Michael L Eisenberg1, Larry I Lipshultz. 1. Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Standford, Palo Alto, CA, USA, eisenberg@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In humans, recent studies have correlated anogenital distance (AGD) in adult men to testicular function. While studies of a group of men suggest an association, the utility of AGD in an infertility evaluation remains uncertain. We sought to determine the utility of AGD to predict male fertility. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2011, men were recruited at a urology clinic to participate. AGD was measured using digital calipers in men being evaluated at a urology clinic. ANOVA and ROC analyses were used to determine correlations between AGD, fatherhood status, and semen parameters. RESULTS: In all, 473 men were included in the analysis with a mean age of 43 ± 13 years. Anogenital distance was significantly longer in men with higher sperm concentration, total sperm count, and total motile sperm count. In order to evaluate the discriminating ability of AGD, ROC curves were created comparing AGD and total testis volume. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly larger for total testis volume compared to AGD when evaluating fertility (0.71 vs 0.63, p = 0.02). Similarly, there was a trend towards a higher AUC for testis volume compared to AGD for sperm concentration and total sperm count. Stratification of men with long/short AGD and large/small testes also did not improve the predictive value of AGD. CONCLUSIONS: While AGD is associated with sperm production on a population level, at the individual level the distinction based AGD alone cannot accurately estimate the efficiency of spermatogenesis.
PURPOSE: In humans, recent studies have correlated anogenital distance (AGD) in adult men to testicular function. While studies of a group of men suggest an association, the utility of AGD in an infertility evaluation remains uncertain. We sought to determine the utility of AGD to predict male fertility. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2011, men were recruited at a urology clinic to participate. AGD was measured using digital calipers in men being evaluated at a urology clinic. ANOVA and ROC analyses were used to determine correlations between AGD, fatherhood status, and semen parameters. RESULTS: In all, 473 men were included in the analysis with a mean age of 43 ± 13 years. Anogenital distance was significantly longer in men with higher sperm concentration, total sperm count, and total motile sperm count. In order to evaluate the discriminating ability of AGD, ROC curves were created comparing AGD and total testis volume. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly larger for total testis volume compared to AGD when evaluating fertility (0.71 vs 0.63, p = 0.02). Similarly, there was a trend towards a higher AUC for testis volume compared to AGD for sperm concentration and total sperm count. Stratification of men with long/short AGD and large/small testes also did not improve the predictive value of AGD. CONCLUSIONS: While AGD is associated with sperm production on a population level, at the individual level the distinction based AGD alone cannot accurately estimate the efficiency of spermatogenesis.
Authors: Luisa Torres-Sanchez; Monica Zepeda; Mariano E Cebrián; Jaime Belkind-Gerson; Rosa M Garcia-Hernandez; Uri Belkind-Valdovinos; Lizbeth López-Carrillo Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Trevor G Cooper; Elizabeth Noonan; Sigrid von Eckardstein; Jacques Auger; H W Gordon Baker; Hermann M Behre; Trine B Haugen; Thinus Kruger; Christina Wang; Michael T Mbizvo; Kirsten M Vogelsong Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Rod T Mitchell; Will Mungall; Chris McKinnell; Richard M Sharpe; Lyndsey Cruickshanks; Laura Milne; Lee B Smith Journal: Endocrinology Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.736
Authors: Ajay Thankamony; Ken K Ong; David B Dunger; Carlo L Acerini; Ieuan A Hughes Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2009-07-13 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Eduardo Salazar-Martinez; Patricia Romano-Riquer; Edith Yanez-Marquez; Matthew P Longnecker; Mauricio Hernandez-Avila Journal: Environ Health Date: 2004-09-13 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: David C Dorman; Weihsueh Chiu; Barbara F Hales; Russ Hauser; Kamin J Johnson; Ellen Mantus; Susan Martel; Karen A Robinson; Andrew A Rooney; Ruthann Rudel; Sheela Sathyanarayana; Susan L Schantz; Katrina M Waters Journal: J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 6.393
Authors: Sander van den Driesche; Karen R Kilcoyne; Ida Wagner; Diane Rebourcet; Ashley Boyle; Rod Mitchell; Chris McKinnell; Sheila Macpherson; Roland Donat; Chitranjan J Shukla; Anne Jorgensen; Ewa Rajpert-De Meyts; Niels E Skakkebaek; Richard M Sharpe Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2017-03-23
Authors: Francesco Cargnelutti; Andrea Di Nisio; Francesco Pallotti; Iva Sabovic; Matteo Spaziani; Maria Grazia Tarsitano; Donatella Paoli; Carlo Foresta Journal: Endocrine Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 3.633