Male Fertility Preservation
Purpose of Review
With improvements in cancer treatment outcomes and an increase in cancer survivorship, understanding the importance of fertility preservation options prior to undergoing cancer treatment is essential. Therefore, we review herein the effect of cancer and its treatment on male fertility, the rationale for sperm cryopreservation, options for sperm retrieval, ART outcomes, and experimental options.
Recent data update fertility outcomes with newer cancer therapies and provide longitudinal insight into survivor paternity with and without fertility preservation. Likewise, updated ART outcomes and future preservation options are discussed.
The effect of cancer and its treatment on spermatogenesis is well established. Sperm cryopreservation is the best pre-treatment insurance for the opportunity of future fertility. Post-therapy patients may also achieve fertility restoration with ART, using cryopreserved or freshly obtained sperm. Meanwhile, utilization of cryopreserved testicular stem cells for future transfer or for in vitro maturation represents exciting alternatives on the horizon.
KeywordsOncofertility Male fertility preservation Sperm cryopreservation Male cancer treatment
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
J. Abram McBride, M.D. and Larry I. Lipshultz each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2014 [database on the Internet]. National Cancer Institute. 2017. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2014/. Accessed: April, 2017.
- 4.Ventura SJ, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD. Revised birth and fertility rates for the United States, 2000 and 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2003;51(4):1–18.Google Scholar
- 10.Loren AW, Mangu PB, Beck LN, Brennan L, Magdalinski AJ, Partridge AH, et al. Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(19):2500–10. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.49.2678.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 14.JW-C Cheng EK. Etiology of Cancer-Induced Male Infertility. In: A Majzoub AA, editor. The Complete Guide to Male Fertility Preservation. Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 3–18.Google Scholar
- 25.•• Caponecchia L, Cimino G, Sacchetto R, Fiori C, Sebastianelli A, Salacone P, et al. Do malignant diseases affect semen quality? Sperm parameters of men with cancers. Andrologia. 2016;48(3):333–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.12451. This is a large, single center, retrospective analysis of semen parameters in cancer patients presenting for sperm cryopreservation stratified by cancer diagnosis, demonstrating worse baseline parameters in testis cancer and lymphoma patients, confirming previous data. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.•• Depalo R, Falagario D, Masciandaro P, Nardelli C, Vacca MP, Capuano P, et al. Fertility preservation in males with cancer: 16-year monocentric experience of sperm banking and post-thaw reproductive outcomes. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2016;8(6):412–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758834016665078. This is the largest single center review of semen parameters in male cancer patients presenting for cryopreservation with ART outcome data using banked sperm for IVF/ICSI establishing fertilization, implantation, pregnancy and live birth outcomes. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.•• DiNofia AM, Wang X, Yannekis G, Ogle S, Hobbie WL, Carlson CA, et al. Analysis of semen parameters in a young cohort of cancer patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64(2):381–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.26221. The largest review of sperm cryopreservation in peri-pubertal and post-pubertal male cancer patients demonstrating the feasibility and high success rate in this population. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.•• Martinez G, Walschaerts M, Le Mitouard M, Borye R, Thomas C, Auger J, et al. Impact of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma and their treatments on sperm aneuploidy: a prospective study by the French CECOS network. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(2):341–50 e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.001. This study represents the largest, prospective cohort to date evaluating the impact of cancer and its treatment on sperm aneuploidy demonstrating worse aneuploidy rates with treatment lasting up to 2 years but returning to baseline beyond 2 years. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Stahl O, Boyd HA, Giwercman A, Lindholm M, Jensen A, Kjaer SK, et al. Risk of birth abnormalities in the offspring of men with a history of cancer: a cohort study using Danish and Swedish national registries. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(5):398–406. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq550.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 37.• Abdul-Muhsin HM, L'Esperance JO, Fischer K, Woods ME, Porter JR, Castle EP. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112(7):736–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24018. The authors present one of the largest multi-institutional series of primary and post-chemotherapy robotic RPLND demonstrating non-inferior outcomes to the open approach. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Asgari MA, Safarinejad MR, Shakhssalim N, Soleimani M, Shahabi A, Amini E. Sexual function after non-nerve-sparing radical cystoprostatectomy: a comparison between ileal conduit urinary diversion and orthotopic ileal neobladder substitution. Int Braz J Urol. 2013;39(4):474–83. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2013.04.04.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.• Liu Z, Huang M, Kang L, Wang L, Lan P, Cui J, et al. Prognosis and postoperative genital function of function-preservative surgery of pelvic autonomic nerve preservation for male rectal cancer patients. BMC Surg. 2016;16:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-016-0127-4. One of the largest rectal cancer series to date employing nerve sparing techniques demonstrating improved rate of erectile function recovery using nerve sparing techniques. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 42.•• Conti SL, Eisenberg ML. Paternal aging and increased risk of congenital disease, psychiatric disorders, and cancer. Asian J Androl. 2016;18(3):420–4. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682x.175097. The authors present a concise review of the implications of advanced paternal age and overall increased risk for congenital abnormalities, cancer and psychiatric disorders. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 44.Meseguer M, Garrido N, Remohi J, Pellicer A, Simon C, Martinez-Jabaloyas JM, et al. Testicular sperm extraction (TESE) and ICSI in patients with permanent azoospermia after chemotherapy. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2003;18(6):1281–5.Google Scholar
- 47.Green DM, Liu W, Kutteh WH, Ke RW, Shelton KC, Sklar CA, et al. Cumulative alkylating agent exposure and semen parameters in adult survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the St Jude Lifetime Cohort Study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(11):1215–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70408-5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 49.Waxman J, Terry Y, Rees LH, Lister TA. Gonadal function in men treated for acute leukaemia. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1983;287(6399):1093–4.Google Scholar
