Search

Objective: To investigate whether the minimal cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (mCED), a novel approach for estimating alkylating agent exposure, is associated with the sperm retrieval rates by microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) in azoospermic postchemotherapy cancer survivors., Design: A retrospective cohort study conducted between 2002 and 2017., Setting: An academic medical center., Patients: A total of 28 azoospermic postchemotherapy cancer survivors who underwent mTESE., Interventions: Chemotherapy exposure and mCED calculation., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the association between the mCED and sperm retrieval rate using mTESE. The mCED value for each patient's regimen received was estimated using the lowest recommended dosing regimen from the range of recommended doses at the time of administration., Results: Spermatozoa were successfully retrieved in 11 (39.3%) of the patients. Age at the time of receiving chemotherapy and mCED were significant factors associated with sperm retrieval. An mCED of <4,000 mg/m 2 had a higher sperm retrieval rate (10/14, 71.4%) than an mCED of >4,000 mg/m 2 (0/8, 0). The hormone levels were not significantly different when comparing patients with and without successful sperm retrieval. Seminoma, nonseminomatous germ cell tumor, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia had favorable sperm retrieval rates-100% (2/2), 66.7% (2/3), and 66.7% (2/3), respectively-although the numbers of patients in each group were small., Conclusion: Among this cohort of patients with cancer who required chemotherapy regimens, successful sperm retrieval by mTESE was only noted among cancer survivors receiving an mCED of <4,000 mg/m 2 ., Competing Interests: I-S.H. has nothing to disclose. R.J.F. has nothing to disclose. J.A.H. has nothing to disclose. J.W. has nothing to disclose. N.E.B. has nothing to disclose. M.N.P. has nothing to disclose. A.S. has nothing to disclose. W.J.H. has nothing to disclose. R.E.B. has nothing to disclose., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Objective: To investigate internet search results available to couples searching for a male factor infertility specialist., Design: Cross-sectional., Setting: Online search engine., Patients: The phrase "male infertility specialist " was searched in Google for 50 states and Washington D.C. The top 10 results (i.e., first page) of each search were evaluated for website content., Interventions: None., Main Outcome Measures: The first page of each search was evaluated for provider type (urology vs. obstetrics and gynecology), level of training (fellowship vs. none), male factor fertility information provided, and procedures offered. We compared search position rank (1-10) to determine the likelihood of finding an urologist versus a practitioner in obstetrics and gynecology., Results: A total of 419 results were identified; the majority were obstetrics and gynecology-related (N = 229, 54.7%). Urology-related results appeared higher than obstetrics and gynecology-related results (median, 4 vs. 5). Andrology fellowship-trained urologists were identified in 153 (36.5%) results. Among 229 obstetrics and gynecology results, 152 unique practices were identified. A small portion (N = 38, 16.6%) of these practices had a fellowship-trained urologist identified on the website. Most obstetrics and gynecology websites did not mention vasectomy reversal (N = 116, 76.3%) or varicocele repair (N = 93, 61.2%). A minority of practices offered referral to urologists for sperm extraction (N = 23, 15.1%) or offered sperm retrieval themselves (N = 23, 15.1%)., Conclusions: When searching online for a male factor infertility specialist, most results identified obstetrics and gynecology physicians. A large proportion of obstetrics and gynecology websites lacked information on male factor fertility treatments and did not offer these treatments. These data indicate the need for a more robust online presence of male reproductive urologists to optimize online access.

Objective: To determine the proportion of men presenting for fertility evaluation who reported having an established primary care physician (PCP)., Design: Retrospective, observational study., Setting: Academic health center., Patients: All men presenting for initial male factor infertility consultation with a single reproductive urologist between 2002 and 2018., Interventions: Men were asked to provide the name of their PCP at the time of initial visit., Main Outcome Measures: Descriptive statistics characterized the proportion of men with a PCP at the time of evaluation and associations between PCP status and clinical characteristics., Results: Among 4,127 men presenting for initial fertility consultation, 844 (20.5%) reported having an established PCP, 480 (11.6%) reported no PCP, and 2,803 (67.9%) did not have data available. Among 1,302 men who had a prior primary care visit within our healthcare system, 414 (31.8%) had been seen within 1 year before their fertility evaluation. Men with an established PCP were slightly older than those without a PCP, with higher body mass index, and lower systolic blood pressure. Hormonal profiles were similar across groups, but men with an established PCP had a significantly higher total motile sperm count than those without a PCP, median 53 (interquartile range, 11-109) versus 35 (interquartile range, 8-98)., Conclusions: More than one third of men presenting for fertility evaluation did not have an established PCP. Reproductive urologists are uniquely positioned to facilitate the critical relationship between young men and PCPs, which should be a key component of the male fertility treatment paradigm., (© 2020 The Author(s).)