ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2018
Effect of a formal oncofertility program on fertility preservation rates-first year experience.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Obstetric haematology training: Optimising care through cultivated expertise.Obstetric medicine · 2026Article
- A multidisciplinary evaluation of fertility preservation for oncology patients in Canada The British Columbia perspective.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Efficient pathway for men fertility preservation in testicular cancer or lymphoma: a cross-sectional study of national 2018 data.Basic and clinical andrology · 2023Article
- Fertility preservation in pediatric healthcare: a review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
- An assessment of oncofertility content on reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinic websites.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
- Infrastructure of Fertility Preservation Services for Pediatric Cancer Patients: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group.JCO oncology practice · 2022Article
- Pediatric oncofertility: an update.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
- Association of Impaired Spermatogenesis With the Use of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma.JAMA oncology · 2020Article
- Oncofertility in adult and pediatric populations: options and barriers.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
- Fertility considerations in men with testicular cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA formal fertility preservation program was initiated at our institution in 2016 as part of a multi-disciplinary oncofertility initiative to improve the reproductive needs of oncologic patients. After 1 year of initial experience, we assessed sperm banking rates in men diagnosed with cancer, as well as examined the trends in the use of fertility preservation services.
methodsWe performed a chart review from 2011 to 2017 for men newly diagnosed with cancer, and for all men who underwent fertility preservation during that period of time at our institution. We assessed the rates of sperm banking among patients newly diagnosed with cancer, before and after the implementation of a standardized oncofertility program in 2016. The program includes nursing and physician education regarding indications of fertility preservation. Additionally, we evaluated the overall population undergoing sperm cryopreservation at our institution during the study period.
resultsFrom 2011 to 2016, 30 of 902 oncologic patients underwent sperm banking prior to their treatment (3.3% of total cancer patients). After the program was implemented, 42 of 218 patients underwent fertility preservation between June 2016 and August 2017 (19.3% of total cancer patients). In this group, patients' mean age was 30.14 years old (range, 13-69 years old), with 6 pediatric patients; 36 of the samples (85.7%) were obtained from masturbation. When viable sperm could not be obtained from ejaculation, patients underwent either testicular or epididymal sperm extraction (6 cases). Overall, 98 men used the formal fertility preservation service. Of these, 42 were cancer patients and 56 were non-cancer patients. Of the non-cancer patients, 17 banked sperm after varicocelectomy, 6 prior to vasectomy and 6 because of hypogonadism.
conclusionsRate of sperm banking increased nearly six-fold after institution of a formal fertility preservation program, indicating the clinical need for such a program at academic institutions. Oncofertility is a relevant part of the care for oncologic patients, and should be considered as part of counseling before cancer treatment.
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.