Cryopreservation, semen use and the likelihood of fatherhood in male Hodgkin lymphoma survivors: an EORTC-GELA Lymphoma Group cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: How does the successful cryopreservation of semen affect the odds of post-treatment fatherhood among Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors? SUMMARY ANSWER: Among 334 survivors who wanted to have children, the availability of cryopreserved semen doubled the odds of post-treatment fatherhood. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Cryopreservation of semen is the easiest, safest and most accessible way to safeguard fertility in male patients facing cancer treatment. Little is known about what proportion of patients achieve successful semen cryopreservation. To our knowledge, neither the factors which influence the occurrence of semen cryopreservation nor the rates of fatherhood after semen has been cryopreserved have been analysed before. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a cohort study with nested case-control analyses of consecutive Hodgkin survivors treated between 1974 and 2004 in multi-centre randomized controlled trials. A written questionnaire was developed and sent to 1849 male survivors. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Nine hundred and two survivors provided analysable answers. The median age at treatment was 31 years. The median follow-up after cryopreservation was 13 years (range 5-36). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Three hundred and sixty-three out of 902 men (40%) cryopreserved semen before the start of potentially gonadotoxic treatment. The likelihood of semen cryopreservation was influenced by age, treatment period, disease stage, treatment modality and education level. Seventy eight of 363 men (21%) used their cryopreserved semen. Men treated between 1994 and 2004 had significantly lower odds of cryopreserved semen use compared with those treated earlier, whereas alkylating or second-line (chemo)therapy significantly increased the odds of use; no other influencing factors were identified. We found an adjusted odds ratio of 2.03 (95% confidence interval 1.11-3.73, P = 0.02) for post-treatment fatherhood if semen cryopreservation was performed. Forty-eight out of 258 men (19%) who had children after HL treatment became a father using cryopreserved semen. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Data came from questionnaires and so this study potentially suffers from response bias. We could not perform an analysis with correction for duration of follow-up or provide an actuarial use rate due to lack of dates of semen utilization. We do not have detailed information on either the techniques used in cryopreserved semen utilization or the number of cycles needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Lance Armstrong Foundation, Dutch Cancer Foundation, René Vogels Stichting, no competing interests.

Efficacy and safety of bexarotene combined with psoralen-ultraviolet A (PUVA) compared with PUVA treatment alone in stage IB-IIA mycosis fungoides: final results from the EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force phase III randomized clinical trial (NCT00056056).

BACKGROUND: Psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA) is the standard treatment for early stages of mycosis fungoides. There have been no adequate randomized controlled trials with sufficient power comparing this modality with other therapies. OBJECTIVE: To assess disease response and to compare the response rates of patients treated with PUVA alone or PUVA and bexarotene. METHODS: EORTC 21011 (NCT 00056056) was a randomized phase III study comparing combined bexarotene (Targretin(®) ) and PUVA vs. PUVA alone in patients with stage IB and IIA mycosis fungoides (MF). The primary endpoint was the overall response rate [complete clinical response (CCR) plus partial response (PR)]. RESULTS: The study was prematurely closed due to low accrual after 93 of 145 required patients (65%) were randomized. Of the 93 randomized patients, 87 started treatment, 41 received PUVA and 46 received PUVA + bexarotene. Total UVA doses received were 107 J cm(-2) (range 1·4-489·9) in the PUVA arm vs. 101·7 J cm(-2) (0·2-529·9) in the combination arm. The safety profile was acceptable with few grade 3-4 toxicities observed in either arm. More drop-outs due to toxicity were observed in the combination arm compared with the PUVA-alone arm. The best overall response (CCR + PR) rate was 71% for PUVA alone and 77% for the combination arm (P = 0·57). The median duration of response was 9·7 months for PUVA vs. 5·8 months for the combination arm (P = 0·33). CCR was seen in 25 patients of whom 10 received PUVA alone (CCR 22%) and 15 received combination therapy (CCR 31%) (P = 0·45). CCR was sustained in 25% of patients regardless of therapy. There was a trend towards fewer PUVA sessions needed to achieve CCR in the combination arm (median 22) compared with the PUVA arm (median 27·5) (P = 0·11). Similarly, a trend towards lower UVA dose required to achieve CCR in the combination arm (median 55·8 J cm(-2) ) compared with the PUVA arm alone (median 117·5 J cm(-2) ) (P = 0·5) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in response rate or response duration was observed in this study. However, there was a trend towards fewer PUVA sessions and lower UVA dose required to achieve CCR in the combination arm (PUVA + bexarotene) but this did not achieve statistical significance due to insufficient power.