# Diagnostic Yield of Phenotype-Guided Genetic Testing in Infertility: A Five-Year Retrospective Study from a Tertiary Referral Cohort

## TL;DR

This study shows that genetic testing for infertility is most effective when guided by specific symptoms, especially in cases of azoospermia.

## Contribution

The study provides real-world diagnostic yield data for phenotype-guided genetic testing in infertility across a large tertiary cohort.

## Key findings

- Chromosomal abnormalities were found in 5.12% of patients with specific infertility phenotypes.
- Azoospermia had the highest diagnostic yield at 33.3% for Y chromosome microdeletions.
- Unexplained infertility showed lower yields, with all abnormalities found in female patients.

## Abstract

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.