Retrospective cohort study evaluates unclaimed sperm samples in oncology, suggesting improved retention strategies.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors contributing to the rates of unclaimed cryopreserved sperm samples among oncology patients, identifying best practices that enhance patient retention and opportunities for utilization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study conducted at a single academic institution. Loss to follow-up was defined as inability to contact a patient after three documented attempts over a 12-month period. Deceased patients were analyzed separately. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent sperm cryopreservation for a cancer indication between 1/1/2010-10/1/2020 were included. Data abstracted included demographic characteristics, cancer diagnoses, utilization rates, and length of follow-up. Institutional clinic practices were also reviewed to evaluate strategies associated with patient retention and specimen utilization. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period, 725 patients underwent sperm banking for a cancer indication and were included in the analysis. Loss to follow-up was 3.03% overall, and 3.14% when excluding deceased patients. The primary contributor to retention was a consent form with mandatory inclusion of multiple secondary contacts, such as phone numbers and email addresses. Additionally, the integration of a user-friendly portal application allowed patients to access results and update their contact information easily and empowered them in maintaining accurate records. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology patients face significant challenges in attending follow-up appointments with fertility clinics, due to cancer care demands. Effective communication with sperm banking clinics is crucial for helping patients navigate their reproductive options. Proactive strategies, such as comprehensive consent forms and user-friendly applications, enhance patient retention and ensure critical opportunities for preserving their reproductive health. These results are further underscored by the low loss to follow-up observed in the deceased population, highlighting the effective communication also with next of kin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ciomperlik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: