Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective study evaluates diagnostic yield of genetic tests in infertility, suggesting a targeted approach for maximum effectiveness.
Background/Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of phenotype-guided cytogenetic and targeted molecular genetic testing in patients referred for infertility and reproductive disorders within a tertiary medical genetics referral pathway. Methods: This retrospective study included 900 consecutive patients (473 males, 427 females) referred to a tertiary medical genetics center between January 2020 and December 2024. Conventional karyotyping was performed in all patients. Additional targeted molecular tests were applied based on clinical indication: Y chromosome microdeletion analysis in azoospermia or oligospermia, CFTR sequencing in suspected congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens, and F2/F5 genotyping in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Diagnostic yield was analyzed in a predefined subgroup of 566 patients with RPL, unexplained infertility, azoospermia, or oligospermia; remaining referrals were included in descriptive cytogenetic analyses only. Results: Chromosomal abnormalities were identified in 3.22% (29/900) of the total cohort and in 5.12% (29/566) of the diagnostic-yield cohort. Targeted testing yields were 3.75% (6/160) for Y chromosome microdeletions, 9.38% (3/32) for CFTR variants, and 3.31% (4/121) for F2/F5 variants. Diagnostic yield varied markedly by phenotype, being highest in azoospermia (33.3%), followed by oligospermia (6.6%), RPL (5.3%), and unexplained infertility (3.1%). In unexplained infertility, all chromosomal abnormalities were detected in female patients. Conclusions: In a tertiary referral setting, phenotype-guided genetic testing provides the greatest diagnostic value in well-defined infertility phenotypes, particularly azoospermia. Lower yields in other referral groups support a targeted, indication-based approach to genetic evaluation and highlight the need for advanced genomic strategies in persistently unexplained cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aleknavičienė et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: