Prediction model for live birth in ICSI using testicular extracted sperm.

STUDY QUESTION: Which parameters have a predictive value for live birth in couples undergoing ICSI after successful testicular sperm extraction (TESE-ICSI)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Female age, a first or subsequent started TESE-ICSI cycle, male LH, male testosterone, motility of the spermatozoa during the ICSI procedure and the initial male diagnosis before performing TESE were identified as relevant and independent parameters for live birth after TESE-ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In reproductive medicine prediction models are used frequently to predict treatment success, but no prediction model currently exists for live birth after TESE-ICSI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study between 2007 and 2015 in two academic hospitals including 1559 TESE-ICSI cycles. The prediction model was developed using data from one centre and validation was performed with data from the second centre. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included couples undergoing ICSI treatment with surgically retrieved sperm from the testis for the first time. In the development set we included 526 couples undergoing 1006 TESE-ICSI cycles. In the validation set we included 289 couples undergoing 553 TESE-ICSI cycles. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed in a stepwise fashion (P < 0.2 for entry). The external validation was based on discrimination and calibration. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 224 couples (22.3%) with a live birth in the development set. The occurrence of a live birth was associated with lower female age, first TESE-ICSI cycle, lower male LH, higher male testosterone, the use of motile spermatozoa for ICSI and having obstructive azoospermia as an initial suspected diagnosis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.62. From validation data, the model had moderate discriminative capacity (c-statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.72) but calibrated well, with a range from 0.06 to 0.56 in calculated probabilities. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We had a lack of data about the motility of spermatozoa during TESE, therefore, we used motility of the spermatozoa used for ICSI after freeze-thawing, information which is only available during treatment. We had to exclude data on paternal BMI in the model because too many missing values in the validation data hindered testing. We did not include a histologic diagnosis, which would have made our data set less heterogeneous and, finally, our model may not be applicable in centres which have a different policy for the indication for performing sperm extraction. The prognostic value of the model is limited because of a low 'area under the curve'. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This model enables the differentiation between couples with a low or high chance to reach a live birth using TESE-ICSI. As such it can aid in the counselling of patients and in clinical decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was partly supported by an unconditional grant from Merck Serono (to D.D.M.B. and K.F.) and by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Merck Serono had no influence in concept, design, nor elaboration of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Prediction model for obtaining spermatozoa with testicular sperm extraction in men with non-obstructive azoospermia.

