295 couples conceived without IVF after an abnormal semen analysis
In a Rome university clinic's review of its past cases, couples with abnormal semen results conceived without IVF. Among 453 pregnancies in 2935 infertile couples, 295 followed an abnormal semen analysis, about 65 out of 100. Both partners were evaluated.
Key Findings
Of 453 pregnancies among 2935 infertile couples, 295 (65%) followed a semen analysis with at least one altered parameter. Normal semen analysis was present in 158 patients (35%).
Doctors identified a cause of male infertility in 314 patients (69% of the pregnancies). Two causes appeared together in 39 patients.
Sperm count below WHO reference values occurred in 116 patients (26% of the pregnancies): 13 mild, 71 moderate and 32 severe oligospermia.
Reduction in all three semen measures (oligoasthenoteratospermia) preceded 41 pregnancies (9%). Isolated asthenospermia preceded 123 (27%), and isolated teratospermia preceded 19 (4%).
In 52 patients who had varicocele repair, sperm concentration and normal morphology rose significantly afterward. Motility rose by a nonsignificant amount.
Interpretation
The study is a single-center review of past cases. Only couples who conceived are included, so the paper gives no pregnancy rate for any semen group and has no comparison group. Men received treatments for a cause or empirical treatments. Every pregnancy occurred within 48 months of the first visit. The authors conclude that semen analysis cannot cleanly separate fertile from infertile men. The introduction notes, citing earlier work, that a woman's fertility may compensate for a partner's reduced fertility.
RRM Context
Restorative reproductive medicine evaluates both partners and looks for the cause of infertility. At the Rome clinic, a team of three specialties assessed each couple. Its ethics guidelines excluded IVF. The authors cite male factor as the sole cause in about 20% of infertile couples. They cite it as a contributor in another 30 to 40%.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
Background
Infertility is both a clinical and a public problem, affecting the life of the couple, the healthcare services, and social environment. Standard semen analysis is the surrogate measure of male fertility in clinical practice.
Objective
To provide information about the relationship between semen parameters and spontaneous conception.
Methods
We evaluated retrospectively 453 pregnancies that occurred among 2935 infertile couples evaluated at an infertility clinic of a tertiary-care university hospital, between 2004 and 2009.
Results
Normal semen analysis was present only in 158 patients; 295 subfertile patients showed alterations in at least one seminal parameter. A reduction in all seminal parameters was observed in 41 patients. Etiological causes of male infertility were identified in 314 patients.
Conclusion
Our data highlights the possibility of a spontaneous conception with semen parameters below WHO reference values. Therefore, we support the importance of defining reference values on a population of fertile men. Finally, we analyzed the related ethical issues.
Grande G et al., 2026·The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism·Free to read
Male factor infertility (MFI) is frequently labelled idiopathic when evaluation relies primarily on semen analysis, potentially overlooking endocrine and pathophysiological mechanisms relevant for targeted management.
To phenotypically define MFI and develop a pathophysiology-based classification aimed at reducing idiopathic infertility following comprehensive evaluation.
Prospective monocentric cohort study conducted at a tertiary referral academic centre.
Eight hundred male partners of infertile couples evaluated between October 2024 and January 2026 after exclusion of isolated female factor infertility.
Prevalence of MFI categories, hormonal patterns across phenotypes, and proportion of idiopathic infertility after comprehensive work-up.
All patients underwent standardized clinical evaluation, hormonal assessment (total testosterone, FSH, LH), testicular ultrasound, and complete semen analysis. Microbiological testing, transrectal ultrasound, and genetic analyses were performed according to guidelines.
Primary spermatogenic failure was the most prevalent category (56.0%), followed by infection/inflammation (22.4%) and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (8.5%). Idiopathic infertility was identified in only 5.3% of cases. Distinct endocrine profiles were observed, with high-FSH spermatogenic failure representing the dominant phenotype.
Comprehensive phenotyping markedly reduces the proportion of patients classified as having idiopathic infertility and identifies clinically relevant subgroups. This prospective study provides validation of a pathophysiology-based classification and supports a shift toward endocrine-integrated diagnostic strategies in male infertility, with potential implications for targeted management.
Rocca MS et al., 2026·Journal of translational medicine·Free to read
Standard semen analysis has little prognostic value in distinguishing fertile from infertile men. Furthermore, in men with semen parameters within the reference ranges, it cannot distinguish fertile men from infertile men, i.e. partners of couples with idiopathic infertility. Oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, sperm telomere shortening, and DNA fragmentation have been proposed as contributors to impaired male fertility. However, these biomarkers have not been evaluated as a whole in subjects with normal semen parameters, partners of fertile and infertile couples.
To characterise a multidimensional panel of sperm biomarkers-including sperm telomere length (STL), mitochondrial DNA copy number (mtDNAcn), reactive oxygen species (ROS), lipid peroxidation (LP), sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD), and respiratory control ratio (RCR)-and to identify whether these parameters might discriminate, in men with normal semen parameters, infertile men from fertile controls.
A total of 150 men with semen parameters within the normal ranges were enrolled: 47 male partners of couples with idiopathic infertility and 103 fertile controls. STL and mtDNAcn were quantified by qPCR; ROS were assessed using OxiSperm®II with semiquantitative imaging; LP was measured spectrophotometrically in seminal plasma; SCD was used to determine DNA fragmentation; and mitochondrial function was evaluated by oxygen consumption and RCR. Correlations between biomarkers and semen parameters were analysed using Pearson or Spearman coefficients, and intergroup comparisons were adjusted for age.
Semen parameters did not differ significantly between male partners of fertile and infertile couples. compared to men of fertile couples, men of infertile couples exhibited significantly shorter STL (0.57 ± 0.59 vs 1.21 ± 1.13, p_adj = 0.001) and higher oxidative stress, with both ROS (8300.9 ± 4214.8 vs 6555.3 ± 3394.3, p_adj = 0.027) and LP (88.33 ± 55.50 vs 40.29 ± 46.98, p_adj < 0.001) markedly elevated. mtDNAcn, SCD, and RCR showed no difference between the groups. Across the entire cohort, STL correlated negatively with ROS and LP and positively with RCR. ROS correlated negatively with total sperm count, motility and RCR, and positively with LP. LP displayed the strongest pattern of associations, correlating negatively with concentration, total count, motility, STL and RCR, and positively with age and volume.
Among men with normal semen analysis, partners of couples with idiopathic infertility exhibit a distinct sperm molecular profile characterised by telomere shortening and oxidative imbalance. STL, ROS and LP emerged as age-independent biomarkers associated with infertility status and showed promising discriminatory ability in this cohort, supporting their integration as second-level tests to complement routine semen analysis in cases of normozoospermia.
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.
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.
Nedelcu S et al., 2024·Hum Reprod Open·Free full text on PubMed Central
Can semen parameters predict long-term health outcomes in men? There is a lack of evidence to suggest a higher risk of comorbidities in men with poor semen concentration. Male infertility has been long associated with a higher mortality risk and possibly higher chance of developing comorbidities but there has been less focus on semen analysis as a potential predictive factor. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM databases from inception to December 2023. MESH term strategy: heading 1 ('OR', semen analysis, sperm count, sperm parameter*, male infertility, azoospermia, aspermia, oligospermia, teratozoospermia, asthenozoospermia) 'AND' heading 2 ('OR', morbidity, mortality, diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular, death, hypertension, stroke, long-term health). We included all studies that analyzed the risk of mortality and/or future development of comorbidities in men with at least one semen analysis. Case series and reviews were excluded. A narrative synthesis was done for all studies and meta-analysis where possible. Odds ratio (ORs) (95% CI, P-value) were calculated for all men with one suboptimal semen parameter and associated with the risk of a particular outcome. The risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2. MAIN Twenty-one studies were finally included. There was either a high or unclear risk of bias in all studies. The results only allowed for meta-analysis on categories of sperm concentration. We found a 2-fold increase in mortality risk in azoospermic men compared to oligospermic (OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.29-2.96) and normozoospermic (OR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.23-3.25) groups, but not in oligospermic compared to normozoospermic (OR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.52-2.09). There was no difference in risk of cardiovascular disease in any of the sperm concentration groups (azoospermic-oligospermic OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.74-1.20, azoospermic-normozoospermic OR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.71-1.75, and oligospermic-normozoospermic OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.80-1.55). OR for diabetes in azoospermic men was higher only compared to oligospermic (OR 2.16, 95% CI: 1.55-3.01). The risk of all-site cancer was higher in azoospermic men compared to oligospermic (OR 2.16, 95% CI: 1.55-3.01) and normozoospermic (OR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.20-3.96). Only azoospermic men might be at higher risk of testicular cancer when compared to men with normal sperm concentration (OR 1.80, 95% CI: 1.12-2.89). LIMITATIONS Although our pooled analysis shows an increased risk of mortality and all-site cancer risk in azoospermic men, the results show a lack of evidence to suggest a higher risk of comorbidities in men with poor semen concentration. Given the limited available data, the nature of the studies, and the high risk of bias, the results should be interpreted with caution. There is not enough data to confirm the usability of semen analysis as a predictor of poor long-term health in men, especially within the general population. No funding was obtained for this study. A.M. has received funding from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Pharmasure, and Cook Medical to attend medical conferences; has been a participant in an advisory board for Ferring; and has given an invited lecture for a Merck Serono advisory board. S.N. has received funding for medical conference attendance from Ferring and Cook Medical. PROSPERO No. CRD42024507563.
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).
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.
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.
Male Fertility › Semen Analysis › Reference Standards
L De Marinis
PMID 22319527 22319527 DOI 10.1155/2012/649149 10.1155/2012/649149 Milardi et al. 2012, Milardi 2012
03h7r5v07