Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34667304›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2022

Fertility preservation in boys facing gonadotoxic cancer therapy.

Christian F S Jensen, Lihua Dong, Murat Gul, Mikkel Fode, Simone Hildorf, Jorgen Thorup, Eva Hoffmann, Dina Cortes, Jens Fedder, Claus Y Andersen and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Christian F S JensenDepartment of Urology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark. fullejensen@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7810-1413
Lihua DongLaboratory of Reproductive Biology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Murat GulLaboratory of Reproductive Biology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6657-6227
Mikkel FodeDepartment of Urology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
Simone HildorfDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6639-0625
Jorgen ThorupDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Eva HoffmannFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dina CortesFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jens FedderCentre of Andrology & Fertility Clinic, Department D, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5383-5501
Claus Y AndersenLaboratory of Reproductive Biology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jens SønksenDepartment of Urology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKGentofte Hospital · DKHerlev Hospital · DKSelçuk University · TRUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient survival following childhood cancer has increased with contemporary radiation and chemotherapy techniques. However, gonadotoxicity associated with treatments means that infertility is a common consequence in survivors. Novel fertility preservation options are emerging, but knowledge about these options amongst urologists and other medical professionals is lacking. Pre-pubertal boys generally do not produce haploid germ cells. Thus, strategies for fertility preservation require cryopreservation of tissue containing spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs). Few centres worldwide routinely offer this option and fertility restoration (including testicular tissue engraftment, autotransplantation of SSCs and in vitro maturation of SSCs to spermatozoa) post-thaw is experimental. In pubertal boys, the main option for fertility preservation is masturbation and cryopreservation of the ejaculate. Assisted ejaculation using penile vibratory stimulation or electroejaculation and surgical sperm retrieval can be used in a sequential manner after failed masturbation. Physicians should inform boys and parents about the gonadotoxic effects of cancer treatment and offer fertility preservation. Preclinical experience has identified challenges in pre-pubertal fertility preservation, but available options are expected to be successful when today's pre-pubertal boys with cancer become adults. By contrast, fertility preservation in pubertal boys is clinically proven and should be offered to all patients undergoing cancer treatment.

Indexed as

ChildCombined Modality TherapyCryopreservationEjaculationFertilityFertility PreservationHumansMaleNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34667304
OpenAlexW3207063697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.