (1-9%) for ICSI, IVF, and IUI, respectively. As with all meta-analyses, some limitations should be considered. The first limitation of our study is that the data span 36 years. During this time, the World Health Organization has revised its sperm analysis standards, and other important changes have been made. There is also a limitation in that the outcome does not analyze the correlation between the type of cancer and sperm quality. Many of the earlier studies were limited by small sample sizes and a lack of control groups. Furthermore, almost all studies did not consider the severity of the disease, which could potentially have a substantial impact on the results. Consequently, further research should evaluate the effect of the type of cancer and, in particular, the severity of the condition on sperm quality in order to draw more precise conclusions. Similarly, it is inappropriate that most studies failed to differentiate between patients with different types of tumors and instead drew generalized conclusions that are presumed to apply to all patients with cancer. In the present analysis, we did not have in-depth information on patients' disease, and although extensive efforts were made to conduct a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes for patients with various types of tumors, the results must be acknowledged as being subject to bias. However, the use of average results obtained in each study, without the patient-level data, might also represent a source of bias. Sperm cryopreservation is an effective fertility preservation method and may benefit patients with cancer. The observed utilization rate of frozen sperm at 9% may underestimate the actual usage, as the short follow-up period is inadequate for obtaining comprehensive data on the use of frozen sperm in young cancer survivors. ART plays an important role in fertility preservation and the achievement of pregnancy, with this meta-analysis showing that ICSI delivers better clinical outcomes than IVF or IUI in patients with cancer undergoing fertility preservation. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 82001634, 81960550), and the China Post