Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making V (PD60)1 Sep 2021PD60-09 DISPARITIES IN PRE-ORCHIECTOMY SPERM CRYOPRESERVATION AMONG TESTICULAR CANCER PATIENTS AT A PUBLIC SAFETY NET HOSPITAL AND A PRIVATE TERTIARY CARE CENTER Akshat Patel, Jeffrey M Howard, Nathan Chertack, Vitaly Margulis, Solomon Woldu, Kevin Courtney, Alex Bowman, Waddah Arafat, Xiaosong Meng, Tolulope Bakare, and Aditya Bagrodia Akshat PatelAkshat Patel More articles by this author , Jeffrey M HowardJeffrey M Howard More articles by this author , Nathan ChertackNathan Chertack More articles by this author , Vitaly MargulisVitaly Margulis More articles by this author , Solomon WolduSolomon Woldu More articles by this author , Kevin CourtneyKevin Courtney More articles by this author , Alex BowmanAlex Bowman More articles by this author , Waddah ArafatWaddah Arafat More articles by this author , Xiaosong MengXiaosong Meng More articles by this author , Tolulope BakareTolulope Bakare More articles by this author , and Aditya BagrodiaAditya Bagrodia More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002097.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: To compare pre-orchiectomy sperm cryopreservation use in testicular cancer patients at a private tertiary care academic center and an affiliated public safety-net hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent radical orchiectomy for testicular cancer at a private tertiary-care hospital and at a public safety-net facility. Clinical and demographic predictors of cryopreservation use prior to orchiectomy were determined by chart review. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients formed the study cohort, 106 (53%) at the safety-net hospital and 95 (47%) at the private hospital. Safety net patients were younger (29 vs 33 years, p=0.005), more likely to be Hispanic (79% vs 11%, p <0.001), and were less likely to be insured (20% vs 88%, p <0.001). Forty-three patients (21%) within the overall cohort underwent pre-orchiectomy cryopreservation. Cryopreservation was less likely in safety net patients than in private patients (10% vs 29%, p <0.001) and less likely in non-White than in White patients (12% vs 31%, p=0.001). On multivariable analysis, treatment at the private tertiary care center (OR 2.43, p=0.038) and younger age (OR 0.89 / year, p <0.001) were significant predictors of cryopreservation, whereas White race (OR 2.71, p=0.064), insured status (OR 1.95, p=0.21), and presence of metastatic disease (OR 1.24, p=0.64) were not (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to compare sperm cryopreservation in testicular cancer patients treated at affiliated safety-net and private hospitals. While cryopreservation is generally underutilized across all patients, significant disparities were noted between the private and safety-net settings. The barriers underlying these disparities should be further investigated so that appropriate strategies can be implemented to reduce them. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e1064-e1064 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Akshat Patel More articles by this author Jeffrey M Howard More articles by this author Nathan Chertack More articles by this author Vitaly Margulis More articles by this author Solomon Woldu More articles by this author Kevin Courtney More articles by this author Alex Bowman More articles by this author Waddah Arafat More articles by this author Xiaosong Meng More articles by this author Tolulope Bakare More articles by this author Aditya Bagrodia More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.