Extensive Assessment of Underlying Etiological Factors in Primary Infertile Men Reduces the Proportion of Men With Idiopathic Infertility.

Objective: Up to 40% of infertile men remain without a recognized cause (i.e., idiopathic infertility). We aimed to identify, categorize, and report the supposed causes of male infertility in a cohort of white-European men presenting for primary couple's infertility, by using a thorough and extensive baseline diagnostic work-up. Material and Methods: Cross-sectional study of 1,174 primary infertile men who underwent a thorough diagnostic work-up including: detailed medical history, physical examination, hormonal assessment, genetic testing, semen analyses; semen and urine cultures; testis color Duplex US. Men without any identified causal factor were considered as idiopathic. Six different etiological categories were established, and their prevalence was estimated. Logistic regression models estimated the risk of missing causal identification. Results: A possible causal factor was identified in 928 (81%) men. Hypogonadism was the most frequent identified cause (37%), followed by varicocele (27%). Genetic abnormalities were found in 5% of patients. A causal factor was more easily identifiable for the more severe infertility cases, and azoospermic men were those less likely to be defined as idiopathic (OR and 95% CIs: 0.09; 0.04-0.20). Relative proportion of identified causes remained constant during the 10-year study period (p>0.43). Conclusions: Due to a more comprehensive and extensive diagnostic work-up, at least one underlying cause of male infertility factor in 4 out of 5 infertile men can be identified. Men with a less severe phenotype remain a clinical challenge in terms of establishing a possible etiologic factor. Further studies are needed to assess which subset of infertile men deserves a more extensive work-up.

When to perform lymph node dissection in patients with renal cell carcinoma: a novel approach to the preoperative assessment of risk of lymph node invasion at surgery and of lymph node progression during follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To identify preoperatively patients who might benefit from lymph node dissection (LND). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed lymph node invasion (LNI) at final pathology and lymph node (LN) progression during the follow-up for 1983 patients with RCC, treated with either partial or radical nephrectomy. LN progression was defined as the onset of a new clinically detected lymphadenopathy (>10 mm) in the retroperitoneal lymphatic area. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the effect of each potential clinical predictor (age, body mass index, tumour side, symptoms, performance status, clinical tumour size, clinical tumour-node-metastasis stage, and albumin, calcium, creatinine, haemoglobin and platelet levels) on the outcome of interest. The most parsimonious multivariable predictive model was developed, and discrimination, calibration and net benefit were calculated. RESULTS: The prevalence of LNI was 6.1% (120/1983 patients) and during the follow-up period, 82 patients (4.1%) experienced LN progression. On multivariable analyses, the most informative independent predictors were tumour stage (cT3-4 vs cT1-2, odds ratio [OR] 1.52, P = 0.05), clinical nodal status [cN1 vs cN0, OR 7.09, P < 0.001], metastases at diagnosis (OR 3.04, P < 0.001) and clinical tumour size (OR 1.14, P < 0.001). The accuracy of the multivariable model was found to be 86.9%, with excellent calibration and net benefit at decision-curve analyses. CONCLUSIONS: By relying on a unique approach, combining the risk of harbouring LNI and/or LN progression during the follow-up period, we have provided the first clinical presurgery model predicting the need for LND.