Tijdschrift voor Urologie

, Volume 5, Issue 5, pp 120–126 | Cite as

Resultaten van semencryopreservatie en gebruik voor kunstmatige voortplantingstechnieken bij 898 mannen met kanker

Semencryopreservatie bij mannen met kanker
  • I. Muller
  • R.J.A. Oude Ophuis
  • F.J.M. Broekmans
  • M.T.W.T. Lock
Article
First Online:
  • 52 Downloads

Samenvatting

Doelstelling:

Bepalen hoe vaak ingevroren semen van kankerpatiënten wordt gebruikt en het slagingspercentage van kunstmatige voortplantingstechnieken (ART) in deze groep.

Studieopzet:

Retrospectieve data-analyse.

Setting:

Tertiair academische fertiliteitscentrum voortplantingsgeneeskunde.

Patiënten:

898 mannelijke kankerpatiënten die tussen 1983 en 2013 semen lieten invriezen.

Interventie:

Follow-up van alle ART-behandelingen.

Belangrijkste uitkomstmaten:

Gebruik van het ingevroren semen en het slagingspercentage van kunstmatige voortplantingstechnieken (ART) met het ingevroren semen voor het bereiken van het ouderschap.

Resultaten:

898 patiënten vroren hun semen in. 96 patiënten gebruikten hun ingevroren semen voor ART (10,7%). Het percentage klinische zwangerschap voor intra-uteriene inseminatie (IUI), in-vitrofertilisatie (IVF), intracytoplasmatische sperma-injectie (ICSI) en cryo-embryotransfer (ET) waren respectievelijk 14%, 37%, 38% en 18%. In totaal bereikte 77% van de paren ouderschap van ten miste één levendgeborene.

Conclusie:

Hoewel de slagingspercentages van ART met ingevroren semen indrukwekkend zijn, wordt het ingevroren semen van kankerpatiënten (te) weinig gebruikt.

Trefwoorden:

cryopreservatie, semen, kanker, kunstmatige voortplantingstechnieken

Summary

Laparoscopic radical cystectomy in a non-academic center by a single surgeon in 94 cases

Objective:

To determine how often cryopreserved semen from cancer patients is used and the success rate of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in this group.

Design:

Retrospective data analysis.

Setting:

Academic tertiary referral fertility centre.

Patients:

898 male cancer patients who cryopreserved semen between 1983-2013.

Intervention:

Follow-up of all ART treatments.

Main outcome measures:

Usage rate of cryopreserved semen and success rate of assisted reproductive technology in achieving parenthood.

Results:

898 patients cryobanked their semen. 96 patients used their cryopreserved semen for ART (10,7%). The clinical pregnancy rate for intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and cryo embryo transfer (ET) were 14%, 37%, 38% and 18%, respectively. A total of 77% of the couples achieved parenthood.

Conclusions:

Although the success rates of ART are impressive, the usage rate of cryopreserved semen in cancer patients is (too) low.

Key words:

