No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Open Access
Free full text on PubMed Central (PMC5643723)
RRM Academy Synopsis
Sperm DNA fragmentation tests lack evidence for routine use
A 2017 editorial says the value of sperm DNA damage tests is still debatable and lacks clinical evidence. Leading medical groups do not recommend them for infertile men. A semen test alone cannot finish the diagnosis.
Key Findings
About 15% of couples in Western countries are infertile, meaning no pregnancy after a year without contraception. Male factors are involved in about half of these couples, alone or alongside female causes.
Semen analysis reports fertility potential and the health of the testes and seminal tract. The author says it gives no diagnosis of cause, so no therapy should start from it alone.
AUA, EAU, NICE and ASRM do not recommend sperm DNA fragmentation testing in the evaluation of the infertile male. Randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trials on the topic are lacking.
Agarwal and colleagues suggest testing for varicocele, unexplained infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, recurrent ART failure and lifestyle risks. Their evidence grade is very low, mostly grade C, from weak study designs.
Interpretation
The paper is a single-author commentary. It reports no new patient data and rests on the author's reading of the literature and a companion article by Agarwal and colleagues. The author states that the different tests assess different kinds of DNA damage, that standardization has not been reached for some of them, and that little is known about how much damage an egg can repair. The author's own view is that testing could add information, especially in men with normal semen parameters, after a careful diagnostic approach.
RRM Context
The author describes male infertility as having many causes. Semen results are the end point of different mechanisms. Restorative reproductive medicine looks at both partners to find causes before treatment starts. A semen test is one input.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
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).
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.
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.
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.
Esteves SC et al., 2020·Andrologia·Free full text on PubMed Central
We herein summarise the evidence concerning the impact of sperm DNA fragmentation in various clinical infertility scenarios and the advances on sperm DNA fragmentation tests. The collected evidence was used to formulate 41 recommendations. Of these, 13 recommendations concern technical aspects of sperm DNA fragmentation testing, including pre-analytical information, clinical thresholds and interpretation of results. The remaining 28 recommendations relate to indications for sperm DNA fragmentation testing and clinical management. Clinical scenarios like varicocele, unexplained infertility, idiopathic infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection, fertility counselling for men with infertility risk factors and sperm cryopreservation have been contemplated. The bulk evidence supporting the recommendations has increased in recent years, but it is still of moderate to low quality. This guideline provides clinicians with advice on best practices in sperm DNA fragmentation testing. Also, recommendations are provided on possible management strategies to overcome infertility related to sperm DNA fragmentation, based on the best available evidence. Lastly, we identified gaps in knowledge and opportunities for research and elaborated a list of recommendations to stimulate further investigation.
Milardi D et al., 2012·International journal of endocrinology·Free full text on PubMed Central
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.
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.
Male Fertility › Semen Analysis › Sperm Function Testing
PMID 29082189 29082189 DOI 10.21037/tau.2017.06.10 10.21037/tau.2017.06.10 Ferlin et al. 2017, Ferlin 2017