STUDY QUESTION: Can an externally validated model, based on biological variables, be developed to predict successful sperm retrieval with testicular sperm extraction (TESE) in men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) using a large nationwide cohort? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our prediction model including six variables was able to make a good distinction between men with a good chance and men with a poor chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Using ICSI in combination with TESE even men suffering from NOA are able to father their own biological child. Only in approximately half of the patients with NOA can testicular sperm be retrieved successfully. The few models that have been developed to predict the chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE were based on small datasets and none of them have been validated externally. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a retrospective nationwide cohort study. Data from 1371 TESE procedures were collected between June 2007 and June 2015 in the two fertility centres. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All men with NOA undergoing their first TESE procedure as part of a fertility treatment were included. The primary end-point was the presence of one or more spermatozoa (regardless of their motility) in the testicular biopsies.We constructed a model for the prediction of successful sperm retrieval, using univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis and the dataset from one centre. This model was then validated using the dataset from the other centre. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated and model calibration was assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 599 (43.7%) successful sperm retrievals after a first TESE procedure. The prediction model, built after multivariable logistic regression analysis, demonstrated that higher male age, higher levels of serum testosterone and lower levels of FSH and LH were predictive for successful sperm retrieval. Diagnosis of idiopathic NOA and the presence of an azoospermia factor c gene deletion were predictive for unsuccessful sperm retrieval. The AUC was 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.72). The difference between the mean observed chance and the mean predicted chance was <2.0% in all groups, indicating good calibration. In validation, the model had moderate discriminative capacity (AUC 0.65, 95% CI: 0.62-0.72) and moderate calibration: the predicted probability never differed by more than 9.2% of the mean observed probability. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The percentage of men with Klinefelter syndrome among men diagnosed with NOA is expected to be higher than in our study population, which is a potential selection bias. The ability of the sperm retrieved to fertilize an oocyte and produce a live birth was not tested. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This model can help in clinical decision-making in men with NOA by reliably predicting the chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: This study was partly supported by an unconditional grant from Merck Serono (to D.D.M.B. and K.F.) and by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Merck Serono had no influence in concept, design nor elaboration of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Total motile sperm count: a better indicator for the severity of male factor infertility than the WHO sperm classification system.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the prewash total motile sperm count (TMSC) have a better predictive value for spontaneous ongoing pregnancy (SOP) than the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system? SUMMARY ANSWER: The prewash TMSC shows a better correlation with the spontaneous ongoing pregnancy rate (SOPR) than the WHO 2010 classification system. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: According to the WHO classification system, an abnormal semen analysis can be diagnosed as oligozoospermia, astenozoospermia, teratozoospermia or combinations of these and azoospermia. This classification is based on the fifth percentile cut-off values of a cohort of 1953 men with proven fertility. Although this classification suggests accuracy, the relevance for the prognosis of an infertile couple and the choice of treatment is questionable. The TMSC is obtained by multiplying the sample volume by the density and the percentage of A and B motility spermatozoa. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We analyzed data from a longitudinal cohort study among unselected infertile couples who were referred to three Dutch hospitals between January 2002 and December 2006. Of the total cohort of 2476 infertile couples, only the couples with either male infertility as a single diagnosis or unexplained infertility were included (n = 1177) with a follow-up period of 3 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In all couples a semen analysis was performed. Based on the best semen analysis if more tests were performed, couples were grouped according to the WHO classification system and the TMSC range, as described in the Dutch national guidelines for male infertility. The primary outcome measure was the SOPR, which occurred before, during or after treatments, including expectant management, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. After adjustment for the confounding factors (female and male age, duration and type of infertility and result of the postcoital test) the odd ratios (ORs) for risk of SOP for each WHO and TMSC group were calculated. The couples with unexplained infertility were used as reference. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 514 couples did and 663 couples did not achieve a SOP. All WHO groups have a lower SOPR compared with the unexplained group (ORs varying from 0.136 to 0.397). Comparing the couples within the abnormal WHO groups, there are no significant differences in SOPR, except when oligoasthenoteratozoospermia is compared with asthenozoospermia [OR 0.501 (95% CI 0.311-0.809)] and teratozoospermia [OR 0.499 (95% CI: 0.252-0.988)], and oligoasthenozoospermia is compared with asthenozoospermia [OR 0.572 (95% CI: 0.373-0.877)]. All TMSC groups have a significantly lower SOPR compared with the unexplained group (ORs varying from 0.171 to 0.461). Couples with a TMSC of <1 × 10(6) and 1-5 × 10(6) have significantly lower SOPR compared with couples with a TMSC of 5-10 × 10(6) [respectively, OR 0.371 (95% CI: 0.215-0.64) and OR 0.505 (95% CI: 0.307-0.832)]. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: To include all SOPs during the follow-up period of 3 years, couples were not censured at the start of treatment. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Roughly, three prognostic groups can be discerned: couples with a TMSC <5, couples with a TMSC between 5 and 20 and couples with a TMSC of more than 20 × 10(6) spermatozoa. We suggest using TMSC as the method of choice to express severity of male infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None.

Clitoral involvement of squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva: localization with the worst prognosis.

OBJECTIVE: The overall 5-year survival of patients with vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 70%. The clinical impression is that localization of SCC on the clitoris may lead to worse prognosis. The aim of this study is to assess the disease specific survival (DSS) in patients with clitoral SCC compared to patients with SCC without clitoral involvement. METHODS: All consecutive patients with primary vulvar SCC treated with surgery at the Department of Gynaecologic Oncology at the Radboud university medical centre (Radboudumc) between March 1988 and January 2012, were analysed. The clinical and histopathological characteristics and DSS rates of patients with (N = 72) and without clitoral SCC (N = 275) were compared. Furthermore, patients with clitoral involvement were compared to patients with perineal SCCs (N = 52) and other central SCCs without clitoral and/or perineal involvement (N = 117). RESULTS: Patients with clitoral SCC more often had larger and deeper invaded tumours, lymphovascular space involvement (LVSI), positive surgical margins and a higher percentage of positive lymph nodes. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed worse DSS in patients with a clitoral SCC compared to patients without clitoral involvement. Multivariable analysis showed that not clitoral involvement, but invasion depth, differentiation grade and lymph node status are independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clitoral SCC have worse survival compared to patients without clitoral involvement. This is probably caused by unfavourable histopathological characteristics of the tumour rather than the localization itself. Prospective studies are needed to further assess the influence of localization of the vulvar SCC on prognosis.