cryopreservation, semen, cancer, assisted reproduction technology

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Literatuur

  1. 1.
    Edwards BK, Noone AM, Mariotto AB, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer. 2014 May 1;120(9):1290–314.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hotaling JM, Lopushnyan NA, Davenport M, et al. Raw and testthaw semen parameters after cryopreservation among men with newly diagnosed cancer. Fertil Steril. 2013 Feb;99(2):464–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meistrich ML. Effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy on spermatogenesis in humans. Fertil Steril. 2013 Nov;100(5):1180–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gandini L, Sgro P, Lombardo F, et al. Effect of chemo- or radiotherapy on sperm parameters of testicular cancer patients. Hum Reprod. 2006 Nov;21(11):2882–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trottmann M, Becker AJ, Stadler T, et al. Semen quality in men with malignant diseases before and after therapy and the role of cryopreservation. Eur Urol. 2007 Aug;52(2):355–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dohle GR. Male infertility in cancer patients: Review of the literature. Int J Urol. 2010 Apr;17(4):327–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greiner R. Spermatogenesis after fractionated, low-dose irradiation of the gonads. Strahlentherapie 1982 Jun;158(6):342–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horne G, Atkinson AD, Pease EH, et al. Live birth with sperm cryopreserved for 21 years prior to cancer treatment: case report. Hum Reprod. 2004 Jun;19(6):1448–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke GN, Liu de Y, Baker HW. Recovery of human sperm motility and ability to interact with the human zona pellucida after more than 28 years of storage in liquid nitrogen. Fertil Steril. 2006 Sep;86(3):721–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Connell M, McClure N, Lewis SE. The effects of cryopreservation on sperm morphology, motility and mitochondrial function. Hum Reprod. 2002 Mar;17(3):704–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Subak LL, Adamson GD, Boltz NL. Therapeutic donor insemination: a prospective randomized trial of fresh versus frozen sperm. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992 Jun;166(6 Pt 1):1597-604; discussion 1604–6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Steirteghem AC van. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 1992 Jul 4;340(8810):17–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    World Health Organization Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. Fifth ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bizet P, Saias-Magnan J, Jouve E, et al. Sperm cryopreservation before cancer treatment: a 15-year monocentric experience. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 Mar;24(3):321–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freour T, Mirallie S, Jean M, Barriere P. Sperm banking and assisted reproductive outcome in men with cancer: a 10 years’ experience. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012 Dec;17(6):598–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hallak J, Sharma RK, Thomas AJ, Jr, Agarwal A. Why cancer patients request disposal of cryopreserved semen specimens posttherapy: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril 1998 May;69(5): 889–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meseguer M, Molina N, Garcia-Velasco JA, et al. Sperm cryopreservation in oncological patients: a 14-year follow-up study. Fertil Steril. 2006 Mar;85(3):640–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choy JT, Brannigan RE. The determination of reproductive safety in men during and after cancer treatment. Fertil Steril. 2013 Nov;100(5):1187–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thomson AB, Campbell AJ, Irvine DC, et al. Semen quality and spermatozoal DNA integrity in survivors of childhood cancer: a case-control study. Lancet. 2002 Aug 3;360(9330):361–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li HZ, Qiao J, Chi HB, et al. Comparison of the major malformation rate of children conceived from cryopreserved embryos and fresh embryos. Chin Med J (Engl). 2010 Jul;123(14):1893–7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Belva F, Henriet S, Van den Abbeel E, et al. Neonatal outcome of 937 children born after transfer of cryopreserved embryos obtained by ICSI and IVF and comparison with outcome data of fresh ICSI and IVF cycles. Hum Reprod. 2008 Oct;23(10):2227–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goossens E, Tournaye H. Male fertility preservation, where are we in 2014? Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 2014 May;75(2):115–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Botchan A, Karpol S, Lehavi O, et al. Preservation of sperm of cancer patients: extent of use and pregnancy outcome in a tertiary infertility center. Asian J Androl. 2013 May;15(3):382–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Crha I, Ventruba P, Zakova J, et al. Survival and infertility treatment in male cancer patients after sperm banking. Fertil Steril. 2009 Jun;91(6):2344–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hourvitz A, Goldschlag DE, Davis OK, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using cryopreserved sperm from men with malignant neoplasm yields high pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2008 Sep;90(3):557–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Casteren NJ van, Santbrink EJ van, Inzen W van, et al. Use rate and assisted reproduction technologies outcome of cryopreserved semen from 629 cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2008 Dec;90(6):2245–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neal MS, Nagel K, Duckworth J, et al. Effectiveness of sperm banking in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a regional experience. Cancer. 2007 Sep 1;110(5):1125–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chung K, Irani J, Knee G, et al. Sperm cryopreservation for male patients with cancer: an epidemiological analysis at the University of Pennsylvania. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Apr 5;113 Suppl 1:S7–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Agarwal A, Ranganathan P, Kattal N, et al. Fertility after cancer: a prospective review of assisted reproductive outcome with banked semen specimens. Fertil Steril. 2004 Feb;81(2):342–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ragni G, Somigliana E, Restelli L, et al. Sperm banking and rate of assisted reproduction treatment: insights from a 15-year cryopreservation program for male cancer patients. Cancer. 2003 Apr 1;97(7):1624–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kelleher S, Wishart SM, Liu PY, et al. Long-term outcomes of elective human sperm cryostorage. Hum Reprod. 2001 Dec;16(12): 2632–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lass A, Akagbosu F, Brinsden P. Sperm banking and assisted reproduction treatment for couples following cancer treatment of the male partner. Hum Reprod Update. 2001 Jul-Aug;7(4):370–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Muller
    • 1
  • R.J.A. Oude Ophuis
    • 2
  • F.J.M. Broekmans
    • 2
  • M.T.W.T. Lock
    • 1
  1. 1.afdeling UrologieUniversitair Medisch Centrum UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.afdeling Reproductieve geneeskunde en GynaecologieUniversitair Medisch Centrum UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations