Testicular Biopsy for Fertility Preservation in Prepubertal Boys with Cancer: Identifying Preferences for Procedure and Reactions to Disclosure Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fertility preservation options are limited in prepubertal boys with cancer. Worldwide there has been growing interest in testicular tissue cryopreservation as a promising experimental strategy to address future infertility. We measured and compared parent, male cancer survivor and provider willingness to accept the risk of testicular biopsy among prepubertal boys with cancer, and identified reactions to disclosure practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study that included 153 parents of prepubertal boys with cancer, 77 male survivors of childhood cancer and 30 oncology providers. The threshold technique was used to measure subject relative willingness to accept risk of testicular biopsy under 4 different aspects of care, ie chance of infertility, complications from biopsy, development of technology to use tissue and tissue storage cost. A total of 47 in-depth interviews were conducted to identify reactions to disclosure practices. RESULTS: A total of 52 survivors (67%), 22 providers (73%) and 110 parents (72%) selected to have testicular biopsy (vs no biopsy). Median minimum infertility risk to make biopsy worthwhile varied from 25% to 30% among the 3 respondent groups. Interviews revealed that some providers would not offer biopsy in cases of greater perceived risk than benefit, that parents preferred having information regardless of risk of infertility and that nondisclosure elicited adverse feelings from some parents. CONCLUSIONS: Parents, survivors and providers were willing to accept risk of prepubertal testicular biopsy. Parental/survivor desire for information and provider decision not to disclose suggest that barriers to information delivery need to be addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".