Parental influences on sperm banking attempts among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer

Klosky, James L.; Flynn, Jessica S.; Lehmann, Vicky; Russell, Kathryn; Wang, Fang; Hardin, Robin; Eddinger, Jasmine R.; Zhang, Hui; Schenck, Lauren A.‐M.; Schover, Leslie R.

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.08.039

Cited by 29 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Post‐hoc analyses of our data also support this finding, as patients whose parents were available and willing to participate in our study were more likely to bank sperm than patients whose parents did not complete a survey, Χ 2 (1) = 3.8, P < 0.05. This study demonstrates that over half of parents (59%) support sperm banking, which is important when other research reports up to 80% of AYAs engage in a shared banking decision‐making process with their parents 20 and our previously published results demonstrate that 80% of these AYA males who receive a parent recommendation make a collection attempt (57/71) and over 75% of those without a recommendation fail to make an attempt (36/46) 17 . As such, efforts to investigate factors that encourage or discourage parent recommendation to sperm bank are warranted and should remain a target for intervention when working with families in pediatric and/or young adult oncology.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

Parent recommendation to bank sperm among at‐risk adolescent and young adult males with cancer

Flynn

Russell

Lehmann

et al. 2020

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Adolescent and young adult (AYA) males newly diagnosed with cancer are often faced with making quick decisions about whether to cryopreserve (“bank”) sperm prior to treatment initiation. Given that parental influence is crucial among young patients, the present study examines the prevalence of and factors associated with parent recommendation to bank sperm. Procedure Parents of 13‐ to 21‐year‐old males newly diagnosed with cancer and at risk for infertility secondary to impending gonadotoxic treatment completed questionnaires typically within one week of treatment initiation. Medical and sociodemographic data, communication factors, and psychological factors were considered in a logistic regression model of parent report of parental recommendation to bank sperm (yes/no). Results Surveys from 138 parents (70.3% female) of 117 AYA males (mean age = 16.1 years, SD = 2.0) were analyzed. Over half of parents recommended banking to their sons (N = 82; 59.4%). Parents who received a provider recommendation to bank sperm (odds ratio [OR] = 18.44, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.20‐81.01, P < 0.001) or who believed in the benefits of banking (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02‐1.47, P = 0.03) were significantly more likely to recommend sperm banking. Conclusions Given parents’ role in influencing sperm banking outcomes, provider recommendation and promotion of banking benefits may influence parents and empower initiation of these sensitive discussions with their sons. Utilization of this approach should yield beneficial outcomes regardless of the banking decision.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

Parent recommendation to bank sperm among at‐risk adolescent and young adult males with cancer

Flynn

Russell

Lehmann

et al. 2020

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reasons for exclusion are depicted in Figure . A total of 42 studies could be included in this review (Achille et al, ; Armuand et al, ; Babb et al, ; Bann et al, ; Boltezar et al, ; Branvall et al, ; Brydøy et al, ; Chang, Chen, Chen, & Hsieh, ; Crha et al, ; Fitoussi et al, ; Gilfillan et al, ; Girasole et al, ; Greaves et al, ; Grover, Deal, Wood, & Mersereau, ; Harrison, Welch, Matook, & Schwartz, ; Hoshi et al, ; van der Kaaij et al, ; Kamimura, Matsumoto, Zhou, Moriyama, & Saijo, ; Kelvin et al, ; Klosky, Anderson, et al, ; Klosky, Flynn, et al, ; Klosky et al, ; Klosky, Wang, et al, ; Kumar, Merali, Pond, & Zbuk, ; Latif & Ali, ; Naccache et al, ; Neal et al, ; Noetzli et al, ; Pacey et al, ; Ping, Gu, Li, Huang, & Li, ; Ramstein et al, ; Richter, Mehnert, & Geue, ; Rieker, Fitzgerald, & Kalish, ; Rooney et al, ; Rotker et al, ; Schover et al, ; Schover, Rybicki, Martin, & Bringelsen, ; Sheth et al, ; Shnorhavorian et al, ; Sonnenburg, Brames, Case‐Eads, & Einhorn, ; Wang, Chen, Ruan, & Cheung, ; Xu et al, ). No additional study could be identified by checking the references of included papers, and we did not receive any additional relevant studies by contacting the corresponding authors of included trials.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies followed a retrospective approach (38/42). Only four trials were executed prospectively: Hoshi et al () (Japan): 11 patients; Klosky, Flynn, et al () (USA and Canada): 146 patients; Klosky, Wang, et al () (USA and Canada): 99 patients; and Klosky, Flynn, et al () (USA and Canada): 122 patients. Three studies comprise more than one cohort (Kelvin et al, ; Klosky, Wang, et al, ; Rotker et al, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semen cryopreservation in adolescent and adult men undergoing fertility compromising cancer treatment: A systematic review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment‐related infertility is a common problem in cancer survivors. Semen cryopreservation is the most established option for male oncological patients wishing to preserve their fertility. We conducted a systematic review to analyse the existing literature regarding the frequency of offers and attempts of semen cryopreservation. We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for eligible literature without restrictions to language, study type or year of publication. Two authors independently screened and evaluated the citations for eligibility. Studies were included if they reported on pubertal or post‐pubertal patients at risk of fertility impairment prior to their cancer therapy. We excluded studies neither reporting the prevalence of offer nor attempt of semen cryopreservation. Possible factors for heterogeneity between the studies were examined by meta‐regression analyses. Out of 6,105 returned citations, 42 studies were included in the analysis. The prevalence of offer varied from 8% to 100% and corresponding attempts ranged from 3% to 79%, showing a vast heterogeneity with inconsistent reporting of influencing variables. Measured by the number of scientific publications, the awareness for fertility preservation is increasing while actual prevalences are diverse. In order to identify variables influencing offer and attempt prevalences, consistent reporting of a core set of factors is required.

