Clinical Guidelines and Standards · Guidelines by Clinical Area
Foresta C, Ferlin A, Gianaroli L, Dallapiccola B
Research on genetic causes of male and female infertility rapidly expanded in the last years, following the development of in vitro fertilising techniques. Genetic tests are now available to explore the cause of the infertility and assess the risk of a given couple to transmit its genetic characteristics. This allows at-risk couples to take an informed decision when electing for a medically assisted reproduction. It also allows the professionals to offer a prenatal diagnosis when appropriate. Thus, the genetic work-up of the infertile couple has become good practice for an appropriate diagnosis, treatment and prognostic assessment. The lack of national or international rules for the genetic approach to the infertile couple, prompted the Italian community of professionals in the field of reproductive medicine to join and set up guidelines for the genetic diagnosis of male and female infertility. The group of clinical and research experts is representative of 12 national scientific societies and was supported by external experts from four international societies. We examine the clinically relevant genetic causes of male and female infertility and suggest the category of patients for which each genetic test is recommended or optional, both for an accurate diagnosis and prior to ART.
Mazzilli R et al., 2026 · Journal of endocrinological investigation
Male factor could contribute, alone or in combination with female factor, to the inability to conceive in a couple in more than half of cases. The effect of male factor infertility (MFI) on embryological assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes remains an ongoing discussion. to evaluate the impact of MFI on embryo aneuploidy rates, to better understand the role and possible indication for Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A), considering the role of sperm characteristics, paternal age, sperm DNA fragmentation and sperm aneuploidies. this narrative review included all available articles, published up to January 2026. Available evidence, often based on heterogeneous and old-fashioned methodologies, suggests that MFI may impair embryonic development, particularly in terms of fertilization rate and blastulation rate, more than embryo euploidy; however, a comprehensive evaluation of MFI should be integrated into clinical practice in the context of couple infertility, to also optimize the efficiency and outcomes of ART. Promising results emerged from sperm DNA fragmentation as a tool to predict embryo euploidy, but further investigations involving larger sample sizes and improved standardization are required.
Graziani A et al., 2026 · Andrology · Free to read
Besides gonadal involvement (hypogonadism, male factor infertility, and testicular hypotrophy), patients with Klinefelter syndrome (KS) may suffer from several extra-gonadic complications, including neoplastic events. The aim of this review is to summarize all major clinical evidence dealing with the association between KS and neoplastic diseases and provide practical suggestions for the management of patients with KS regarding neoplastic risk. This narrative review was conducted through a comprehensive search of the PubMed database, using combinations of the following keywords: "Klinefelter syndrome," "cancer," "neoplasm," "breast cancer," "germ cell tumor," "lymphoma," and "testosterone replacement therapy". KS is associated with a higher risk of breast cancer and mediastinal germ cell tumors and an apparent higher risk of hematological malignancies, in particular non-Hodgkin lymphoma and leukemia. Evidence on testicular cancer is limited, with no clear increase in risk attributable to KS, while prostate cancer has a lower risk and lower mortality rate. Given the complexity of the syndrome and the limited available evidence, regular clinical follow-up with targeted investigations when clinically indicated may facilitate early diagnosis and management of associated comorbidities.
Scala A et al., 2026 · Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · Free full text on PubMed Central
In transgender adults, reference-gender choice alters Z-scores and fracture-risk estimates. Z-scores differ by 0.4-0.6 SD, with male references identifying more individuals with low BMD for age, especially in those assigned male at birth. Dual-reference reporting is advisable until further evidence becomes available. Transgender individuals, especially those assigned male at birth (AMAB), exhibit lower bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the cisgender population. Interpretation of densitometric data is challenging, as the choice of reference gender can significantly influence Z-scores and fracture risk scores. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the gender reference database (male or female) on the assessment of BMD and fracture risk in transgender adults prior to gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 249 transgender individuals (153 assigned female at birth - AFAB and 96 AMAB) aged 18-43 years, recruited in the Hospitals of Padua and Brescia (Italy). Z-scores were calculated using both male and female reference databases and FRAX scores were computed using both gender inputs. Associations with anthropometric, biochemical, and hormonal parameters were explored. Z-scores differed systematically depending on the reference gender, with mean ΔZ ranging 0.4-0.6 SD across skeletal sites. Switching reference databases frequently led to reclassification of BMD status. AMAB individuals showed a higher prevalence of low BMD for age, particularly when assessed against male references (27.1%), whereas AFAB participants generally maintained normal BMD. However, FRAX scores remained low. BMI and 25-OH vitamin D levels were independent predictors of BMD and Z-scores in AMAB individuals. The choice of reference gender significantly influences densitometric interpretation in young transgender adults. Until further evidence becomes available, calculating Z-scores using both male and female reference databases is advisable. Early preventive interventions remain essential to preserve bone health.
De Toni L et al., 2026 · Journal of endocrinological investigation · Free full text on PubMed Central
Varicocele is a recognized male factor of infertility. Surgical/microsurgical correction represents a therapeutical option to improve fertility outcomes but predictive parameters for the identification who can actually benefit from varicocele correction are under investigated. Here we aimed to identify baseline predictors of semen outcome improvement after varicocele treatment by scleroembolization approach. 85 patients receiving varicocele treatment by anterograde scleroembolization (ASE, N = 42) or retrograde scleroembolization (RSE, N = 43) were retrospectively recruited. Basal and 6-months follow-up evaluation of semen, hormonal and ultrasound parameters (US) were performed to address the respective effect of varicocele treatment. In addition, basal parameters were assessed as clinical outcome predictors. Varicocele grade reduction was observed in more than 90% of patients (P < 0.001). Compared to basal, significant increase of sperm concentration (10.0 ± 9.2 × 106cells/mL vs. 23.4 ± 26.9 × 106cells/mL; P < 0.001), total sperm count (TSC 39.0 ± 54.5 × 106cells vs. 70.3 ± 90.6 × 106cells, P < 0.001) and total motile sperm count (TMS, 9.8 ± 12.8 × 106cells vs. 36.7 ± 58.1 × 106cells, P < 0.001), was observed, with no differences between RSE or ASE. All US parameters were also improved (all P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis of basal semen and ultrasound parameters showed that basal sperm motility and left testis-mean transit time (L-MTT) were associated with TSC and TMS doubling at follow-up. However, Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis showed that only basal L-MTT basal sperm was consistently associated with TSC and TMS doubling at follow-up (respectively: AUC = 0.834, CI: 0.747-0.921 and AUC = 0.805, CI: 0.708-0.901; both P < 0.001). Baseline sperm count and US parameters represent useful clinical descriptors to address those subjects eligible for varicocele correction.
Grande G et al., 2024 · Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
Sir, We read with interest the guideline about unexplained infertility developed by the Guideline Group (GDG) on Unexplained Infertility of ESHRE (Romualdi et al., 2023). We appreciated the efforts to have clear, evidence-based recommendations on this important topic but would like to point out fundamental problems and misunderstandings on the approach to the male factor. Although we can agree on the definition of unexplained infertility made by the GDG as ‘infertility in couples with apparently normal ovarian function, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix and pelvis, age ≤40 years and with adequate coital frequency; and apparently normal testicular function, genito-urinary anatomy, and a normal ejaculate’, substantial differences in the diagnostic approach for the female and male partner are then proposed to assess these features. In fact, a comprehensive evaluation of the female partner is recommended considering ovulation, ovarian reserve, tubal factor, uterine factor, and even vaginal microbiota, whereas the approach to the male partner is limited only to semen analysis. The entire following line of reasoning assumes that a normal semen analysis is sufficient to rule out male factor infertility and no further examination is needed. There are several problems with this approach. First of all, it is quite clear that a normal testicular function and genito-urinary anatomy cannot be determined by semen analysis only, but instead require a combination of, at least, history, physical examination, endocrine assessment, and ultrasound examination of the testes and seminal tract. For semen analysis, the GDG correctly refers to the World Health Organization (WHO) manual for semen analysis (6th edition) (World Health Organization, 2021) but misinterpreted it because the GDG does not recommend any other diagnostic procedure when ‘semen analysis according to WHO criteria is normal’. Not only did the GDG neglect to consider a broad approach to understand whether the testicular function and genito-urinary anatomy are normal, but also it made substantial misunderstandings on the role and significance of semen analysis and its relation with fertility. A main point is that the WHO manual does not define normal semen analysis (World Health Organization, 2021), simply because the so-called ‘reference values’, and in particular the fifth percentile reference, do not represent cut-off limits for fertility and infertility. These values represent the distribution of results from around 3500 presumed fertile men and they are ‘not sufficient to establish clinically useful decision limits’ (World Health Organization, 2021). WHO is very clear when stating that ‘reference values cannot be used to distinct limits between fertile and subfertile men’, ‘the lower fifth percentile of data from men in the reference population does not represent a limit between fertile and infertile men’, and ‘for an individual patient, a semen analysis is never prognostic of infertility’. Since, it is well known that natural fertility is possible with semen parameters below the fifth percentile and infertility with semen parameters above the fifth percentile, a ‘normal ejaculate’ cannot be defined. Therefore, there is a ‘problem in applying a dichotomous categorization to fertility that must be considered a continuum. It is also well known that there is a substantial overlap of semen examination results between fertile and infertile men’ (World Health Organization, 2021). Hence, the reference limits cannot be used as a specific limit between infertile and fertile men (Björndahl et al., 2023). Results of semen examination below the WHO reference values do not automatically mean that the problem of the couple resides in the male, and results above the limits do not always mean that the male partner of an infertile couple is undoubtedly fertile (Björndahl et al., 2023). Semen analysis is fundamental in the initial investigation of the male partner of an infertile couple, but its [truncated]
Zitzmann M et al., 2021 · Andrology · Free to read
Knowledge about Klinefelter syndrome (KS) has increased substantially since its first description almost 80 years ago. A variety of treatment options concerning the spectrum of symptoms associated with KS exists, also regarding aspects beyond testicular dysfunction. Nevertheless, the diagnostic rate is still low in relation to prevalence and no international guidelines are available for KS. To create the first European Academy of Andrology (EAA) guidelines on KS. An expert group of academicians appointed by the EAA generated a consensus guideline according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Clinical features are highly variable among patients with KS, although common characteristics are severely attenuated spermatogenesis and Leydig cell impairment, resulting in azoospermia and hypergonadotropic hypogonadism. In addition, various manifestations of neurocognitive and psychosocial phenotypes have been described as well as an increased prevalence of adverse cardiovascular, metabolic and bone-related conditions which might explain the increased morbidity/mortality in KS. Moreover, compared to the general male population, a higher prevalence of dental, coagulation and autoimmune disorders is likely to exist in patients with KS. Both genetic and epigenetic effects due to the supernumerary X chromosome as well as testosterone deficiency contribute to this pathological pattern. The majority of patients with KS is diagnosed during adulthood, but symptoms can already become obvious during infancy, childhood or adolescence. The paediatric and juvenile patients with KS require specific attention regarding their development and fertility. These guidelines provide recommendations and suggestions to care for patients with KS in various developmental stages ranging from childhood and adolescence to adulthood. This advice is based on recent research data and respective evaluations as well as validations performed by a group of experts.
Garolla A et al., 2020 · Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) · Free full text on PubMed Central
This expert opinion summarizes current knowledge on risk factors for infertility and identifies a practical clinical and diagnostic approach for the male and female partners of an infertile couple aimed to improve the investigation and management of fertility problems. Infertility represents an important and growing health problem affecting up to 16% of couples worldwide. In most cases, male, female, or combined factor can be identified, and different causes or risk factors have been related to this condition. However, there are no standardized guidelines on the clinical-diagnostic approach of infertile couples and the recommendations concerning infertility are sometimes lacking, incomplete, or problematic to apply. The aim of this work is to provide an appropriate clinical and diagnostic pathway for infertile couples designed by a multidisciplinary-team of experts. The rationale is based on the history and physical examination and then oriented on the basis of initial investigations. This approach could be applied in order to reduce variation in practice and to improve the investigation and management of fertility problems. Prominent Italian experts of the main specialties committed in the ART procedures, including gynecologists, andrologists, embryologists, biologists, geneticists, oncologists, and microbiologists, called "InfertilItaly group", used available evidence to develop this expert position. Starting from the individuation of the principal risk factors that may influence the fertility of females and males and both genders, the work group identified most appropriate procedures using a gradual approach to both partners aimed to obtain a precise diagnosis and the most effective therapeutic option, reducing invasive and occasionally redundant procedures. This expert position provides current knowledge on risk factors and suggests a diagnostic workflow of infertile couples. By using this step-by-step approach, health care workers involved in ART, may individuate a practical clinical management of infertile couples shared by experts.
Ferlin A et al., 2020 · Journal of clinical medicine · Free full text on PubMed Central
About one-fifth of couples has fertility problems in Western countries. Male factors are present in about half of them, either alone or in combination with female causes. Therefore, both partners should be evaluated simultaneously. The fertility status and/or specific conditions of each partner influence the clinical and treatment approach. This article summarizes in a practical way when, how, and why the male partner of an infertile couple should be investigated. The available evidence and international guidelines were used, interpreting, discussing, and expanding them from personal decades-long experience in this field. The aim is to delineate the most appropriate clinical approach for the male partner of infertile couples, considering traditional and emerging technologies and laboratory analyses in the context of their clinical significance. Components of the initial evaluation in men without known risk factors for infertility should include at minimum medical history, physical examination, and semen analysis. Semen microbiological examination, endocrine assessment, scrotal ultrasound, and transrectal ultrasound are suggested in most men and are mandatory when specific risk factors for male infertility are known to be present or when the initial screening demonstrated abnormalities. Full examination, including genetic tests, testicular histology, or additional tests on sperm, is clinically oriented and/or suggested after the results of initial investigations.
