Urology · 2026
Clinical Outcomes of Pathologist-guided Ex-vivo Onco-TESE: A Single Institution Experience and Contemporary Review.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Reddy Akshay G, Steele Grant L, Barros Guilherme Garcia, Qian Zhiyu, Kielhofner Jane, Pelzman Daniel L, Clinton Timothy, Hirsch Michelle S, Eberhardt Alexandra Berger, Kathrins Martin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the fertility outcomes of pathologist-guided ex vivo TESE of radical orchiectomy specimens, without involvement of reproductive urologist or microsurgical skills. Ex-vivo testicular sperm extraction (TESE) is a viable alternative for fertility preservation in patients with testicular cancer and concomitant azoospermia. While existing literature describes urologist-driven sperm retrieval, pathologist-driven extraction provides the opportunity to prioritize fertility outcomes in individuals while optimizing oncologic staging.
METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent radical orchiectomy for presumed testis cancer with concomitant ex-vivo TESE. Demographic, clinical, fertility, and oncologic information was extracted from the electronic medical record.
RESULTS: There were 11 patients who underwent concomitant orchiectomy and ex-vivo TESE between 2016 and 2025. Successful sperm retrieval and cryopreservation occurred in 8 individuals (73%) for an average of 3.8 vials (median 5.5, IQR 2.5-7). Preoperative semen analysis, serum tumor markers, and tumor stage, size, or histology did not correlate with the likelihood of successful ex-vivo TESE.
CONCLUSION: Pathologist-guided ex-vivo onco-TESE is a feasible and effective alternative to urologist-performed oncologic-TESE, achieving comparable or higher sperm retrieval rates without need for microsurgical expertise. This multidisciplinary model may expand access to fertility preservation while maintaining oncologic integrity.
METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent radical orchiectomy for presumed testis cancer with concomitant ex-vivo TESE. Demographic, clinical, fertility, and oncologic information was extracted from the electronic medical record.
RESULTS: There were 11 patients who underwent concomitant orchiectomy and ex-vivo TESE between 2016 and 2025. Successful sperm retrieval and cryopreservation occurred in 8 individuals (73%) for an average of 3.8 vials (median 5.5, IQR 2.5-7). Preoperative semen analysis, serum tumor markers, and tumor stage, size, or histology did not correlate with the likelihood of successful ex-vivo TESE.
CONCLUSION: Pathologist-guided ex-vivo onco-TESE is a feasible and effective alternative to urologist-performed oncologic-TESE, achieving comparable or higher sperm retrieval rates without need for microsurgical expertise. This multidisciplinary model may expand access to fertility preservation while maintaining oncologic integrity.