No abstract

Alcohol consumption is widespread in the Western world. Some studies have suggested a negative association between alcohol intake and semen quality although others have not confirmed this. MEDLINE and Embase were searched using 'alcohol intake' OR 'alcohol consumption' OR 'alcohol drinking' OR 'lifestyle' combined with 'semen quality' OR 'sperm quality' OR 'sperm volume' OR 'sperm concentration' OR 'sperm motility' for full-length observational articles, published in English. Reference lists of retrieved articles were searched for other pertinent studies. Main outcome measures were sperm parameters, if provided as means (standard deviation or standard error) or as medians (interquartile range). Fifteen cross-sectional studies were included, with 16,395 men enrolled. Main results showed that alcohol intake has a detrimental effect on semen volume (pooled estimate for no/low alcohol consumption 0.25 ml, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.42) and normal morphology (1.87%, 95% CI, 0.86 to 2.88%). The difference was more marked when comparing occasional versus daily consumers, rather than never versus occasional, suggesting a moderate consumption did not adversely affect semen parameters. Hence, studies evaluating the effect of changes on semen parameters on the reproductive outcomes are needed in advance of providing recommendations regarding alcohol intake other than the advice to avoid heavy alcohol drinking.

No abstract

Fertility issues have become critical in the management and counseling of BRCA mutation carriers. In this setting four points deserve consideration. (1) Women in general lose their ability to conceive at a mean age of 41 years, thus the suggested policy of prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at age 40 for BRCA mutation carriers does not affect the chances of natural pregnancy. Conversely, if the procedure is chosen at 35 years old, oocyte cryopreservation prior to surgery should be considered. (2) Some evidence suggests that ovarian reserve may actually be partly reduced in BRCA mutations carriers and that the mutation may affect ovarian responsiveness to stimulation. However, these findings are still controversial. (3) Breast cancer is not rare before the age of 40 and fertility preservation after diagnosis can be requested in a significant proportion of BRCA mutation carriers. Thus, a policy of oocyte cryopreservation in young healthy carriers deserves consideration. The procedure could be considered at a young age and in an elective setting, when ovarian stimulation may yield more oocytes of better quality. (4) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) could be considered in BRCA mutations carriers, particularly when good quality oocytes have been stored at a young age. Based on the current knowledge, a univocal approach cannot be recommended; in depth patient counseling is warranted.