ArticleBMJ open2024
Twenty-year oncology sperm banking experience at a Canadian academic fertility centre: a retrospective study examining the usage and reproductive outcomes from oncology patients.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protective Effect ofAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of immunotherapy and small molecule cancer therapy on fertility: a narrative review of current evidence, mechanisms and future directions.BMJ oncology · 2026Review
- Fertility Preservation in More than 7000 Male Patients: A Single-Center, Tertiary Care Registry Study over 30 Years.Cancers · 2025Article
- Advances in real-world research on fertility preservation in men with malignant tumours.Frontiers in urology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany cancer treatments pose a threat to fertility for patients. Semen cryopreservation before cancer treatment is an effective method to preserve fertility. There are sparse long-term data on the usage of samples from Canadian oncology sperm banks.
methodsA retrospective chart review of all oncology sperm banking samples at a Canadian academic fertility centre from 2001 to 2020 was conducted.
resultsFrom 2001 to 2020, 4521 samples were banked by 2504 patients. The most frequent diagnoses among these patients were testicular cancer (29.5%) and lymphoma (26.9%). Of these patients, only 81 (3.2%) patients returned to use their samples with intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment and 62 (2.5%) patients transferred their samples to another clinic. The time between banking and return for usage of the sperm ranged from 1 to 131 months with a median of 18 months after banking. A total of 66 IVF cycles (104 embryo transfers) and 101 IUI cycles from 67 patients were reviewed. Of the 67 couples who used their samples, 53.7% achieved a clinical pregnancy. The clinical pregnancy rate was 6.6% per cycle for IUI and 30.8% per embryo transfer for IVF. Higher sperm concentration or total motile count was not associated with a higher chance of pregnancy. Patients who conceived had on average 1.9 ± 0.8 (p=0.02) more usable embryos per cycle than those who did not conceive.
conclusionsSperm cryopreservation provides a valuable option for patients with cancer to achieve parenthood after potentially gonadotoxic cancer treatment. However, the overall usage of banked oncology sperm samples is very low.
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.