Prevalence and predictors of sperm banking in adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer: Examination of adolescent, parent, and provider factors influencing fertility preservation outcomes

James L. Klosky*, Fang Wang, Kathryn M. Russell, Hui Zhang, Jessica S. Flynn, Lu Huang, Karen Wasilewski-Masker, Wendy Landier, Marcia Leonard, Karen H. Albritton, Abha A. Gupta, Jacqueline Casillas, Paul Colte, William H. Kutteh, Leslie R. Schover

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

37 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose To estimate the prevalence of sperm banking among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer and to identify factors associated with banking outcomes. Patients and Methods A prospective, single-group, observational study design was used to test the contribution of sociodemographic, medical, psychological/health belief, communication, and developmental factors to fertility preservation outcomes. At-risk adolescent males (N = 146; age 13.00 to 21.99 years; Tanner stage $ 3), their parents, and medical providers from eight leading pediatric oncology centers across the United States and Canada completed self-report questionnaires within 1 week of treatment initiation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for specified banking outcomes (collection attempt v no attempt and successful completion of banking v no banking). Results Among adolescents (mean age, 16.49 years; standard deviation, 2.02 years), 53.4% (78 of 146) made a collection attempt, with 43.8% (64 of 146) successfully banking sperm (82.1% of attempters). The overall attempt model revealed adolescent consultation with a fertility specialist (OR, 29.96; 95% CI, 2.48to 361.41;P =.007), parent recommendation tobank (OR, 12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to75.94; P =.007), and higher Tanner stage (OR, 5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P =.003) were associated with anincreased likelihood of acollection attempt. Adolescent history of masturbation (OR, 5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P =.025), banking self-efficacy (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P =.012), and parent (OR, 4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P =.010) or medical team (OR, 4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P =.008) recommendation to bank were associated with increased likelihood of sperm banking completion. Conclusion Although findings suggest that banking is underutilized, modifiable adolescent, parent, and provider factors associated with banking outcomes were identified and should be targeted in future intervention efforts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3830-3836
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume35
Issue number34
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2017

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Prevalence and predictors of sperm banking in adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer: Examination of adolescent, parent, and provider factors influencing fertility preservation outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this