Infertile Men Have Higher Prostate-specific Antigen Values than Fertile Individuals of Comparable Age

Contemporary Diagnostic Work-Up for Male Infertility: Emphasizing Comprehensive Baseline Assessment

Infertility is a prevalent issue affecting many couples during their reproductive years, with a significant number facing challenges in conceiving despite regular unprotected intercourse. Male factor infertility (MFI) contributes significantly to these cases, with a significant proportion of men lacking an identifiable etiology. As such, a thorough assessment of MFI has become increasingly vital for personalized management. This position paper from the Andrology team at IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele emphasizes a comprehensive and individualized approach to MFI work-up, addressing the evolving challenges encountered in clinical practice. Our approach involves a thorough diagnostic work-up to identify the underlying causes of MFI, integrating insights from extensive literature review and our proprietary data. Our data demonstrates that an extensive diagnostic assessment allows us to identify at least one underlying cause of MFI in most infertile men. However, challenges persist in diagnosing less severe phenotypes with unclear etiology. We discuss the importance of individualized MFI work-up and its implications for developing rational therapeutic protocols. Lastly, this paper highlights the necessity for a personalized diagnostic assessment, addressing the daily clinical challenges and emphasizing tailored approaches to try to improve outcomes among couples seeking first medical help for infertility.

Cancer risk and male Infertility: Unravelling predictive biomarkers and prognostic indicators

In recent years, there has been a global increase in cases of male infertility. There are about 30 million cases of male infertility worldwide and male reproductive health is showing rapid decline in last few decades. It is now recognized as a potential risk factor for developing certain types of cancer, particularly genitourinary malignancies like testicular and prostate cancer. Male infertility is considered a potential indicator of overall health and an early biomarker for cancer. Cases of unexplained male factor infertility have high levels of oxidative stress and oxidative DNA damage and this induces both denovo germ line mutations and epimutations due to build up of 8-hydroxy 2 deoxygunaosine abase which is highly mutagenic and also induces hypomethylation and genomic instability. Consequently, there is growing evidence to explore the various factors contributing to an increased cancer risk. Currently, the available prognostic and predictive biomarkers associated with semen characteristics and cancer risk are limited but gaining significant attention in clinical research for the diagnosis and treatment of elevated cancer risk in the individual and in offspring. The male germ cell being transcriptionally and translationally inert has a highly truncated repair mechanism and has minimal antioxidants and thus most vulnerable to oxidative injury due to environmental factors and unhealthy lifestyle and social habits. Therefore, advancing our understanding requires a thorough evaluation of the pathophysiologic mechanisms at the DNA, RNA, protein, and metabolite levels to identify key biomarkers that may underlie the pathogenesis of male infertility and associated cancer. Advanced methodologies such as genomics, epigenetics, proteomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics stand at the forefront of cutting-edge approaches for discovering novel biomarkers, spanning from infertility to associated cancer types. Henceforth, in this review, we aim to assess the role and potential of recently identified predictive and prognostic biomarkers, offering insights into the success of assisted reproductive technologies, causes of azoospermia and idiopathic infertility, the impact of integrated holistic approach and lifestyle modifications, and the monitoring of cancer susceptibility, initiation and progression. Comprehending these biomarkers is crucial for providing comprehensive counselling to infertile men and cancer patients, along with their families.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on the Impact of Infertility on Men's General Health

CONTEXT

Male infertility has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide the most critical evidence on the association between infertility and the risk of incident comorbidities in males.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, and registered on PROSPERO. All published studies on infertile versus fertile men regarding overall mortality and risks of cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular events were selected from a database search on PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane. Forest plot and quasi-individual patient data meta-analysis were used for pooled analyses. A risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-E tool.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, an increased risk of death from any cause was found for infertile men (hazard risk [HR] 1.37, [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.04-1.81], p = 0.027), and a 30-yr survival probability of 91.0% (95% CI 89.6-92.4%) was found for infertile versus 95.9% (95% CI 95.3-96.4%) for fertile men (p < 0.001). An increased risk emerged of being diagnosed with testis cancer (relative risk [RR] 1.86 [95% CI 1.41-2.45], p < 0.001), melanoma (RR 1.30 [95% CI 1.08-1.56], p = 0.006), and prostate cancer (RR 1.66 [95% CI 1.06-2.61], p < 0.001). As well, an increased risk of diabetes (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.09-1.71], p = 0.008), with a 30-yr probability of diabetes of 25.0% (95% CI 21.1-26.9%) for infertile versus 17.1% (95% CI 16.1-18.1%) for fertile men (p < 0.001), and an increased risk of cardiovascular events (HR 1.20 [95% CI 1.00-1.44], p = 0.049), with a probability of major cardiovascular events of 13.9% (95% CI 13.3-14.6%) for fertile versus 15.7% (95% CI 14.3-16.9%) for infertile men (p = 0.008), emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

There is statistical evidence that a diagnosis of male infertility is associated with increased risks of death and incident comorbidities. Owing to the overall high risk of bias, results should be interpreted carefully.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Male fertility is a proxy of general men's health and as such should be seen as an opportunity to improve preventive strategies for overall men's health beyond the immediate reproductive goals.

Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pain Pelvic Syndrome and Male Infertility

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is defined as urologic pain or discomfort in the pelvic region, associated with urinary symptoms and/or sexual dysfunction, lasting for at least 3 of the previous 6 months. The rate of symptoms related to prostatitis has a mean prevalence of 8-8.2%. CP/CPPS is most frequent in men younger than 50 years, among whom it is the most common urologic diagnosis. In the last decades, many studies have been published on CP/CPPS and its association with male infertility. The pathophysiologic relation between CP/CPPS and male infertility involves several aspects, which are not well studied yet. A reduction in semen parameters has been demonstrated in patients with CP/CPPS, and several mechanisms have been proposed to represent putative pathophysiological links between CP/CPPS and infertility, including male accessory gland inflammation, metabolic syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, HPV co-infection and autoimmunity. In light of this evidence, a multidisciplinary approach is advocated for patients with known CP/CPPS, and particular attention is needed for male patients of infertile couples in order to evaluate male accessory glands correctly. In addition, it is advisable that future studies dealing with the treatment of CP/CPPS take into consideration all the different pathophysiological aspects implicated.

Unlocking the mystery associated with infertility and prostate cancer: an update

Male-specific reproductive disorders and cancers have increased intensely in recent years, making them a significant public health problem. Prostate cancer (PC) is the most often diagnosed cancer in men and is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality. Both genetic and epigenetic modifications contribute to the development and progression of PC, even though the exact underlying processes causing this disease have yet to be identified. Male infertility is also a complex and poorly understood phenomenon believed to afflict a significant portion of the male population. Chromosomal abnormalities, compromised DNA repair systems, and Y chromosome alterations are just a few of the proposed explanations. It is becoming widely accepted that infertility shares a link with PC. Much of the link between infertility and PC is probably attributable to common genetic defects. This article provides an overview of PC and spermatogenic abnormalities. This study also investigates the link between male infertility and PC and uncovers the underlying reasons, risk factors, and biological mechanisms contributing to this association.

Is There a Relevant Clinical Impact in Differentiating Idiopathic versus Unexplained Male Infertility?

PURPOSE

Overall, male factor infertility (MFI) accounts for up to 50% of etiologies of couple's infertility, with almost 30% of MFI cases being idiopathic in nature. Idiopathic MFI does not support a tailored treatment work-up in clinical practice. To investigate rates of and characteristics of men presenting for idiopathic versus unexplained primary infertility as compared with same-ethnicity, age-comparable fertile men.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Demographic, clinical and laboratory data from 3,098 primary infertile men consecutively evaluated were analyzed and compared with those of 103 fertile controls. Idiopathic male infertility (IMI) was defined for abnormality at semen analysis with no previous history of diseases affecting fertility and normal findings on physical examination and genetic and laboratory testing. Unexplained male infertility (UMI) was defined as infertility of unknown origin with completely normal findings at semen analysis. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models tested the association between clinical variables and idiopathic infertility status.

RESULTS

Overall, 570 (18.5%) and 154 (5.0%) patients depicted criteria suggestive for either IMI or UMI, respectively. Groups were similar in terms of age, BMI, CCI, recreational habits, hormonal milieu, and sperm DNA fragmentation indexes. Conversely, testicular volume was lower in IMI (p<0.001). Vitamin D3 levels were lower in IMI vs. UMI vs. fertile controls (p=0.01). At multivariable logistic regression analysis only vitamin D3 deficiency (OR, 9.67; p=0.03) was associated with IMI. Characteristics suggestive for IMI versus UMI were observed in almost 20% and 5% of men, respectively. Overall, clinical differences between groups were slightly significant and certainly not supportive of a tailored management work-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Current findings further support the urgent need of a more detailed and comprehensive assessment of infertile men to better tailoring their management work-up in the everyday clinical setting.

Counseling for the man with severe male infertility

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarize the proper counseling for men with severe male factor infertility.

RECENT FINDINGS

Men who are experiencing infertility should have a semen analysis, the results of which may imply additional investigations, including genetic and hormonal. Moreover, possible modifiable factors that may harm men's reproductive health should be carefully evaluated. Finally, different treatment options are available.

SUMMARY

Approximately 15% of couples struggle with infertility. Complete evaluations of both men and women are required to determine the etiology of infertility and determine appropriate treatment.

