Factors Influencing the Decision for Fresh vs Cryopreserved Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction for Non-Obstructive Azoospermia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine reproductive urologists' (RU) practice patterns for microdissection testicular sperm extraction (microTESE) and factors associated with use of fresh vs frozen microTESE for non-obstructive azoospermia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We electronically surveyed Society for Study of Male Reproduction members with a 21-item questionnaire. Our primary outcomes were to determine RU preference for fresh or frozen microTESE and to understand barriers to performing microTESE. Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze categorical outcomes and candidate predictor variables. Firth logistic regression was performed to identify the predictors for preferring and performing fresh vs frozen microTESE. RESULTS: A total of 208 surveys were sent with 76 responses. Most (63.0%) primarily perform frozen microTESE for non-obstructive azoospermia, while 37.0% primarily perform fresh. However, in an ideal practice, 59.3% prefer fresh microTESE, 22.2% prefer frozen microTESE, and 18.5% had no preference. MicroTESE is performed most often (61.1%) at surgical centers not affiliated with a fertility practice. The most commonly reported barriers for both fresh and frozen microTESE are cost (42.6%), scheduling (33.3%), and andrologist unavailability (16.7%). There are no statistically significant differences between these barriers and performing fresh vs frozen microTESE. On multivariable analysis, reproductive endocrinology and infertility-based surgical center (OR 22.9; 95% CI 1.1-467.2; P = 0.04) and professional fee $2,500-$4,999 (OR 20.7; 95% CI 1.27-337.9; P = 0.03) are significant predictors of performing fresh microTESE. CONCLUSION: Frozen microTESE is performed more commonly than fresh, despite most RU preferring fresh microTESE in an ideal setting. Both fresh and frozen microTESE have a role in reproductive care. Barriers to performing fresh microTESE include cost, scheduling and andrologist availability.

"The Back-up Vasectomy Reversal." Simultaneous Sperm Retrieval and Vasectomy Reversal in the Couple With Advanced Maternal Age: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of different fertility options in men who have undergone vasectomy in couples with a female of advanced maternal age (AMA). The options include vasectomy reversal (VR), sperm retrieval (SR) with in vitro fertilization (IVF), and the combination of VR and SR with IVF, which is a treatment pathway that has been understudied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using TreeAge software, a model-based cost-utility analysis was performed estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in couples with infertility due to vasectomy and advanced female age over a period of one year. The model stratified for female age (35-37, 38-40, >40) and evaluated four strategies: VR followed by natural conception (NC), SR with IVF, VR and SR followed by failed NC and then IVF, and VR and SR followed by failed IVF and then NC. QALY estimates and outcome probabilities were obtained from the literature and average patient charges were calculated from high-volume centers. RESULTS: The most cost-effective fertility strategy was to undergo VR and try for NC (cost-per-QALY: $7,150 (35-37 y), $7,203 (38-40 y), and $7,367 (>40 y)). The second most cost-effective strategy was the "back-up vasectomy reversal": undergo VR and SR, attempt IVF and switch to NC if IVF fails. CONCLUSION: In couples with a history of vasectomy and female of AMA, it is most cost-effective to undergo a VR. If the couple opts for SR for IVF, it is more cost-effective to undergo a concomitant VR than SR alone.

Male infertility treatment for cancer survivors: does anticancer treatment affect infertility treatment?

We investigated the impact of prior anticancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy on subsequent infertility treatment in cancer survivors who consulted our male infertility division. Of 1,525 male infertility patients who consulted our division between 2008 and 2018, 56 (3.7%) were cancer survivors. Of these, 32 received anticancer treatment (group A) and 24 were treated with surgery alone or were seen before anticancer treatment (group B). Semen analysis revealed that azoospermia in 26 subjects (81.3%) and 14 (58.3%) in groups A and B respectively. Ejaculatory dysfunction was observed 1 in group A and in 2 group B subjects. Sperm cryopreservation before anticancer treatment was performed 4 subjects. Sperm retrieval surgery for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was performed in 13 cases in group A and 10 in group B. Motile sperm were recovered in 7 subjects and in 8 subjects in group A and B respectively. Overall pregnancies and deliveries with ICSI were achieved for 7 subjects (21.9%) in group A, and 9 (37.5%) in group B. Successful sperm retrieval may not be affected by prior anticancer treatment as shown in this study. However, some patients abandoned infertility treatment due to the cost of testing and sperm retrieval surgery. Support for the cost of infertility treatment in cancer survivors is necessary.

Fertility preservation for men with testicular cancer: Is sperm cryopreservation cost effective in the era of assisted reproductive technology?

