Sperm DNA fragmentation testing: where we stand in 2017

Male Infertility is a Women's Health Issue-Research and Clinical Evaluation of Male Infertility Is Needed

Infertility is a devastating experience for both partners as they try to conceive. Historically, when a couple could not conceive, the woman has carried the stigma of infertility; however, men and women are just as likely to contribute to the couple’s infertility. With the development of assisted reproductive technology (ART), the treatment burden for male and unexplained infertility has fallen mainly on women. Equalizing this burden requires reviving research on male infertility to both improve treatment options and enable natural conception. Despite many scientific efforts, infertility in men due to sperm dysfunction is mainly diagnosed by a semen analysis. The semen analysis is limited as it only examines general sperm properties such as concentration, motility, and morphology. A diagnosis of male infertility rarely includes an assessment of internal sperm components such as DNA, which is well documented to have an impact on infertility, or other components such as RNA and centrioles, which are beginning to be adopted. Assessment of these components is not typically included in current diagnostic testing because available treatments are limited. Recent research has expanded our understanding of sperm biology and suggests that these components may also contribute to the failure to achieve pregnancy. Understanding the sperm’s internal components, and how they contribute to male infertility, would provide avenues for new therapies that are based on treating men directly for male infertility, which may enable less invasive treatments and even natural conception.

A Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis on the clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in specific male infertility scenarios

Background

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is recognized as a leading cause of male infertility because it can impair the paternal genome through distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. Current evidence supports SDF as a major factor in the pathophysiology of several conditions, including varicocele, unexplained infertility, assisted reproductive technology failure, and environmental lifestyle factors, although the mechanisms involved have not been fully described yet. Measurement of the levels of DNA fragmentation in semen provides valuable information on the integrity of paternal chromatin and may guide therapeutic strategies. A recently published clinical practice guideline (CPG) highlighted how to use the information provided by SDF testing in daily practice, which triggered a series of commentaries by leading infertility experts. These commentaries contained an abundance of information and conflicting views about the clinical utility of SDF testing, which underline the complex nature of SDF.

Methods

A search of papers published in response to the CPG entitled “Clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing: practice recommendations based on clinical scenarios” was performed within the Translational Andrology and Urology (TAU) website (http://tau.amegroups.com/). The start and end dates for the search were May 2017 and August 2017, respectively. Each commentary meeting our inclusion criteria was rated as “supportive without reservation”, “supportive with reservation”, “not supportive” or “neutral”. We recorded whether articles discussed either SDF characteristics as a laboratory test method or clinical scenarios, or both. Subsequently, we extracted the particulars from each commentary and utilized the ‘Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats’ (SWOT) analysis to understand the perceived advantages and drawbacks of SDF as a specialized sperm function method in clinical practice.

Results

Fifty-eight fertility experts from six continents and twenty-two countries contributed commentaries. Overall, participants (87.9%; n=51) were supportive of the recommendations provided by the CPG on the utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios. The majority of participants made explicit remarks about both the clinical scenarios and SDF assays’ characteristics. Among ‘not supportive’ and ‘supportive with reservation’ participants, 75% (n=30/40) and 77.5% (n=31/40) expressed concerns related to technical limitations of SDF testing methods and clinical utility of the test in one or more clinical scenarios discussed in the CPG, respectively. The SWOT analysis revealed that the CPG provides a reasonable evidence-based proposal for integration of SDF testing in the routine daily practice. It also uncovered gaps of knowledge and threats limiting the widespread application of SDF in everyday practice, thus allowing the identification of opportunities to further refine SDF testing and its clinical utility.

Conclusions

The understanding of the role of SDF in male infertility requires an in-depth analysis of the multifactorial pathophysiological processes and the theories involved. The SWOT analysis allowed an objective evaluation of CPG on the clinical utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios and its accompanying commentaries written by global experts in all possible angles. Implementation of SDF testing in the clinic may not only increase the outcome of ART but more importantly improve the health of both fathers to be and resulting offspring.