Utilization of focal therapy for patients discontinuing active surveillance of prostate cancer: Recommendations of an international Delphi consensus

BACKGROUND: With the advancement of imaging technology, focal therapy (FT) has been gaining acceptance for the treatment of select patients with localized prostate cancer (CaP). We aim to provide details of a formal physician consensus on the utilization of FT for patients with CaP who are discontinuing active surveillance (AS). METHODS: A 3-stage Delphi consensus on CaP and FT was conducted. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥80% of physicians. An in-person meeting was attended by 17 panelists to formulate the consensus statement. RESULTS: Fifty-six respondents participated in this interdisciplinary consensus study (82% urologist, 16% radiologist, 2% radiation oncology). The participants confirmed that there is a role for FT in men discontinuing AS (48% strongly agree, 39% agree). The benefit of FT over radical therapy for men coming off AS is: less invasive (91%), has a greater likelihood to preserve erectile function (91%), has a greater likelihood to preserve urinary continence (91%), has fewer side effects (86%), and has early recovery post-treatment (80%). Patients will need to undergo mpMRI of the prostate and/or a saturation biopsy to determine if they are potential candidates for FT. Our limitations include respondent's biases and that the participants of this consensus may not represent the larger medical community. CONCLUSIONS: FT can be offered to men coming off AS between the age of 60 to 80 with grade group 2 localized cancer. This consensus from a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional, international expert panel provides a contemporary insight utilizing FT for CaP in select patients who are discontinuing AS

Controversy and consensus on indications for sperm DNA fragmentation testing in male infertility: a global survey, current guidelines, and expert recommendations.

PURPOSE: Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) testing was recently added to the sixth edition of the World Health Organization laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Many conditions and risk factors have been associated with elevated SDF; therefore, it is important to identify the population of infertile men who might benefit from this test. The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to indications for SDF testing, compare the relevant professional society guideline recommendations, and provide expert recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to take part in a global online survey on SDF clinical practices. This was conducted following the CHERRIES checklist criteria. The responses were compared to professional society guideline recommendations related to SDF and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations on indications for SDF testing were then formulated, and the Delphi method was used to reach consensus. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 experts from 55 countries. Almost 75% of respondents test for SDF in all or some men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, 39% order it routinely in the work-up of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), and 62.2% investigate SDF in smokers. While 47% of reproductive urologists test SDF to support the decision for varicocele repair surgery when conventional semen parameters are normal, significantly fewer general urologists (23%; p=0.008) do the same. Nearly 70% would assess SDF before assisted reproductive technologies (ART), either always or for certain conditions. Recurrent ART failure is a common indication for SDF testing. Very few society recommendations were found regarding SDF testing. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents the largest global survey on the indications for SDF testing in infertile men, and demonstrates diverse practices. Furthermore, it highlights the paucity of professional society guideline recommendations. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians

Impact of varicocele repair on semen parameters in infertile men: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: Despite the significant role of varicocele in the pathogenesis of male infertility, the impact of varicocele repair (VR) on conventional semen parameters remains controversial. Only a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have evaluated the impact of VR on sperm concentration, total motility, and progressive motility, mostly using a before-after analytic approach. No SRMA to date has evaluated the change in conventional semen parameters after VR compared to untreated controls. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of VR on conventional semen parameters in infertile patients with clinical varicocele compared to untreated controls. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICOS) model (Population: infertile patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: VR [any technique]; Comparison: infertile patients with clinical varicocele that were untreated; Outcome: sperm concentration, sperm total count, progressive sperm motility, total sperm motility, sperm morphology, and semen volume; Study type: randomized controlled trials and observational studies). Results: A total of 1,632 abstracts were initially assessed for eligibility. Sixteen studies were finally included with a total of 2,420 infertile men with clinical varicocele (1,424 patients treated with VR vs. 996 untreated controls). The analysis showed significantly improved post-operative semen parameters in patients compared to controls with regards to sperm concentration (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.739; 95% CI 1.129 to 2.349; p<0.001; I2 =97.6%), total sperm count (SMD 1.894; 95% CI 0.566 to 3.222; p<0.05; I2 =97.8%), progressive sperm motility (SMD 3.301; 95% CI 2.164 to 4.437; p<0.01; I 2 =98.5%), total sperm motility (SMD 0.887; 95% CI 0.036 to 1.738; p=0.04; I2 =97.3%) and normal sperm morphology (SMD 1.673; 95% CI 0.876 to 2.470; p<0.05; I2 =98.5%). All the outcomes showed a high inter-study heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed that no study was sensitive enough to change these results. Publication bias was present only in the analysis of the sperm concentration and progressive motility. No significant difference was found for the semen volume (SMD 0.313; 95% CI -0.242 to 0.868; I2 =89.7%). Conclusions: This study provides a high level of evidence in favor of a positive effect of VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men with clinical varicocele. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to compare changes in conventional semen parameters after VR with changes in parameters of a control group over the same period. This is in contrast to other SRMAs which have compared semen parameters before and after VR, without reference to a control group. Our findings strengthen the available evidence and have a potential to upgrade professional societies’ practice recommendations favoring VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men