ReviewReproductive medicine and biology2010
Fertility preservation for boys with cancer.
Review in Reproductive medicine and biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the Gap: Animal Models in Next-Generation Reproductive Technologies for Male Fertility Preservation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review
- Erectile Dysfunction in Germ Cell Tumor Survivors.The world journal of men's health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Childhood cancer is a curable disease due to the development of chemo- and radiation therapies, but long-term survivors suffer late side-effects including infertility. Cytotoxic agents and radiation impair spermatogenesis and cause oligospermia or azoospermia as well as genetic damage in sperm. To date, the only established option to preserve fertility is cryopreservation of sperm before treatment and artificial reproduction techniques, if men with cancer can ejaculate, but only a quarter of men have banked sperm. Lack of information is the most common reason for failing to bank sperm. However, prepubertal patients who have only spermatogonia and spermatocytes in their testes do not benefit from cryopreservation of their sperm and assisted reproductive techniques. Thus, the only available option is to harvest testicular tissues before treatment for cryopreservation, from which immature germ cells can somehow be maturated. Autotransplantation of germ cells into the testis holds promise for fertility restoration, but contamination by malignant cells may induce relapse. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) with two surface markers could exclude contaminated leukemic cells from murine germ cells, and transplantation of sorted germ cells successfully restored fertility without transmission of leukemia. Human germ cells could be also isolated from human leukemia and lymphoma cell lines by FACS using surface markers. Before autotransplantation can be applied clinically, some issues, including the risk of contamination by malignant cells and in vitro propagation of spermatogonial stem cells, should be resolved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.