Fertility preservation for male patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer: recommendations from the PanCareLIFE Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group.

Male patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer are at an increased risk for infertility if their treatment adversely affects reproductive organ function. Future fertility is a primary concern of patients and their families. Variations in clinical practice are barriers to the timely implementation of interventions that preserve fertility. As part of the PanCareLIFE Consortium, in collaboration with the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group, we reviewed the current literature and developed a clinical practice guideline for fertility preservation in male patients who are diagnosed with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer at age 25 years or younger, including guidance on risk assessment and available methods for fertility preservation. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to grade the available evidence and to form the recommendations. Recognising the need for global consensus, this clinical practice guideline used existing evidence and international expertise to rigorously develop transparent recommendations that are easy to use to facilitate the care of male patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who are at high risk of fertility impairment and to enhance their quality of life.

Pre-treatment fertility preservation and post-treatment reproduction in long-term survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer.

PURPOSE: To describe recall of fertility-related consultations and cryopreservation and to examine reproductive goals and reproduction post-treatment in long-term survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) (age, 18-39 years) cancer. METHODS: This study included n = 1457 male and n = 2112 female long-term survivors (Mage = 43-45 years; 5-22 years from diagnosis) who provided self-report. Clinical data were supplied by the Netherlands Cancer Registry. RESULTS: Most male survivors (72.7%) recalled fertility-related consultations and 22.6% completed sperm cryopreservation. Younger age (OR = 2.8; 95%CI [2.2-3.6]), not having children (OR = 5.0; 95%CI [3.2-7.7]), testicular cancer or lymphoma/leukemia (OR = 2.8/2.5 relative to "others"), and more intense treatments (OR = 1.5; 95%CI [1.1-2.0]) were associated with higher cryopreservation rates. Time since diagnosis had no effect. Of men who cryopreserved, 12.1% utilized assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Most men (88.5%) felt their diagnosis did not affect their reproductive goals, but 7.6% wanted no (additional) children due to cancer. Half of female survivors (55.4%; n = 1171) recalled fertility-related consultations. Rates of cryopreservation were very low (3.6%), but increased after 2013 when oocyte cryopreservation became non-experimental. Of women who cryopreserved, 13.2% successfully utilized ART. Most women (74.8%) experienced no effects of cancer on reproductive goals, but 17.8% wanted no (additional) children due to cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Cryopreservation in men varied by patient/clinical factors and was very low in women, but data of more recently treated females are needed. Utilizing cryopreserved material through ART was rare, which questions its cost-effectiveness, but it may enhance survivors' well-being. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The extent to which cryopreservation positively affects survivors' well-being remains to be tested. Moreover, effects of cancer on reproductive goals require further attention, especially in women who refrain from having children due to cancer.

Current practices regarding corporotomy localization during penoscrotal inflatable penile implant surgery: a multicenter cohort study.

Literature concerning corporotomy location in multicomponent inflatable penile prosthetic surgery via a penoscrotal approach is scarce if not nonexistent. Aim of our study was to report practices in low-, moderate-, and high-volume penile implant centers regarding corporotomy location and evaluate its potential impact on intraoperative and short-term postoperative complications. Data from 18 (13 European and 5 American) implant centers were collected retrospectively between September 1st, 2018 and August 31st, 2019. Variables included: intraoperative proximal and distal corpus cavernosum length measurement, total corporal length measurement, total penile implant cylinder length, and length of rear tip extenders. Eight hundred and nine virgin penile implant cases were included in the analysis. Mean age of participants was 61.5 ± 9.6 years old. In total, 299 AMS 700™ (Boston Scientific, USA) and 510 Coloplast Titan® (Minneapolis, MN USA) devices were implanted. The mean proximal/distal corporal measurement ratio during corporotomy was 0.93 ± 0.29 while no statistical difference was found among low-, moderate-, and high-volume penile implant centers. A statistically significant correlation between lower proximal/distal measurement ratio and higher age (p = 0.0013), lower BMI (p < 0.0001), lower use of rear tip extenders (RTE) (p = 0.04), lower RTE length (p < 0.0001), and absence of diabetes (p = 0.0004) was reported. In a 3-month follow up period, 49 complications and 37 revision procedures were reported. This is the first study reporting the current practices regarding corporotomy location during IPP placement in a multicenter cohort, particularly when including such a high number of patients. Nevertheless, the retrospective design and the short follow up period limits the study outcomes. Corporotomy location during penoscrotal IPP implantation does not correlate with intraoperative or short-term postoperative complication rates. Future studies with longer follow up are needed in order to evaluate the association of corporotomy location with long-term complications.

