The Journal of Urology
Volume 181, Issue 2 , Pages 736-740, February 2009

Pretreatment Semen Parameters in Men With Cancer

  • Daniel H. Williams IV

      Affiliations

    • University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, G5-349 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53792 (telephone: 608-263-1360; FAX: 608-262-6453)
  • ,
  • Edward Karpman

      Affiliations

    • El Camino Urology Medical Group, Mountain View, California
    • Financial interest and/or other relationship with El Camino Urology Medical Group Inc, Auxilium Pharmaceuticals and Solvay Pharmaceuticals.
  • ,
  • James C. Sander

      Affiliations

    • Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • ,
  • Philippe E. Spiess

      Affiliations

    • University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
  • ,
  • Louis L. Pisters

      Affiliations

    • University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
    • Financial interest and/or other relationship with Endocare.
  • ,
  • Larry I. Lipshultz

      Affiliations

    • Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas

Received 5 June 2008 published online 16 December 2008.

Purpose

Whether the presence or specific type of cancer significantly affects semen quality is controversial. We evaluated the semen parameters and associated malignancies of men with cancer who cryopreserved sperm at our institution before undergoing therapy.

Materials and Methods

We reviewed the database from our cryopreservation laboratory during a 5-year period. Office charts of 409 of 1,409 patients were available for review. Age at banking, semen volume, sperm density, percent motile sperm and type of cancer were recorded. Semen parameters were compared to values for fertile and subfertile men established by the National Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network as well as from a large local pre-vasectomy cohort to consider geographic variations.

Results

A total of 717 semen samples from 409 men included 45% with testicular cancer, 10% with Hodgkin's lymphoma, 7% with nonHodgkin's lymphoma, 6% with sarcoma, 6% with prostate cancer, 5% with leukemia, 3% with gastrointestinal cancer and 2% with central nervous system tumors. Of these men 16% had unspecified or other rare malignancies. Mean patient age was 29.9 years (range 11.9 to 87.7), mean semen volume was 2.8 ml (range 0.1 to 15.0), mean sperm density was 47.4 × 106/ml (range 0.1 to 320) and mean sperm motility was 50.0% (range 1% to 90%). For men with testicular cancer sperm density and motility were in the intermediate range. Parameters for men with all other malignancies were in the fertile range for density and intermediate range for motility.

Conclusions

Men with most types of cancer have pretreatment semen parameters in the fertile range for density and in the intermediate range for motility. However, men with testicular cancer statistically have lower semen quality compared to those with other malignancies. These findings further highlight the importance of pretreatment fertility preservation in this patient population before undergoing gonadotoxic treatments.

Key Words: semen, cryopreservation, neoplasms, spermatozoa, infertility

Abbreviations and Acronyms: GI, gastrointestinal, NCRMN, National Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network, NHL, nonHodgkin's lymphoma

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Study received institutional review board approval.

PII: S0022-5347(08)02709-2

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.023

The Journal of Urology
Volume 181, Issue 2 , Pages 736-740, February 2009