A 10‐year experience in testicular tissue cryopreservation for boys under 18 years of age: What can be learned from 350 cases?

Background A growing number of centers worldwide are preserving testicular tissue (TT) of young boys at risk of fertility loss to preserve their fertility. Data in this regard are scarce and experience sharing is essential to the optimization of the process. Objectives This report of our 10‐year activity of pediatric fertility preservation (FP) has the objective to (1) improve knowledge regarding the feasibility, acceptability, safety, and potential usefulness of the procedure; (2) analyze the impact of chemotherapy on spermatogonia in the cryopreserved TT. Materials and methods For this retrospective study of data prospectively recorded, we included all boys under 18 years of age referred to the FP consultation of our academic network between October 2009 and December 2019. Characteristics of patients and cryopreservation of testicular tissue (CTT) were extracted from the clinical database. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess factors associated with the risk of absence of spermatogonia in the TT. Results Three hundred and sixty‐nine patients (7.2 years; 0.5–17.0) were referred to the FP consultation for malignant (70%) or non‐malignant (30%) disease, of whom 88% were candidates for CTT, after a previous chemotherapy exposure (78%). The rate of recorded immediate adverse events was 3.5%, with painful episodes dominating. Spermatogonia were detected in the majority of TTs: 91.1% of those exposed to chemotherapy and 92.3% of those not exposed (p = 0.962). In multivariate analysis, the risk of absence of spermatogonia was almost three‐fold higher in boys > 10 years of age ([OR] 2.74, 95% CI 1.09–7.26, p = 0.035) and four‐fold higher in boys exposed to alkylating agents prior to CTT ([OR] 4.09, 95% CI 1.32–17.94, p = 0.028). Discussion/conclusion This large series of pediatric FP shows that this procedure is well accepted, feasible, and safe in the short term, strengthening its place in the clinical care pathway of young patients requiring a highly gonadotoxic treatment. Our results demonstrate that CTT post‐chemotherapy does not impair the chance to preserve spermatogonia in the TT except when the treatment includes alkylating agents. More data on post‐CTT follow‐up are still required to ensure the long‐term safety and usefulness of the procedure.