The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An experimental protocol for fertility preservation in prepubertal boys recently diagnosed with cancer: a report of acceptability and safety
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Gonadal damage is a consequence of therapy for pediatric malignancies. Prepubertal males have no semen or mature spermatozoa, posing a challenge for fertility preservation. Testicular tissue cryopreservation is a potential option but is still experimental. We report on a pilot protocol that offered testicular biopsy cryopreservation to families of prepubertal boys with newly diagnosed malignancy. The aims were to determine the acceptability and safety of this procedure. METHODS: Parents of prepubertal boys with diagnoses at highest risk for treatment-related gonadal damage were offered the option of testicular cryopreservation. Half of the biopsy was frozen for the subject's potential future use and the remainder used for research. Data on negative intraoperative and/or 7 day post-operative sequelae of testicular biopsies were assessed. Two to four weeks later, parents were asked to complete a questionnaire on factors influencing their decision to have the biopsy or not. RESULTS: Since January 2008, 24 boys have met the eligibility criteria but three required immediate treatment and were excluded. Sixteen of 21 families (76%) consented to testicular biopsy, indicating the prospective acceptability of this option to parents of boys aged 3 months to 14 years; 14 underwent the procedure without any negative intra- or post-operative sequelae. Although the time at diagnosis is stressful, families can give thoughtful consideration to this option. Factors such as religion, finance, ethics and the experimental nature of cryopreservation did not play a major role in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Parents of prepubertal boys with cancer are willing to pursue testicular tissue cryopreservation at diagnosis, and testicular biopsy caused no acute adverse effects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
(2019) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.09.013 · Cited by 753
Picton, H. M., Wyns, C., Anderson, R. A., Goossens, E., Jahnukainen, K., Kliesch, S., Mitchell, R. T., Pennings, G., Rives, N., Tournaye, H., et al. (2015) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dev190 · Cited by 354
Vermeulen, M., Del Vento, F., De Michele, F., Poels, J., & Wyns, C. (2018) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms19010227 · Cited by 72
Infertility with Testicular Cancer
Ostrowski, K. A., & Walsh, T. J. (2015) · Urologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2015.05.003 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Ginsberg, J. P., Carlson, C. A., Lin, K., Hobbie, W. L., Wigo, E., Wu, X., Brinster, R. L., & Kolon, T. F.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-10-27
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-41
- ISSN
- 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2350
- OpenAlex
- W2126535511
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An experimental protocol for fertility preservation in prepubertal boys recently diagnosed with cancer: a report of acceptability and safety. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/dep371
- The paper
- Ginsberg, J. P., Carlson, C. A., Lin, K., Hobbie, W. L., Wigo, E., Wu, X., Brinster, R. L., & Kolon, T. F. (2010). An experimental protocol for fertility preservation in prepubertal boys recently diagnosed with cancer: a report of acceptability and safety. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep371
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.