Regenerative Potential of Spermatogenesis after Gonadotoxic Therapies - Male Germline Stem Cells Developmental and Regenerative Potential - page 193

Table 9.3 Summary of effects of hormone suppression on protection and/or stimulation of recovery of spermatogenesis after cytotoxic treatment in different
species

Effect of timing of hormone suppression
relative to cytotoxic treatment

Species Treatment Before Immediately after After a delay References

Mouse Procarbazine,

doxorubicin,
cyclophosphamide

- n.d. (Crawford et al. 1998 ; Da Cunha et al. 1987 )

Cisplatin - n.d. n.d. (Nonomura et al. 1991 )

Radiation - + n.d. (Crawford et al. 1998 ; Kangasniemi et al. 1996a; Wang et al. 2010)

Rat Radiation a ++ ++ + (Kurdoglu et al. 1994 ; Meistrich and Kangasniemi 1997 )

Procarbazine a ++ ++ n.d. (Delic et al. 1986a ; Jegou et al. 1991 ; Meistrich et al. 1999 ; Morris

and Shalet 1990 ; Parchuri et al. 1993 )

Busulfan - + n.d. (Udagawa et al. 2001, 2006 )

Monkey Radiation - - n.d. (Boekelheide et al. 2005 ; Kamischke et al. 2003 )

Human Chemotherapeutic drug

combinations
(± radiation)

-/? - (Fossa et al. 1988 ; Johnson et al. 1985 ; Kreuser et al. 1990 ; Redman

and Bajorunas 1987 ; Thomson et al. 2002 ; Waxman et al. 1987 )

Radiation − n.d. (Brennemann et al. 1994 )

Cyclophosphamide ++ n.d. (Masala et al. 1997 )

+, ++: Relative effectiveness at protection or stimulation
−: No protection/stimulation
?: No protection observed but could not be demonstrated or ruled out with experimental design, n.d.: The effect not tested
a Instances in which the type A spermatogonia showed a block in differentiation