INTRODUCTION: Many patients do not cryopreserve sperm before undergoing cancer treatment because of high perceived costs of cryopreservation. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fertility preservation compared to posttherapeutic fertility treatment in testicular cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the PubMed database for the following: risk of azoospermia 12 months after surveillance, chemotherapy, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, and radiation therapy (RT); rates of natural conception, and rates of conception with the use of intrauterine insemination or assisted reproductive technology, with or without microsurgical testicular sperm extraction (microTESE). A decision tree was constructed using the TreePlan add-in for Microsoft Excel (TreePlan Software, San Francisco, California). Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the overall cost of a given management branch, divided by likelihood of pregnancy. Calculations accounted for variable number of years of cryopreservation, and variable costs of microTESE. RESULTS: 1,113 articles were identified; 44 were included in the final analysis. Overall probability of pregnancy was higher among couples who cryopreserved sperm, versus those who did not. In patients undergoing active surveillance or retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, cryopreservation was more cost-effective if storage time was short (<6 years) or microTESE cost was high (>7,000). Cryopreservation prior to chemotherapy was more cost-effective unless microTESE cost was low (<7,000). Cryopreservation prior to RT was more cost-effective in almost all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Sperm cryopreservation prior to undergoing chemotherapy or RT remains the most cost-effective strategy for fertility preservation, across a range of possible costs associated with surgical sperm retrieval and in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Comparison of three methods of penile vibratory stimulation for semen retrieval in men with spinal cord injury.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, three-way crossover design. OBJECTIVE: Penile vibratory stimulation (PVS) is recommended as the first line of treatment for semen retrieval in anejaculatory men with spinal cord injury (SCI). This study compared ejaculatory success rates and patient preference for three methods of PVS within the same group of men with SCI. SETTING: Major medical university. METHODS: Fifteen men with SCI each received three methods of PVS. Method 1 (M1): applying one FertiCare Personal device to the dorsum or frenulum of the glans penis; Method 2 (M2): 'sandwiching' the glans penis between two FertiCare devices; Method 3 (M3): sandwiching the glans penis between the two vibrating surfaces of the Viberect-X3 device. The order of M1, M2 and M3 was varied to control for sequencing effects. Following each PVS trial, subjects rated their experience on a questionnaire with scaled responses. RESULTS: Ejaculation success rates were high for each method; however, ejaculation latency was significantly longer with M3 compared with M1 or M2. In survey questions about patient preference, there were no significant differences between M1 and M2. In contrast, M3 was rated lower than M1 and M2 in patient preference. Semen collection may be more difficult with the Viberect device. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these findings, we recommend attempting PVS with one FertiCare device. If that fails, use two FertiCare devices. Although the Viberect-X3 was preferred less by patients, it had similar efficacy as the Ferticare vibrator(s) and may be suitable for home use by some patients.

Cost-effectiveness of vasectomy reversal.

In this era of cost-consciousness and containment, it is imperative to examine not only treatment outcomes but also cost of these treatments. With improvements of in vitro fertilization outcome and continued development of less-invasive sperm retrieval methods, physicians and couples must examine all options available after surgical sterilization. Vasectomy reversal remains the gold standard of treatment; however, certain situations may be present in which sperm acquisition/in vitro fertilization may be a better option. A physician's responsibility is to present all options with the pros and cons of each, including cost, to help arrive at an informed decision.

A decision analysis of treatments for nonobstructive azoospermia associated with varicocele.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the economic impact of initial treatments for varicocele-associated nonobstructive azoospermia, specifically varicocelectomy versus microsurgical testicular sperm extraction (TESE) with IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). DESIGN: Decision analytic model based on 1) outcomes data from Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) database and peer-reviewed literature and 2) costing data from Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale and sampling of high volume US IVF centers. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENT(S): Simulation with a decision analytic model. INTERVENTION(S): Variation of successful spontaneous live delivery after varicocelectomy versus rate of successful live delivery after IVF/ICSI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cost-effectiveness. RESULT(S): Microsurgical TESE was more cost effective than varicocelectomy. In 1999, initial treatment with microsurgical TESE was more cost effective ($65,515) than varicocelectomy ($76,878). Relative cost-effectiveness was unchanged in 2005: $69,731 versus $79,576. The cost-effectiveness of both treatments improved in relation to projections by inflation. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the relative cost-effectiveness of TESE versus varicocelectomy can only be changed with either substantial improvement in spontaneous live delivery rates after varicocelectomy or with deterioration in IVF success rates. CONCLUSION(S): Microsurgical TESE appears to be more cost effective than varicocelectomy for treatment of varicocele-associated nonobstructive azoospermia when indirect costs are considered. The cost-effectiveness of both treatments has improved with time. These results may be tailored with institution-specific data to allow more individualized results.

A decision analysis of treatments for obstructive azoospermia.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for post-vasectomy obstructive azoospermia include vasectomy reversal, microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA) or percutaneous testicular sperm extraction (TESE) with IVF/ICSI. We examined the cost-effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: A decision analytic model was created to simulate treatment. Outcome probabilities were derived from peer-reviewed literature and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies database. Procedural costs were derived from a sampling of high-volume IVF centers and the Medicare Resource Based Relative Value Scale. Indirect costs of complications, lost productivity and multiple gestation pregnancies were considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Vasectomy reversal was more cost-effective than either MESA or TESE under all probability conditions. In 1999, vasectomy reversal demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness to TESE and MESA ($19,633 versus $45,637 and $48,055, respectively, equivalent to $25,321 versus $58,858 and $61,977 in 2005 dollars). In 2005, vasectomy reversal ($20,903) remained the most cost-effective treatment over TESE ($54,797) and MESA ($56,861). The cost-effectiveness of all treatments improved over projections by inflation. The relative cost-effectiveness of the therapies was unchanged over time. CONCLUSIONS: Vasectomy reversal appears more cost-effective than percutaneous TESE and MESA for treatment of obstructive azoospermia when the impact of indirect costs is considered. The absolute cost-effectiveness of all therapies improved over time. These results may be tailored with institution-specific data to allow more individualized results.

The cost effectiveness of intracyctoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

PURPOSE: To estimate the incremental cost effectiveness of ICSI, and total costs for the population of Australia. METHODS: Treatment effects for three patient groups were drawn from a published systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing fertilisation outcomes for ICSI. Incremental costs derived from resource-based costing of ICSI and existing practice comparators for each patient group. RESULTS: Incremental cost per live birth for patients unsuited to IVF is estimated between A$8,500 and 13,400. For the subnormal semen indication, cost per live birth could be as low as A$3,600, but in the worst case scenario, there would just be additional incremental costs of A$600 per procedure. Multiplying out the additional costs of ICSI over the relevant target populations in Australia gives potential total financial implications of over A$31 million per annum. CONCLUSION: While there are additional benefits from ICSI procedure, particularly for those with subnormal sperm, the additional cost for the health care system is substantial.