show abstract

“…Fertility and sexual/reproductive health are sensitive topics, often difficult to discuss within families . A recent study conducted immediately after the initiation of cancer treatment highlighted the importance of parent involvement in sperm banking decisions . However, AYAs and their parents may have discordant reproductive goals/concerns at the time of a new cancer diagnosis and in survivorship .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of participating in family‐centered fertility research among adolescent and young adult males newly diagnosed with cancer: A qualitative study

Nahata

Dattilo

Lipak

et al. 2019

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Over half of male childhood cancer survivors experience infertility after treatment, which is known to cause distress and impact future quality of life. Sperm banking rates remain low, and little is known about how adolescent and young adult (AYA) males and their families make fertility preservation (FP) decisions. This study examined AYA and parent perceptions of participating in a research study focused on testing a new FP decision tool at the time of cancer diagnosis.Methods: Forty-four participants (19 mothers, 11 fathers, 14 male AYAs 12-25 years old) from 20 families completed brief assessments at diagnosis and approximately one month later, including a qualitative interview exploring the impact of study participation. Verbatim transcripts were coded through thematic content analysis using the constant comparison method. Results: Two major themes emerged: (1) a positive effect of participating in the study and (2) a neutral effect (no positive/negative effect of participation). Subthemes that emerged for participants who noted a positive effect included (a) participation prompted deeper thinking, (b) participation influenced family conversations, and (c) participation resulted in altruism/helping others. No participant reported a negative effect. Conclusions:This study demonstrates that participation in family-centered research focused on FP among AYA males, before treatment begins, is perceived as beneficial or neutral at the time of a new cancer diagnosis. These findings provide support for future family-centered FP interventions for this population. K E Y W O R D Sadolescents and young adult males, cancer, fertility Childhood cancer survival rates exceed 80%, 1 but more than half of males experience infertility as a late effect of treatment. [2][3][4] Survivors often want biological children, and infertility may cause psychosocial distress and have a negative effect on intimate relationships and quality of life. 5-8 Thus, it is paramount to proactively address infertility risk and offer fertility preservation (FP) options before treatment. 9,10 Sperm banking is a safe and effective FP method available to pubertal males. 11 Although the increasing number of fertility programs Abbreviations: AYA, adolescent and young adult; FP, fertility preservation. has expanded FP access, 12-14 sperm banking rates remain under 40% at many pediatric cancer centers. 6,15 Older age, sexual experience, and provider recommendation increase the likelihood of sperm banking. 16,17 However, many adolescents and young adults (AYAs) advised to bank by their healthcare team still ultimately decline FP. 16 Fertility and sexual/reproductive health are sensitive topics, often difficult to discuss within families. 18,19 A recent study conducted immediately after the initiation of cancer treatment highlighted the importance of parent involvement in sperm banking decisions. 20However, AYAs and their parents may have discordant reproductive

show abstract

Parental influences on sperm banking attempts among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer

Abstract: NCT01152268.

Cited by 29 publications

References 37 publications

Parent recommendation to bank sperm among at‐risk adolescent and young adult males with cancer

Parent recommendation to bank sperm among at‐risk adolescent and young adult males with cancer

Semen cryopreservation in adolescent and adult men undergoing fertility compromising cancer treatment: A systematic review

Perceptions of participating in family‐centered fertility research among adolescent and young adult males newly diagnosed with cancer: A qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About