Intra- and inter-individual variability in human sperm concentration, motility and vitality assessment during a workshop involving ten laboratories

Problem This study sought to evaluate the value of motile sperm organelle morphology examination (MSOME) for selecting euploid spermatozoa in six patients who were heterozygous for a reciprocal translocation. Method of study We used sperm fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to screen for aneuploidy of the chromosomes involved in the translocations and a putative interchromosomal effect (ICE) for chromosomes 18, X and Y. This procedure was performed on (i) whole sperm (i.e. no selection) and on normal spermatozoa selected (ii) at a magnification typically used for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), referred to as "ICSIlike", and (iii) with MSOME. Results The balanced translocation rates did not differ significantly (p=0.81) when comparing whole sperm (57.2 %) with spermatozoa after ICSI-like selection (56.3 %) or after MSOME (53.7 %). Similarly, the aneuploidy rates for ICEs did not differ significantly (p=0.14) when comparing whole sperm (1.9 %), ICSI-selected spermatozoa (3.4 %) and MSOME-selected spermatozoa (1.0 %). Conclusion For patients who are heterozygous for reciprocal translocations, MSOME does not improve the selection of euploid spermatozoa.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

High-magnification sperm selection does not decrease the aneuploidy rate in patients who are heterozygous for reciprocal translocations

Chelli

Ferfouri

Boitrelle

et al. 2013

“…They suggested that different count chambers, different dilutions applied for high concentrations and the use of different pipettes could be the reason for this large variation. However, as the highest quantity we analysed was 84.5 millions/ml in comparison with the 20% of samples that had a higher concentration in Auger et al (7), it is reasonable to consider that the dilution factors had less influence in our coefficients of variation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…In a more recent study, Auger et al (7) reported that the variations found in semen analysis are higher when high concentration levels are analysed. They suggested that different count chambers, different dilutions applied for high concentrations and the use of different pipettes could be the reason for this large variation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

External quality control program for semen analysis: Spanish experience

Álvarez

Castilla

Ramírez

et al. 2005

Purpose : Results from an external quality control programme for semen analysis carried out in Spain are analysed. Methods : Quality control materials were distributed and the following seminal parameters were determined: concentration, total motility, progressive motility, rapid progressive motility, morphology and sperm vitality. The between-laboratories coefficients of variation were assessed on different types of quality control material. Results : The majority of participating laboratories utilised manual versus computer-assisted semen analysis methods. Some between-laboratories coefficients of variation ranges were: 20.8-33.8% for concentration (semen pool suspension); 13.9-19.2% for total motility (videotapes); 54.2-70.2% for sperm morphology (strict criteria using stained smears); and 9.8-41.1% for sperm vitality (stained smears). There was an inverse relation between mean percentage of sperm and coefficients of variation between laboratories for sperm motility, morphology and vitality. Conclusions : These data highlight the urgent need for improvement in the overall quality of andrology testing.

“…Most laboratories manually assess semen under a microscope. However, conventional manual semen analysis has limitations, as illustrated by studies demonstrating inter-lab variability engendering discordant results that can cause inappropriate diagnosis or delayed treatment of infertile couples [3]. Keel et al (2000) analyzed the results of the American Association of Bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double-blind prospective study comparing two automated sperm analyzers versus manual semen assessment

Lammers¹,

Splingart

Barrière

et al. 2013

Purpose Despite controversy regarding its clinical value, male fertility investigation mainly relies on semen analysis. Even though reference guidelines are available, manual sperm analysis still suffers from analytical variability, thus questioning the interest of automated sperm analysis systems. The aim of this study is to compared automated computerized semen analysis systems (SQA-V GOLD and CASA CEROS) to the conventional manual method in terms of accuracy and precision. Methods We included 250 men in this double-blind prospective study. The SQA-V GOLD (Medical Electronic Systems) and CEROS, CASA system (Hamilton Thorne) were compared to the standard manual assessment based on the WHO 5th Edition. The main outcome measures were sperm concentration, total sperm number, total motility, progressive motility, non-progressive motility, morphology, motile sperm concentration (MSC) and progressively motile sperm concentration (PMSC) with the three methods. Results Statistical analysis of the test results from the automated systems and the manual method demonstrated no significant differences for most of the semen parameters. The Spearman coefficients of rank correlation (rho) for CASA and the SQA-V GOLD automated systems vs. the manual method were: Sperm concentration (0.95 and 0.95), total sperm number (0.95 and 0.95), MSC (0.94 and 0.96) and PMSC (0.94 and 0.93) correspondingly. Concerning sperm morphology, both automated systems demonstrated high specificity (Sp) and negative predictive values (NPV), despite significantly different medians (CASA: 83.7 % for Sp and 95.2 % for NPV, SQA-V: 97.9 % for Sp and 92.5 %). The highest precision (lowest 95 % confidence interval for duplicate tests) for all semen variables was found in the SQA-V GOLD. Conclusions The advantages of using automated semen analysers are: Standardization, speed (lower turnaround time), precision, reduced potential for human error, automated data recording and less need for highly skilled professionals to run the systems. The disadvantages of using automated systems are: notably the problem with testing some atypical samples and the inability to perform an assessment of morphology abnormalities. Based on the results of this study, the SQA-V Gold demonstrated better agreement vs. the manual method. In conclusion, automated semen analyzers can be used for routine semen analysis providing rapid clinically acceptable results with higher precision, and positively impacting laboratory standardization.