In this study, we set out to determine the preferences, concerns, and attitudes toward fertility preservation of adult male survivors of pediatric cancer and their parents. We conducted 3 focus groups with a total of 15 male survivors of pediatric cancer (age at diagnosis: mean=14, range: 10-20; age at study: mean=35, range: 25-47) and 2 groups with a total of 7 parents of survivors. Grounded theory methodology was used for the identification and analysis of recurrent themes expressed by survivors and their parents in the course of focus group discussions. Themes most frequently expressed by survivors included concern regarding long-term treatment effects and a retrospective desire for fertility impairment to have been discussed when they were originally diagnosed with cancer. Parental themes included the same hindsight desire, as well as reliance upon the treating oncologist for direction in selecting the course of treatment, and an acknowledgment that input from a specialist in fertility preservation would have been beneficial. Although future reproductive potential was not consistently reported as a source of apprehension when diagnosed with cancer, both survivors and their parents noted it to be a paramount concern later in life. Parents and survivors both reported that fertility preservation discussions should be routinely incorporated in the clinical context of a pediatric cancer diagnosis.

No abstract

ObjectiveGender-specific integrated health services have long existed in the arena of women's health care, but men's health centers (MHCs) have only recently emerged as a novel practice model. Here, we seek to evaluate the prevalence and format of MHCs found in the leading academic medical centers in the United States.MethodsThe US News & World Report's Top 50 Ranked Hospitals for Urology was used as our cohort. Data were gathered on the presence of MHCs and types of providers and conditions treated. An equivalent search was performed for women's health centers (WHCs).ResultsSixteen of 50 (32%) promoted some type of MHC, compared to 49 of 50 (98%) offering a WHC. Eight of the top 15 ranked institutions (53%) had an MHC compared to eight of 35 (23%) remaining programs. Six of 16 MHCs incorporated providers from a variety of medical disciplines, including urologists, internists, endocrinologists, cardiologists, and psychologists, while another six of 16 MHCs were staffed solely by urologists. Eight of 16 provided services for exclusively urologic issues, four of 16 offered additional services in treatment of other medical conditions, and four of 16 did not specify.ConclusionA considerable disparity exists between the prevalence of gender-specific health services, with WHCs being much more numerous than MHCs. All but one leading institution had WHCs compared to less than one-third having MHCs. Our findings also highlight the heterogeneous nature of men's health programs, as they exhibit great variability in program type and focus, yet are all being marketed under the “Men's Health” banner.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Male infertility secondary to oligozoospermia is surprisingly common. Although a majority of cases are idiopathic, oligozoospermia can be caused by endocrine dysfunction, anatomic abnormalities, medications, or environmental exposures. The work-up includes excluding reversible factors such as hormonal deficiency, medication effects, and retrograde ejaculation and identifying any underlying genetic syndrome and treating reversible medical causes. If no reversible cause is found, appropriate referrals to urology and assisted reproductive technology should be initiated. Lastly, clinicians should be aware of and respond to the psychological and general health ramifications of a diagnosis of oligozoospermia as part of the comprehensive care of men and couples struggling with a diagnosis of infertility.