Can nanomaterials support the diagnosis and treatment of human infertility? A preliminary review

Human infertilities are disorders that afflict many people all over the world. Both male and female reproductive systems must work together in a precise and coordinated manner and infertility has a wide range of problems for this system. Recent advances in nanomedicine immensely helped design the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to alleviate human infertility in both sexes. Nanoscience has recently been used by researchers to increase the detection limit of infertility-related biomarkers via fabricating sensitive nanobiosensors for detecting follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), anti-müllerian hormone (AMH), pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A), progesterone, and testosterone. At the same time, a variety of nanostructures, including magnetic nanoparticles (i.e., zinc nanoparticles, cerium nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles), nano-vitamins, extracellular vesicles, and spermbots, have shown promising outcomes in the treatment of human infertilities. Despite recent advancements, some nanostructures might have toxic effects on cells, especially germ cells, and must be optimized with the right ingredients, such as antioxidants, nutrients, and vitamins, to obtain the right strategy to treat and detect human infertilities. This review presents recent developments in nanotechnology regarding impairments still faced by human infertility. New perspectives for further use of nanotechnology in reproductive medicine studies are also discussed. In conclusion, nanotechnology, as a tool for reproductive medicine, has been considered to help overcome current impairments.

Risk of health status worsening in primary infertile men: a prospective 10-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND

A severe male infertility factor has been associated with both lower health status and increased mortality in infertile men.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate reproductive factors associated with health status impairment in infertile men over a 10-year time frame since first clinical evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 899 infertile men were analysed at baseline between 2003 and 2010. Health-significant comorbidities were scored with the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Patients were followed-up yearly recording any worsening in their health status until 2019. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of CCI score increase.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 136 months (IQR 121, 156), 85 men (9.5%) depicted an increase of their baseline CCI score of at least 1 point. The most frequent reason for CCI upgrade was cancer (34%), cardio-vascular diseases (29%) and diabetes mellitus (22%). Compared to patients without a CCI increase, patients with a CCI increase presented with higher BMI and FSH values, a higher rate of baseline CCI ≥ 1 (all p < 0.01) and a greater proportion of non-obstructive azoospermia (p < 0.001). In the Cox regression model, patient's BMI (p < 0.001), baseline CCI ≥ 1 (p < 0.01) and azoospermia status (p = 0.001) were found to be independently associated with CCI increases.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 10% of men presenting for primary infertility had a decrease of the overall health status already in the relatively short 10-year time frame after first presentation. Non-obstructive azoospermic men showed the worst health status impairment and should be strictly followed-up regardless of their fertility status. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Association between male infertility and prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Male infertility has been shown to be associated with different maladies. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the available evidence on the association between male infertility or childlessness and prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

The PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they compared males with known infertility or childlessness to the control group including fertile males with regards to the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Overall, ten studies met our eligibility criteria. Three studies found that infertility was associated with higher risk of prostate cancer, four studies - with a reduced risk of prostate cancer, and three studies found no association. The forest plot revealed that infertility was not associated with prostate cancer (odds ratio [OR]: 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-2.54; P = 0.5). Infertility was not associated with high (OR: 1.44, 95% CI 0.54-3.83; P = 0.5) or low (OR: 0.99, 95% CI 0.43-2.27; P = 0.9) grade prostate cancer.

SUMMARY

Infertility or childlessness were not associated with the risk of prostate cancer. The significant heterogeneity between the included studies supports the need for more granular research to guide/fine tune early detection guidelines based on fertility.

Infertile couples still undergo assisted reproductive treatments without initial andrological evaluation in the real-life setting: A failure to adhere to guidelines?

BACKGROUND

The EAU Guidelines on Male Sexual and Reproductive Health state that both partners of the infertile couple should undergo simultaneous investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the prevalence and the characteristics of infertile men who were referred for an andrological evaluation after failed attempts of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) with those who were evaluated at the beginning of their infertility pathway at a single academic centre over a 17-year period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of 3213 primary infertile couples assessed between 2003 and 2020 were analysed. Descriptive statistics compared the overall characteristics of male partners of couples with (+ART) or without (-ART) previous ART prior to andrological consultation. Logistic regression models analysed variables associated with +ART. Local polynomial regression models explored the probability of +ART over the analysed time frame.

RESULTS

Of all, 493 (15.3%) participants were +ART. Patients and female partners' age were higher in +ART couples (all p≤0.04). Sperm concentration, progressive sperm motility and normal sperm morphology were lower in +ART than in -ART patients (all p<0.001), along with a greater percentage of non-obstructive azoospermia in +ART compared to -ART men (p<0.0001). At univariable analysis, patient age and partner age >35 years and a less recent assessment were associated with +ART status (all p≤0.04). Male age and less recent years of assessment were also independent predictors of +ART, after accounting for partner's age >35 years (all p<0.01). A not significant decrease of this pattern was observed throughout the last 7 years at local polynomial regression models.

DISCUSSION

Overall awareness towards the importance of a comprehensive evaluation for the male partner of every infertile couple should therefore be further strengthened.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 15% of couples still undergo ART without any initial andrological evaluation in the real-life setting. A not significant decrease in this trend was observed over most recent years. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.