Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35535513›Full record

ArticleBJU international2022

The importance of the urologist in male oncology fertility preservation.

Lionel A Micol, Funmi Adenubi, Elizabeth Williamson, Sheila Lane, Rod T Mitchell, Philippa Sangster

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lionel A MicolInstitute of Andrology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6281-4593
Funmi AdenubiReproductive Medicine Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Elizabeth WilliamsonReproductive Medicine Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sheila LaneChildren's Haematology and Oncology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Rod T MitchellCentre for Reproductive Health, Edinburgh Royal Hospital for Sick Children, The University of Edinburgh MRC, Edinburgh, UK.
Philippa SangsterInstitute of Andrology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9040-3908
University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal Hospital for Children · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N022556/1Medical Research Council MR/S017151/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo demonstrate that surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) and spermatogonial stem cell retrieval (SSCR) in an oncological context are safe and successful. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis a retrospective study in a tertiary hospital in the UK. Patients requiring fertility preservation from December 2017 to January 2020 were included. Data were analysed with Microsoft Excel 2016 and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 20).

resultsAmong 1264 patients referred to the Reproductive Medical Unit at the University College of London Hospitals for cryopreservation prior to gonadotoxic treatment, 39 chose to go forward with SSR/SSCR because they presented as azoo-/cryptozoospermic or an inability to masturbate/ejaculate. Interventions were testicular sperm extraction (23 patients) or aspiration (one), electroejaculation (one), and testicular wedge biopsy for SSCR (14). The median (range) age was 15.0 (10-65) years and the median testosterone level was 4.4 nmoL/L. Primary diagnoses were sarcoma in 11 patients, leukaemia in nine, lymphoma in eight, testicular tumour in five, other oncological haematological entities in two, other solid cancers in two, while two patients had non-oncological haematological diseases. SSR/SSCR could be offered within 7.5 days on average. Chemotherapy could follow within 2 days from SSR/SSCR, and bone marrow transplant occurred within 19.5 days (all expressed as medians). The success rate for SSR was 68.0% (at least one vial/straw collected). The mean (SD) Johnsen score of testicular biopsies was 5.23 (2.25) with a trend towards positive correlation with SSR success (P = 0.07). However, age, hormonal profile and type of cancer did not predict SSR outcome.

conclusionWe show that SSR and SSCR in an oncological context are valid treatment options with a high success rate for patients in which sperm cryopreservation from semen is impossible. By providing an effective pathway, fertility preservation is possible with minimal delay to oncological treatment.

Indexed as

Fertility PreservationTesticular NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultAgedChildCryopreservationHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSemenTestosteroneUrologistsYoung AdultTestosteroneazoospermiacancerchemotherapycryptozoospermiafertility preservationsurgical sperm retrieval

Identifiers

PMID35535513
PMCPMC9796952
OpenAlexW4229457702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.