Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 479–484 | Cite as

Anogenital distance as a measure of human male fertility

  • Michael L. Eisenberg
  • Larry I. Lipshultz
Reproductive Physiology and Disease

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.

Keywords

Genitalia Humans Infertility Perineum Sperm 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Greenham LW, Greenham V. Sexing mouse pups. Lab Anim. 1977;11:181–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hsieh MH, Breyer BN, Eisenberg ML, Baskin LS. Associations among hypospadias, cryptorchidism, anogenital distance, and endocrine disruption. Curr Urol Rep. 2008;9:137–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marois G. [Action of progesterone, testosterone and estradiol on the anogenital distance and somatic sexual differentiation in rats]. Biol Med (Paris) 1968;57:44–90.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thankamony A, Ong KK, Dunger DB, Acerini CL, Hughes IA. Anogenital distance from birth to 2 years: a population study. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117:1786–90.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Torres-Sanchez L, Zepeda M, Cebrian ME, Belkind-Gerson J, Garcia-Hernandez RM, Belkind-Valdovinos U, et al. Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy alters the anal position in male infants. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1140:155–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salazar-Martinez E, Romano-Riquer P, Yanez-Marquez E, Longnecker MP, Hernandez-Avila M. Anogenital distance in human male and female newborns: a descriptive, cross-sectional study. Environ Health. 2004;3:8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sathyanarayana S, Beard L, Zhou C, Grady R. Measurement and correlates of ano-genital distance in healthy, newborn infants. Int J Androl. 2010;33:317–23.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eisenberg ML, Hsieh MH, Walters RC, Krasnow R, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance, fatherhood, and fertility in adult men. PLoS One. 2011;6:e18973.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendiola J, Stahlhut RW, Jorgensen N, Liu F, Swan SH. Shorter anogenital distance predicts poorer semen quality in young Men in rochester, New york. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119:958–63.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eisenberg ML, Jensen TK, Walters RC, Skakkebaek NE, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance and reproductive hormone levels in adult men. J Urol. 2012;187:594–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisenberg ML, Hsieh TC, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance and age. Andrology. 2013;1:90–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eisenberg ML, Shy M, Chanc Walters R, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance and azoospermia in adult men. Int J Androl. 2012;35:726–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eisenberg ML, Shy M, Herder D, Walters RC, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance and the efficacy of varicocele repair. BJU Int. 2012;110:E927–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Castano-Vinyals G, Carrasco E, Lorente JA, Sabate Y, Cirac-Claveras J, Pollan M, et al. Anogenital distance and the risk of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;110:E707–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dean A, Sharpe RM. Clinical review: Anogenital distance or digit length ratio as measures of fetal androgen exposure: relationship to male reproductive development and its disorders. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2013;98:2230–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Behre HM, Nashan D, Nieschlag E. Objective measurement of testicular volume by ultrasonography: evaluation of the technique and comparison with orchidometer estimates. Int J Androl. 1989;12:395–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, Auger J, Baker HW, Behre HM, et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:231–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vittinghoff E, Glidden DV, Shiboski SC, McCulloch CE. Regression Methods in Biostatistics: Linear, Logistic, Survival, and Repeated Measures Models. New York: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larson WJ. Human Embryology. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Callegari C, Everett S, Ross M, Brasel JA. Anogenital ratio: measure of fetal virilization in premature and full-term newborn infants. J Pediatr. 1987;111:240–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Macleod DJ, Sharpe RM, Welsh M, Fisken M, Scott HM, Hutchison GR, et al. Androgen action in the masculinization programming window and development of male reproductive organs. Int J Androl. 2010;33:279–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Welsh M, MacLeod DJ, Walker M, Smith LB, Sharpe RM. Critical androgen-sensitive periods of rat penis and clitoris development. Int J Androl. 2010;33:e144–52.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moss JL, Crosnoe LE, Kim ED. Effect of rejuvenation hormones on spermatogenesis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1814–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mitchell RT, Mungall W, McKinnell C, Sharpe RM, Cruickshanks L, Milne L et al. Anogenital distance (AGD) plasticity in adulthood: Implications for its use as a biomarker of fetal androgen action. Endocrinology 2014:en20141534.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyStanford University School of MedicinePalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Division of Male Reproductive Medicine and SurgeryScott Department of Urology, Baylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations