Male Fertility · Male Factor Treatment
Mazzilli R, Rucci C, Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Ubaldi FM, Foresta C, Ferlin A
Cite this paper
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
Open access
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Open Access
Free full text on PubMed Central (PMC10185595)
Author affiliations
1 institution
00240q980 Linked to ROR, the Research Organization Registry
Infertility, which is defined as the inability to conceive after at least 12 months of regular unprotected sexual intercourses, affects about 15-20% of couples worldwide and a male factor is involved in about half of the cases. The development of assisted reproductive technology (ART) made it possible to conceive also to individuals affected from severe oligospermia or azoospermia. However, the impact of the male factor on embryo development, implantation, prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities, genetic and epigenetic alterations, and clinical and obstetric outcomes is still controversial.
This narrative review examines the indications, minimum access criteria, and outcomes by individual ART technique in relation to the male factor.
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.
Santi D et al., 2025 · Journal of endocrinological investigation · Free full text on PubMed Central
Infertility is defined as the inability to conceive after 1 year of unprotected intercourse, affecting approximately 15-20% of couples in Western countries. It is a shared problem within the couple; when the main issue lies with one of the partners, it is preferable to refer to "male factor" or "female factor" infertility rather than simply male or female infertility. Despite male factor infertility accounting for half of all couple infertility cases, the clinical approach to the male partner is not uniformly standardized across international guidelines. To provide an expert overview, we have comprehensively reviewed and critically analyzed the most up-to-date literature on this sensitive topic, leading to the development of a proposal for tailored assessment of the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway and preventive strategies. The diagnostic approach also considers that infertile men are objectively less healthy than their fertile counterparts of the same age and ethnicity. This article discusses the diagnostic flow, the classification of male factor infertility, the definition of idiopathic infertility, the involvement of general health, and treatment recommendations, emphasizing follicle-stimulating hormone treatment in selected groups of patients. We provide expert opinion on current drawbacks and future perspectives in this field, with practical advice for the clinical practice of general practitioners and expert in reproductive medicine.
Leslie SW et al., 2024 · StatPearls [Internet]
Infertility is usually defined as the inability of a couple to conceive even after 1 year of unprotected, frequent sexual intercourse. It affects about 15% of all couples in the United States and at least 180 million couples worldwide. Male infertility is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the inability of a male to make a fertile female pregnant for a minimum of at least 1 year of regular unprotected intercourse. The male is solely responsible for about 20% of cases and is a contributing factor in another 30% to 40% of all infertility cases. As male and female causes often co-exist, it is essential that both partners are investigated for infertility and managed together. Overall, the male factor substantially contributes to about 50% of all cases of infertility. There are several reasons for male fertility, including both reversible and irreversible conditions. Other factors can influence each partner, including age, medications, surgical history, exposure to environmental toxins, genetic problems, and systemic diseases. The key purpose for evaluating a male for infertility is to identify his contributing factors, offer treatment for those that are reversible, determine if he is a candidate for assisted reproductive techniques (ART), and provide counseling for irreversible and untreatable conditions. Up to 6% of men evaluated for male infertility will be found to have more serious underlying pathology, such as cancer. This is an additional reason to do a comprehensive evaluation of the male partners of infertile couples so that any significant, underlying medical conditions can be identified and treated.
Grande G et al., 2025 · Andrology · Free full text on PubMed Central
In infertile couples whose male partner has alterations in semen parameters frequently, a comprehensive andrological approach is lacking and approximately 30-50% are classified as idiopathic infertility. These couples are often directly addressed to assisted reproduction techniques (ARTs). However, several clinical conditions may benefit from medical treatment. By acting on etiology and/or risk factors, this aims at improving seminal parameters and restoring natural fertility. To verify the impact of a comprehensive andrological assessment on the management of infertility (in particular, in couples with isolated male factor infertility) using as the primary outcome the natural pregnancy rate. A multicenter retrospective study was conducted between 2015 and 2022 in 1014 couples with primary infertility seeking natural conception (including 266 couples with previous ART failure). Each couple underwent a multidisciplinary evaluation. This involved: a gynecologist and an andrologist both with expertise in infertility, a psychologist when requested, and a fertility awareness practitioner according to a unique diagnostic and therapeutic multidisciplinary protocol. An isolated male factor was found in 23% of couples. In 45%, it was associated with female factors also. The comprehensive diagnostic approach reduced the proportion of idiopathic infertility to 8% of the couples. Targeted treatment, based on diagnostic categories, was associated with spontaneous pregnancy in 40.9% of the couples. In the 233 cases without female factors, normal semen parameters were observed only in 13% of patients. Male genital tract inflammation was observed in 48.8% of the patients, genital tract infection in 43.1%, and hypospermatogenesis in 16.7%. Patients with infections were treated with antibiotics and probiotics. If further inflammation was documented, this was followed by low-dose corticosteroids and antioxidants. Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) treatment was used in patients with hypospermatogenesis, and varicocele repair surgery was performed in four patients. Our data underline the efficacy of a comprehensive approach to the diagnostic process of male factor infertility, both in reducing the percentage of idiopathic infertility and in restoring natural fertility based on a targeted treatment.
Ferlin A, 2017 · Translational andrology and urology · Free full text on PubMed Central
In Western countries, approximately 15% of couples are infertile as defined by inability to conceive after one year of unprotected intercourse. Male factors are present in about half of infertile couples, either alone or in combination with female causes. Although many progresses have been made in last years in the field of human reproduction, male fertility and assisted reproduction techniques, both in basic research and diagnostic tools, standard semen analysis remains the mainstream for further decision-making investigations in infertile males. Indeed, semen analysis, when correctly executed following World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines (1), gives clinically important information not only on the fertility potential of a man but also on the general health status of the male reproductive tract. What it is erroneously thought is that diagnosis of male (in) fertility is completed after just semen analysis. Technology and assisted reproduction erroneously prompted the concept that full medical investigation for infertile men is not necessary and male infertility is often defined only based on semen analysis. Indeed, male infertility can be caused by a variety of aetiologies, and semen parameters merely represent the end point of different pathophysiologic mechanisms (2,3).