ReviewThe oncologist2025
Decreasing barriers to the utilization of cryopreserved sperm in male cancer survivors: an expert review and guide.
Review in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reframing sperm cryopreservation in male cancer survivors: from procedural success to meaningful utilization.The oncologist · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSperm cryopreservation offers male cancer patients a critical opportunity to preserve fertility prior to gonadotoxic therapy, yet utilization of banked sperm remains modest, typically under 10%. A structured understanding of barriers across the cancer survivorship continuum is needed to support patients in utilization of cryopreserved sperm in alignment with their reproductive goals. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis expert review synthesizes current evidence and clinical experience to explore the multifaceted barriers to cryopreserved sperm use and propose specific solutions. Key intervention timepoints are examined, including the post-treatment fertility return visit, long-term cryopreservation while remote from family building, readiness for family building, and posthumous considerations. We subsequently outline an optimal Oncofertility Patient Care Pathway.
resultsMultiple clinical, psychosocial, and financial obstacles limit the transition from sperm banking to use. Approximately one-third of survivors do not attend post-treatment fertility return visits, reducing opportunities for counseling and longitudinal reproductive planning. Psychological factors-including fear of cancer recurrence and delayed readiness for family building-contribute to prolonged storage. Many patients remain underinformed about the efficacy and processes of assisted reproductive techniques, while financial concerns are significant. These intersecting barriers hinder use of cryopreserved sperm. Opportunities exist to intervene at key timepoints, as outlined in the Oncofertillity Patient Care Pathway.
conclusionA multidisciplinary and structured oncofertility pathway, such as detailed in this review, is needed to support cancer survivors in achieving their reproductive goals. Enhanced counseling, technology-enabled follow-up systems, targeted psychological support, and policies promoting broader insurance coverage for assisted reproduction represent key strategies to overcome existing barriers.
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.