Effect of mail-in sperm cryopreservation solution on access to cryopreservation: A national demographic analysis.

Abstract

e13524 Background: There are many circumstances under which someone may choose to bank their sperm, but forthcoming cancer treatment is among the most common. The advent of services offering mail-in semen analysis and cryopreservation has expanded access to sperm banking, especially for those living in rural areas, far away from traditional andrology labs. This study summarized demographic characteristics and reasons for cryopreservation among those using one such US-based mail-in service, with a focus on patients banking sperm prior to cancer treatment. Methods: Patients >18 years who banked sperm using a mail-in cryopreservation solution developed by Fellow Health, Inc. from March 2021 to January 2024 were included. Test kits sold for research purposes were excluded. To categorize each patient by reason for cryopreservation, we made use of a patient-provided reason, supplied during test kit registration, where available. For the remaining patients, reason was inferred using several data sources including medical history, medications, and clinic and physician information. Patients who could not be reliably classified were omitted from this portion of the analysis. Descriptive statistics of key demographics and reason for cryopreservation were reported under an IRB-approved protocol. Results: 2,154 patients met our inclusion criteria and 725 (33.7%) provided demographic information. Average age was 34.7 (SD=9.2) years and 11.9% identified as a trans female. The majority of the population identified as white (79.5%) and non-Hispanic (84.8%). Over half of the population had a college degree or greater (59.3%), was married/partnered (57.1%), and had private insurance (84.9%). Among the 756 patients whose reason for cryopreservation was discernible, the majority, 450 (59.5%), were doing so in the context of fertility treatment, with only 46 (6.1%) indicating cancer treatment. Other reasons included pre-vasectomy storage (n=137, 18.4%) and gender affirming hormone therapy (n=90, 11.9%). Of the patients who indicated cancer treatment as their reason for cryopreservation, 50.0% lived greater than a 25-mile drive of the nearest National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Cancer Center. Conclusions: Surprisingly, few patients utilizing a mail-in service for cryopreservation did so prior to beginning cancer treatment, with most originating from the fertility or pre-vasectomy context. Use was disproportionately high among trans women initiating hormone replacement therapy (HRT), perhaps demonstrating their preference for at-home sample collection to avoid the unique challenges they encounter in a clinical setting. Especially for oncology patients who are admitted to a hospital and cannot leave for fertility preservation, there is an opportunity to further integrate mail-in cryopreservation services within oncology to improve access and reduce time costs.