Parenthood in a Swedish prospective cohort of 1,378 adolescents and young adults banking semen for fertility preservation at time of cancer diagnosis
Weibring K , Frida E Lundberg, Cohn-Cedermark G
Kenny A. Rodriguez‐Wallberg
Author affiliations (2)
Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ROR
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.
Fertility preservation is an important aspect of quality of life in oncological patients, and in men is achieved by semen cryopreservation prior to treatment. Results of in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures in healthy infertile couples are comparable, regardless of whether fresh or cryopreserved semen is used, but are scarce in male oncological patients. We performed a retrospective analysis of IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) procedures in infertile couples where men had been treated for cancer in the past. We additionally compared the results of IVF/ICSI procedures with respect to the type of semen used (fresh, cryopreserved). We compared the success rates of 214 IVF/ICSI cycles performed in the years 2004-2018. Pregnancy (30.0% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.12) and live-birth rates (22.3% vs. 17.9%; p = 0.43) per oocyte aspiration were similar between the groups in fresh cycles; however embryo utilization (48.9% vs. 40.0%; p = 0.006) and embryo cryopreservation rates (17.3% vs. 12.7%; p = 0.048) were significantly higher in the cryopreserved semen group. The cumulative pregnancy rate (60.6% vs. 37.7%; p = 0.012) was significantly higher, and the live-birth rate (45.1% vs. 34.0%; p = 0.21) non-significantly higher, in the cryopreserved semen group. The success of IVF/ICSI procedures in couples where the male partner was treated for cancer in the past are the same in terms of pregnancies and live-births in fresh cycles regardless of the type of semen used. However, embryo utilization and embryo cryopreservation rates are significantly higher when cryopreserved semen is used, leading to a significantly higher cumulative number of couples who achieved at least one pregnancy.
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.
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.
assisted-reproduction/outcomes/live-birth-ratesrestorative-reproductive-medicine/restorative-care-and-assisted-reproduction/outcome-comparisons
Open Access
Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is an emerging approach that can be used to treat infertility. Our goal was to compare RRM to IVF outcomes in 2019.
We conducted a retrospective clinic-based analysis and referenced it against publicly available data from IVF registries, as published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) in the USA, and the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), in the UK. Data from 2019 was collected from routine medical records following treatment at one clinic in Dublin, Ireland during 2019. We defined the demographics, diagnoses, and treatments and then calculated the crude percentages of conception, live birth, multiple pregnancy, prematurity, and low birth weight. These results were benchmarked against data reported in IVF databases. 249 couples had at least one RRM consultation, 187 committed to the RRM treatment program and met the inclusion criteria. The average female age for all included patients was 36.4 years and couples were trying to conceive for a mean of 32.2 months. Of the 187 patients/couples who underwent treatment, 28% had a previous live birth, 30% had a previous miscarriage, and 42% had never conceived;19% (35/187) had previously had IVF, 2.3 + 1.6 IVF cycles per couple. Of the 187 couples, 52% (98/187) conceived, 41% (77/187) had a documented live birth. There were 75 singletons and 2 sets of twins, producing 79 babies. Time to conception for live birth patients averaged 12 + 8 months. The average birth weight was 3422g (7lb 9oz) and average weeks’ gestation at delivery was 39 + 1.5 weeks. 4.0% (3/75) of singleton babies were premature (33-37 weeks) and none were very premature (< 32 weeks). 5.3% (4/75) of singleton babies had low birth weight (< 2,500g). When we compared births across age groups, the RRM percentages with live birth were comparable to those in a single cycle of IVF with multiple subsequent embryo transfers, and greater than a single cycle of IVF with a single embryo transfer. Furthermore, RRM babies had fewer multiple pregnancies, and singleton RRM pregnancies had less than half as many premature deliveries compared to IVF, (6.5% RRM all pregnancies or 4.0% RRM, singleton pregnancies vs 14.4% SART, all pregnancies or 11.8% CDC, singleton pregnancies). 74% (26/35) of couples who remained in contact with us and tried for another pregnancy had a repeat successful live birth. In our clinic, a comprehensive RRM assessment and treatment followed by up to 12 optimal cycles of timed intercourse resulted in a 41% live birth rate (crude rate). We propose that using RRM may improve a couple’s chance of having a healthy pregnancy and reduce the demand for IVF. Furthermore, RRM reduces the risk of multiple pregnancy, low birth weight and premature delivery compared to IVF. The majority of couples who sought a second live birth were successful.
Limitations and Future directions: This is a retrospective analysis with a small number of RRM patients, compared to large IVF databases of patients using one cycle of IVF, including all transfers made from the IVF retrieval. While useful for benchmarking, conclusions are limited by sample size, and the lack of relevant prognostic data (other than female age) for the IVF patients. Larger prospective studies with full prognostic data are needed to make a proper comparison of RRM and IVF outcomes.