Infertile men with semen parameters above WHO reference limits at first assessment may deserve a second semen analysis: Challenging the guidelines in the real-life scenario.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate which infertile men with semen parameters above WHO reference limits at first semen analysis deserve a second semen test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 1358 consecutive infertile men were analysed. Patients underwent two consecutive semen analyses at the same laboratory. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models tested the association between clinical variables and semen parameters. A new predicting model was identified through logistic regression analysis exploring potential predictors of semen parameters below WHO reference limits after a previously normal one. Diagnostic accuracy of the new model was compared with AUA/ASRM and EAU guidelines. Decision curve analyses (DCA) tested their clinical benefit. RESULTS: Of 1358, 212 (15.6%) infertile men had semen parameters above WHO reference limits at first analysis. Of 212, 87 (41.0%) had a second semen analysis with results above WHO reference limits. Men with sperm parameters below reference limits at second analysis had higher FSH values, but lower testicular volume (TV) (all p<0.01) compared to men with a second semen analysis above WHO limits. At multivariable logistic regression analysis, lower TV (OR 0.9, p = 0.03), higher FSH (OR 1.2, p<0.01), and lower total sperm count (OR 0.9, p<0.01) were associated with second semen analyses below WHO limits. DCA showed the superior net benefit of using the new model, compared to both AUA/ASRM and EAU guidelines to identify those men with a second semen sample below WHO limits after a previously normal one. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 60% of infertile men with a first semen analysis above WHO limits have a second analysis with results below limits. The newly identified risk model might be useful to select infertile men with initial semen results above WHO limits who deserve a second semen analysis.

A comprehensive assessment of frailty status on surgical, functional and oncologic outcomes in patients treated with partial nephrectomy-A large, retrospective, single-center study.

BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy (PN) is a challenging procedure, which can be associated with severe complications. In consequence, the search for accurate and independent indicators of unfavorable surgical outcomes appears warranted. We aimed at evaluating the impact of frailty status on surgical, functional and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing PN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: A retrospective, single-center study including 1,282 patients treated with PN for clinically localized cT1 RCC was performed. The modified Frailty Index (mFI) was used to assess preoperative frailty. Multivariable logistic, Poisson and linear regression analyses(MVA) tested the effect of frailty on complications, acute kidney injury(AKI), renal function decline after PN. Cumulative incidence and competing-risk analyses investigated survival outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1,282 patients, 220 (17%) were frail. Overall, 982 (76%) vs. 123 (9.6%) vs. 171 (13%) patients underwent open vs. laparoscopic vs. robot-assisted PN. Median follow-up was 66 (IQR: 35-107) months. At MVA, frailty status predicted increased risk of complications [Odds ratio (OR): 1.46, 95%CI 1.17-1.84; P < 0.001]. Moreover, frail patients were at higher risk of postoperative AKI (OR: 1.95, 95%CI 1.13-3.35; P = 0.01). In frail patients, renal function permanently decreased over time (P = 0.01) without any renal function plateau or improvement during the follow-up, which were instead observed in the nonfrail cohort. At competing-risks analyses, frailty status predicted higher risk of other-cause mortality [Hazard ratio (HR): 1.67, 95%CI 1.05-2.66; P = 0.02], but not of cancer-specific mortality (P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty status predicts higher risk of adverse surgical outcomes after PN. Moreover, greater renal function decline was observed in frail patients, compared with nonfrail patients. Finally, the risk of OCM significantly overcomes the risk of dying due to RCC in frail patients.