Search

STUDY QUESTION: Twenty years after the inception of the first fertility preservation programme for pre-pubertal boys, what are the current international practices with regard to cryopreservation of immature testicular tissue? SUMMARY ANSWER: Worldwide, testicular tissue has been cryopreserved from over 3000 boys under the age of 18 years for a variety of malignant and non-malignant indications; there is variability in practices related to eligibility, clinical assessment, storage, and funding. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: For male patients receiving gonadotoxic treatment prior to puberty, testicular tissue cryopreservation may provide a method of fertility preservation. While this technique remains experimental, an increasing number of centres worldwide are cryopreserving immature testicular tissue and are approaching clinical application of methods to use this stored tissue to restore fertility. As such, standards for quality assurance and clinical care in preserving immature testicular tissue should be established. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A detailed survey was sent to 17 centres within the recently established ORCHID-NET consortium, which offer testicular tissue cryopreservation to patients under the age of 18 years. The study encompassed 60 questions and remained open from 1 July to 1 November 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Of the 17 invited centres, 16 completed the survey, with representation from Europe, Australia, and the USA. Collectively, these centres have cryopreserved testicular tissue from patients under the age of 18 years. Data are presented using descriptive analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Since the establishment of the first formal fertility preservation programme for pre-pubertal males in 2002, these 16 centres have cryopreserved tissue from 3118 patients under the age of 18 years, with both malignant (60.4%) and non-malignant (39.6%) diagnoses. All centres perform unilateral biopsies, while 6/16 sometimes perform bilate

Currently, most men with infertility cannot be given an aetiology, which reflects a lack of knowledge around gamete production and how it is affected by genetics and the environment. A failure to recognize the burden of male infertility and its potential as a biomarker for systemic illness exists. The absence of such knowledge results in patients generally being treated as a uniform group, for whom the strategy is to bypass the causality using medically assisted reproduction (MAR) techniques. In doing so, opportunities to prevent co-morbidity are missed and the burden of MAR is shifted to the woman. To advance understanding of men's reproductive health, longitudinal and multi-national centres for data and sample collection are essential. Such programmes must enable an integrated view of the consequences of genetics, epigenetics and environmental factors on fertility and offspring health. Definition and possible amelioration of the consequences of MAR for conceived children are needed. Inherent in this statement is the necessity to promote fertility restoration and/or use the least invasive MAR strategy available. To achieve this aim, protocols must be rigorously tested and the move towards personalized medicine encouraged. Equally, education of the public, governments and clinicians on the frequency and consequences of infertility is needed. Health options, including male contraceptives, must be expanded, and the opportunities encompassed in such investment understood. The pressing questions related to male reproductive health, spanning the spectrum of andrology are identified in the Expert Recommendation.

Biomedical science is rapidly developing in terms of more transparency, openness and reproducibility of scientific publications. This is even more important for all studies that are based on results from basic semen examination. Recently two concordant documents have been published: the 6th edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, and the International Standard ISO 23162:2021. With these tools, we propose that authors should be instructed to follow these laboratory methods in order to publish studies in peer-reviewed journals, preferable by using a checklist as suggested in an Appendix to this article. VC The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Item does not contain fulltext, Biomedical science is rapidly developing in terms of more transparency, openness and reproducibility of scientific publications. This is even more important for all studies that are based on results from basic semen examination. Recently two concordant documents have been published: the 6th edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, and the International Standard ISO 23162:2021. With these tools, we propose that authors should be instructed to follow these laboratory methods in order to publish studies in peer-reviewed journals, preferable by using a checklist as suggested in an Appendix to this article.

Background Recent findings demonstrate that single nucleotide variants can cause non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA). In contrast, copy number variants (CNVs) were only analysed in few studies in infertile men. Some have reported a higher prevalence of CNVs in infertile versus fertile men. Objectives This study aimed to elucidate if CNVs are associated with NOA. Materials and methods We performed array-based comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) in 37 men with meiotic arrest, 194 men with Sertoli cell-only phenotype, and 21 control men. We filtered our data for deletions affecting genes and prioritised the affected genes according to the literature search. Prevalence of CNVs was compared between all groups. Exome data of 2,030 men were screened to detect further genetic variants in prioritised genes. Modelling was performed for the protein encoded by the novel candidate gene TEKT5 and we stained for TEKT5 in human testicular tissue. Results We determined the cause of infertility in two individuals with homozygous deletions of SYCE1 and in one individual with a heterozygous deletion of SYCE1 combined with a likely pathogenic missense variant on the second allele. We detected heterozygous deletions affecting MLH3, EIF2B2, SLX4, CLPP and TEKT5, in one subject each. CNVs were not detected more frequently in infertile men compared with controls. Discussion While SYCE1 and MLH3 encode known meiosis-specific proteins, much less is known about the proteins encoded by the other identified candidate genes, warranting further analyses. We were able to identify the cause of infertility in one out of the 231 infertile men by aCGH and in two men by using exome sequencing data. Conclusion As aCGH and exome sequencing are both expensive methods, combining both in a clinical routine is not an effective strategy. Instead, using CNV calling from exome data has recently become more precise, potentially making aCGH dispensable.