- 55.van Beek RD, Smit M, van den Heuvel-Eibrink MM, de Jong FH, Hakvoort-Cammel FG, van den Bos C, et al. Inhibin B is superior to FSH as a serum marker for spermatogenesis in men treated for Hodgkin's lymphoma with chemotherapy during childhood. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2007;22(12):3215–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem313.Google Scholar
- 57.•• Bujan L, Walschaerts M, Brugnon F, Daudin M, Berthaut I, Auger J, et al. Impact of lymphoma treatments on spermatogenesis and sperm deoxyribonucleic acid: a multicenter prospective study from the CECOS network. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):667–74 e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.008. The authors present one of the largest and only prospective cohort of male cancer patients evaluated for sperm DNA damage demonstrating higher DNA fragmentation before and after cancer treatment. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 58.Bujan L, Walschaerts M, Moinard N, Hennebicq S, Saias J, Brugnon F, et al. Impact of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for testicular germ cell tumors on spermatogenesis and sperm DNA: a multicenter prospective study from the CECOS network. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):673–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.018.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 61.Howell S, Shalet S. Gonadal damage from chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 1998;27(4):927–43.Google Scholar
- 68.•• Chow EJ, Stratton KL, Leisenring WM, Oeffinger KC, Sklar CA, Donaldson SS, et al. Pregnancy after chemotherapy in male and female survivors of childhood cancer treated between 1970 and 1999: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study cohort. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(5):567–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(16)00086-3. Very large retrospective cohort study evaluating the otehrwise poorly described outcome of pregnancy and live birth in male cancer survivors demonstrating lower rates overall and even worse rates in men treated with alkylating agents compared to sibling controls. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 73.•• Grover NS, Deal AM, Wood WA, Mersereau JE. Young men with cancer experience low referral rates for fertility counseling and sperm banking. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(5):465–71. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.2015.010579. The authors present the largest single institution evaluation of oncology counseling and referral rates for male fertility preservation, which confirmed previous findings of poor counseling and referral rates. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 75.•• Sonnenburg DW, Brames MJ, Case-Eads S, Einhorn LH. Utilization of sperm banking and barriers to its use in testicular cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(9):2763–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2641-9. One of the larger, more recent fertility preservation center review providing answers to how cancer survivors utilize their banked specimens specifically younger and childless men are more likely to bank, 18% of men utilized their banked specimens, and 82% of used specimens resulted in paternity success. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 78.•• Ferrari S, Paffoni A, Filippi F, Busnelli A, Vegetti W, Somigliana E. Sperm cryopreservation and reproductive outcome in male cancer patients: a systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.04.002. The most recent systematic review of utilization of cryopreserved sperm, highlighting only 16% of men choose to discard their samples over time. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 82.•• Bernie AM, Mata DA, Ramasamy R, Schlegel PN. Comparison of microdissection testicular sperm extraction, conventional testicular sperm extraction, and testicular sperm aspiration for nonobstructive azoospermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(5):1099–103 e1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1136. The authors present a concise review and meta-analysis of available data and demonstrated the superiority of micro-TESE for sperm retrieval in non-obstructive azoospermia patients. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 83.Friedler S, Raziel A, Strassburger D, Soffer Y, Komarovsky D, Ron-El R. Testicular sperm retrieval by percutaneous fine needle sperm aspiration compared with testicular sperm extraction by open biopsy in men with non-obstructive azoospermia. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 1997;12(7):1488–93.Google Scholar
- 84.Sheynkin YR, Ye Z, Menendez S, Liotta D, Veeck LL, Schlegel P. Controlled comparison of percutaneous and microsurgical sperm retrieval in men with obstructive azoospermia. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 1998;13(11):3086–9.Google Scholar
- 85.Devroey P, Liu J, Nagy Z, Goossens A, Tournaye H, Camus M, et al. Pregnancies after testicular sperm extraction and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in non-obstructive azoospermia. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 1995;10(6):1457–60.Google Scholar
- 87.Schlegel PN, et al. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 1999;14(1):131–5.Google Scholar
- 90.Haddad N, Al-Rabeeah K, Onerheim R, Zini A. Is ex vivo microdissection testicular sperm extraction indicated for infertile men undergoing radical orchiectomy for testicular cancer? Case report and literature review. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(4):956–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.052.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 91.Rives N, Perdrix A, Hennebicq S, Saias-Magnan J, Melin MC, Berthaut I, et al. The semen quality of 1158 men with testicular cancer at the time of cryopreservation: results of the French National CECOS Network. J Androl. 2012;33(6):1394–401. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.112.016592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 93.Hsiao W, Stahl PJ, Osterberg EC, Nejat E, Palermo GD, Rosenwaks Z, et al. Successful treatment of postchemotherapy azoospermia with microsurgical testicular sperm extraction: the Weill Cornell experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(12):1607–11. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.33.7808.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 95.•• Del Vento F, Vermeulen M, de Michele F, Giudice MG, Poels J, des Rieux A, et al. Tissue engineering to improve immature testicular tissue and cell transplantation outcomes: one step closer to fertility restoration for prepubertal boys exposed to gonadotoxic treatments. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(1) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19010286. The authors present an excellent review of available data to date regarding the techniques and success using immature testicular tissue for transplantation, highlighting the bright future for this technology.
- 99.Jurewicz M, Hillelsohn J, Mehta S, Gilbert BR. Fertility preservation in pubertal and pre-pubertal boys with cancer. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2018;15(3):234–43. https://doi.org/10.17458/per.vol15.2018.jhmg.fertilitypubertalboys.PubMedGoogle Scholar