PSA levels of 4.0 - 10 ng/ml and negative digital rectal examination: antibiotic therapy versus immediate prostate biopsy

Purpose: The management of mildly elevated (4.0-10.0 ng/ml) prostate specific antigen (PSA) is uncertain. Immediate prostate biopsy, antibiotic treatment, or short term monitoring PSA level for 1-3 months is still in controversy. Material and Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients in a large community practice (2003 - 2007) who had PSA levels between 4.0-10 ng/mL without any further evidence of infection. Data was gathered regarding patient's age, whether standard antibiotic therapy (10-14 days of ofloxacin or ciprofloxacin) had been administered before the second PSA measurement, results of a second PSA test performed at 1- to 2-month intervals, whether a prostate biopsy was performed and its result. Results: One-hundred and thirty-five men met the study inclusion criteria with 65 (48.1 percent) having received antibiotics (group 1); the PSA levels decreased in 39 (60 percent) of which, sixteen underwent a biopsy which demonstrated prostate cancer in 4 (25 percent). Twenty-six (40 percent) patients of group 1 exhibited no decrease in PSA levels; seventeen of them underwent a biopsy that demonstrated cancer in 2 (12 percent). The other 70 (51.9 percent) patients were not treated with antibiotics (group 2); the PSA levels decreased in 42 (60 percent) of which, thirteen underwent a biopsy which demonstrated prostate cancer in 4 (31 percent). In the other 28 (40 percent) patients of group 2 there was no demonstrated decrease in PSA, nineteen of these subjects underwent a biopsy that demonstrated cancer in 8 (42 percent). Conclusions: There appears to be no advantage for administration of antibacterial therapy with initial PSA levels between 4-10 ng/mL without overt evidence of inflammation.

Wet heat exposure: a potentially reversible cause of low semen quality in infertile men

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the recovery of semen quality in a cohort of infertile men after known hyperthermic exposure to hot tubs, hot baths or whirlpool baths. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive cohort of infertile men had a history remarkable for wet heat exposure in the forms of hot tubs, Jacuzzi or hot baths. Clinical characteristics and exposure parameters were assessed before exposure was discontinued, and semen parameters analyzed before and after discontinuation of hyperthermic exposure. A significant seminal response to withdrawal of hyperthermia was defined as > 200 percent increase in the total motile sperm count (TMC = volume x concentration x motile fraction) during follow-up after cessation of wet heat exposure. RESULTS: Eleven infertile men (mean age 36.5 years, range 31-44) exposed to hyperthermia were evaluated pre and post-exposure. Five patients (45 percent) responded favorably to cessation of heat exposure and had a mean increase in total motile sperm counts of 491 percent. This increase was largely the result of a statistically significant increase in sperm motility from a mean of 12 percent at baseline to 34 percent post-intervention (p = 0.02). Among non-responders, a smoking history revealed a mean of 5.6 pack-years, compared to 0.11 pack-years among responders. The prevalence of varicoceles was similar in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The toxic effect of hyperthermia on semen quality may be reversible in some infertile men. We observed that the seminal response to exposure elimination varies biologically among individuals and can be profound in magnitude. Among non-responders, other risk factors that could explain a lack of response to elimination of hyperthermia should be considered.

Definition and current evaluation of subfertile men

Male infertility affects 10 percent of reproductive aged couples worldwide and is treatable in many cases. In addition to other well-described etiologies, genetic causes of male infertility are now more commonly diagnosed. Using principles of evidence-based medicine, this review outlines diagnostic and treatments options to inform clinical management. In order of importance, randomized controlled clinical trials, basic scientific studies, meta-analyses, case-controlled cohort studies, best-practice policy recommendations and reviews from peer-reviewed literature were incorporated that provide organized and timely guidelines to the current management of male infertility. The strength of evidence for treatment recommendations is also classified when appropriate.