TY - JOUR
T1 - Prevalence and predictors of sperm banking in adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer
T2 - Examination of adolescent, parent, and provider factors influencing fertility preservation outcomes
AU - Klosky, James L.
AU - Wang, Fang
AU - Russell, Kathryn M.
AU - Zhang, Hui
AU - Flynn, Jessica S.
AU - Huang, Lu
AU - Wasilewski-Masker, Karen
AU - Landier, Wendy
AU - Leonard, Marcia
AU - Albritton, Karen H.
AU - Gupta, Abha A.
AU - Casillas, Jacqueline
AU - Colte, Paul
AU - Kutteh, William H.
AU - Schover, Leslie R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
PY - 2017/12/1
Y1 - 2017/12/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85036563163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85036563163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.4767
DO - 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.4767
M3 - Article
C2 - 28976795
AN - SCOPUS:85036563163
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 35
SP - 3830
EP - 3836
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 34
ER -