Premium
Differences in semen characteristics between patients with testicular cancer and other malignancies using various cut‐off values
Author(s) -
Hamano Itsuto,
Hatakeyama Shingo,
Nakamura Rika,
Fukuhara Rie,
Noro Daisuke,
Tanaka Toshikazu,
Yoneyama Tohru,
Yamamoto Hayato,
Yoneyama Takahiro,
Hashimoto Yasuhiro,
Koie Takuya,
Yokoyama Yoshihito,
Ohyama Chikara
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
international journal of urology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.172
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1442-2042
pISSN - 0919-8172
DOI - 10.1111/iju.13732
Subject(s) - medicine , semen , testicular cancer , cancer , gynecology , oncology , andrology
Objectives To compare semen parameters between patients with testicular cancer and other malignancies using various cut‐off values, and to evaluate the correlation between semen parameters and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes. Methods We retrospectively investigated semen parameters before cancer treatment in 117 patients with malignancies who cryopreserved sperm at Hirosaki University Hospital between November 1999 and May 2016. We compared semen parameters between patients with testicular cancer and other malignancies (non‐testicular cancer), seminoma and non‐seminoma, and stage I testicular cancer and stage II/III testicular cancer. The assessment of cut‐off values recommended by the World Health Organization and the total motile sperm count was carried out between the testicular cancer and non‐testicular cancer groups. The intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes in those using preserved sperm were assessed. Results Of the 111 patients enrolled, 29 (26%) had testicular cancer and 82 (74%) had non‐testicular cancer. Patients with testicular cancer showed significantly lower total sperm concentration than non‐testicular cancer patients. The cut‐off value of total sperm concentration distinguished the patient proportions exceeding the cut‐off between patients with testicular cancer (41%) and non‐testicular cancer (66%). The comparison between patients with seminoma versus non‐seminoma and stage I versus stage II/III testicular cancer presented no significant differences in semen parameters. No correlation between pretreatment semen parameters and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes was observed. Conclusions Although testicular cancer patients show lower total sperm concentration, intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes are acceptable. Further studies on the fertility potential of testicular cancer patients are warranted.