Elizabeth A Dilday, Orhan Bukulmez, Karla Saner, Ximena Lopez, Jason Jarin
{"title":"Sperm Cryopreservation Outcomes in Transgender Adolescents Compared with Adolescents Receiving Gonadotoxic Therapy.","authors":"Elizabeth A Dilday, Orhan Bukulmez, Karla Saner, Ximena Lopez, Jason Jarin","doi":"10.1089/trgh.2021.0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The target population for fertility preservation recently has been expanded from adolescents with cancer undergoing gonadotoxic chemotherapy to include transgender youth before initiating gender-affirming hormone therapy. Patients and providers may have knowledge deficits regarding options for fertility preservation, accessibility, and feasibility of its techniques, and impact of treatment on future fertility. This study describes outcomes of sperm cryopreservation in transgender male-to-female (affirmed female) youth and compares semen parameters with adolescents diagnosed with cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medical records of transgender-affirmed female adolescents and adolescent males diagnosed with cancer who underwent sperm cryopreservation at the Fertility and Advanced Reproductive Medicine clinic of the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center between March 2015 and March 2020 were reviewed. Demographic data were recorded and values for sperm parameters (volume, count, total count, motility (%), total motile) were collected. When available, hormone levels (luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, testosterone, and estradiol) and Tanner stages were also assessed. The two populations were compared using chi-square analysis and two-sample student's <i>t</i>-test. Data are presented as mean±standard deviation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While semen quality parameters trended lower in transgender youth compared with adolescents with cancer, there was no statistically significant difference between groups. While four out of 18 patients in the transgender group had azoospermia, mean semen quality parameters fell within normal adult reference ranges for both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sperm cryopreservation for transgender youth and adolescents with cancer is feasible, inexpensive, and does not result in significant treatment delays. This information can improve counseling and access to these procedures, particularly in the transgender population.</p>","PeriodicalId":37265,"journal":{"name":"Transgender Health","volume":"7 6","pages":"528-532"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9829158/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transgender Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2021.0037","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Purpose: The target population for fertility preservation recently has been expanded from adolescents with cancer undergoing gonadotoxic chemotherapy to include transgender youth before initiating gender-affirming hormone therapy. Patients and providers may have knowledge deficits regarding options for fertility preservation, accessibility, and feasibility of its techniques, and impact of treatment on future fertility. This study describes outcomes of sperm cryopreservation in transgender male-to-female (affirmed female) youth and compares semen parameters with adolescents diagnosed with cancer.
Methods: Medical records of transgender-affirmed female adolescents and adolescent males diagnosed with cancer who underwent sperm cryopreservation at the Fertility and Advanced Reproductive Medicine clinic of the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center between March 2015 and March 2020 were reviewed. Demographic data were recorded and values for sperm parameters (volume, count, total count, motility (%), total motile) were collected. When available, hormone levels (luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, testosterone, and estradiol) and Tanner stages were also assessed. The two populations were compared using chi-square analysis and two-sample student's t-test. Data are presented as mean±standard deviation.
Results: While semen quality parameters trended lower in transgender youth compared with adolescents with cancer, there was no statistically significant difference between groups. While four out of 18 patients in the transgender group had azoospermia, mean semen quality parameters fell within normal adult reference ranges for both groups.
Conclusion: Sperm cryopreservation for transgender youth and adolescents with cancer is feasible, inexpensive, and does not result in significant treatment delays. This information can improve counseling and access to these procedures, particularly in the transgender population.