Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News & Views
  • Published:

MALE FACTOR INFERTILITY

Psychosocial benefits of sperm banking might outweigh costs

Nature Reviews Urology volume 17, pages 611–612 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Young-adult cancer survivors report psychosocial distress from infertility. National guidelines recommend pretreatment referrals for sperm cryopreservation, but a study examining use of stored semen among survivors concluded that low uptake might equate to economic unfeasibility. However, examination of sociodemographic factors and psychosocial outcomes suggests that maintaining future opportunities for parenthood might outweigh the ongoing storage costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Green, D. M. et al. Fertility of male survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 332–339 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Armuand, G. M., Wettergren, L., Rodriguez-Wallberg, K. A. & Lampic, C. Desire for children, difficulties achieving a pregnancy, and infertility distress 3 to 7 years after cancer diagnosis. Support. Care Cancer 22, 2805–2812 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stein, D. M. et al. Fertility preservation preferences and perspectives among adult male survivors of pediatric cancer and their parents. J. Adolesc. Young Adult Oncol. 3, 75–82 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moravek, M. B. et al. Development of a pediatric fertility preservation program: a report from the Pediatric Initiative Network of the Oncofertility Consortium. J. Adolesc. Health 64, 563–573 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Saraf, A. J. et al. Examining predictors and outcomes of fertility consults among children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 65, e27409 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferrari, S. et al. Variables affecting long-term usage rate of sperm samples cryopreserved for fertility preservation in cancer patients. Andrology https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.12894 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferrari, S. et al. Sperm cryopreservation and reproductive outcome in male cancer patients: a systematic review. Reprod. Biomed. Online 33, 29–38 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jayasuriya, S. et al. Satisfaction, disappointment and regret surrounding fertility preservation decisions in the paediatric and adolescent cancer population. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 36, 1805–1822 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang, Y. et al. Supportive oncofertility care, psychological health and reproductive concerns: a qualitative study. Support. Care Cancer 28, 809–817 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Klosky, J. L. et al. Prevalence and predictors of sperm banking in adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer: examination of adolescent, parent, and provider factors influencing fertility preservation outcomes. J. Clin. Oncol. 35, 3830–3836 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Biobehavioral Health, The Abigail Wexner Research Institute, Columbus, OH, USA

    Leena Nahata

  2. Section of Endocrinology, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA

    Leena Nahata

  3. Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA

    Leena Nahata

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Gwendolyn P. Quinn

Authors
  1. Leena Nahata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gwendolyn P. Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leena Nahata.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nahata, L., Quinn, G.P. Psychosocial benefits of sperm banking might outweigh costs. Nat Rev Urol 17, 611–612 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-020-00383-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-020-00383-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer