Twenty-year oncology sperm banking experience at a Canadian academic fertility centre: a retrospective study examining the usage and reproductive outcomes from oncology patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many cancer treatments pose a threat to fertility for patients. Semen cryopreservation before cancer treatment is an effective method to preserve fertility. There are sparse long-term data on the usage of samples from Canadian oncology sperm banks. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all oncology sperm banking samples at a Canadian academic fertility centre from 2001 to 2020 was conducted. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2020, 4521 samples were banked by 2504 patients. The most frequent diagnoses among these patients were testicular cancer (29.5%) and lymphoma (26.9%). Of these patients, only 81 (3.2%) patients returned to use their samples with intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment and 62 (2.5%) patients transferred their samples to another clinic. The time between banking and return for usage of the sperm ranged from 1 to 131 months with a median of 18 months after banking. A total of 66 IVF cycles (104 embryo transfers) and 101 IUI cycles from 67 patients were reviewed. Of the 67 couples who used their samples, 53.7% achieved a clinical pregnancy. The clinical pregnancy rate was 6.6% per cycle for IUI and 30.8% per embryo transfer for IVF. Higher sperm concentration or total motile count was not associated with a higher chance of pregnancy. Patients who conceived had on average 1.9 ± 0.8 (p=0.02) more usable embryos per cycle than those who did not conceive. CONCLUSIONS: Sperm cryopreservation provides a valuable option for patients with cancer to achieve parenthood after potentially gonadotoxic cancer treatment. However, the overall usage of banked oncology sperm samples is very low.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".