Management of Testicular Microlithiasis.

Until molecular diagnostics become available, individualized risk assessment for men with testicular microlithiasis, counseling on the current evidence base regarding the benefit of testicular biopsy or testicular self-examination, and a patient-centered approach provide the framework for the best quality of care for the individual patient.

Sperm recovery and ICSI outcomes in men with non-obstructive azoospermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Factor affecting sperm retrieval rate (SRR) or pregnancy rates (PR) after testicular sperm extraction (TESE) in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) have not been systematically evaluated. In addition, although micro-TESE (mTESE) has been advocated as the gold standard for sperm retrieval in men with NOA, its superiority over conventional TESE (cTESE) remains conflicting. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The objective was to perform a meta-analysis of the currently available studies comparing the techniques of sperm retrieval and to identify clinical and biochemical factors predicting SRR in men with NOA. In addition, PRs and live birth rates (LBRs), as derived from subjects with NOA post-ICSI, were also analysed as secondary outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: An extensive Medline, Embase and Cochrane search was performed. All trials reporting SRR derived from cTESE or mTESE in patients with NOA and their specific determinants were included. Data derived from genetic causes of NOA or testicular sperm aspiration were excluded. OUTCOMES: Out of 1236 studies, 117 studies met the inclusion criteria for this study, enrolling 21 404 patients with a mean age (± SD) of 35.0 ± 2.7 years. cTESE and mTESE were used in 56 and 43 studies, respectively. In addition, 10 studies used a mixed approach and 8 studies compared cTESE with mTESE approach. Overall, a SRR per TESE procedure of 47[45;49]% (mean percentage [95% CI]) was found. No differences were observed when mTESE was compared to cTESE (46[43;49]% for cTESE versus 46[42;49]% for mTESE). Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that SRR per cycle was independent of age and hormonal parameters at enrolment. However, the SRR increased as a function of testis volume. In particular, by applying ROC curve analysis, a mean testis volume higher than 12.5 ml predicted SRR >60% with an accuracy of 86.2% ± 0.01. In addition, SRR decreased as a function of the number of Klinefelter's syndrome cases included (S = -0.02[-0.04;-0.01]; P < 0.01. I = 0.12[-0.05;0.29]; P = 0.16). Information on fertility outcomes after ICSI was available in 42 studies. Overall, a total of 1096 biochemical pregnancies were reported (cumulative PR = 29[25;32]% per ICSI cycle). A similar rate was observed when LBR was analysed (569 live births with a cumulative LBR = 24[20;28]% per ICSI cycle). No influence of male and female age, mean testis volume or hormonal parameters on both PR and LBR per ICSI cycle was observed. Finally, a higher PR per ICSI cycle was observed when the use of fresh sperm was compared to cryopreserved sperm (PR = 35[30;40]%, versus 20[13;29]% respectively): however, this result was not confirmed when cumulative LBR per ICSI cycle was analysed (LBR = 30[20;41]% for fresh versus 20[12;31]% for cryopreserved sperm). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This analysis shows that cTESE/mTESE in subjects with NOA results in SRRs of up to 50%, with no differences when cTESE was compared to mTESE. Retrieved sperms resulted in a LBR of up to 28% ICSI cycle. Although no difference between techniques was found, to conclusively clarify if one technique is superior to the other, there is a need for a sufficiently powered and well-designed randomized controlled trial to compare mTESE to cTESE in men with NOA.