The purpose of this corrigendum is to publish the corrections in the article.

OBJECTIVE: The usual seminal profile has been customarily used for diagnosing male infertility based on an examination of semen samples. However, sperm DNA fragmentation has also been causally linked to reproductive failure, suggesting that it should be evaluated as part of male infertility assessments. To compare the ability of the five most widely utilized methodologies of measuring DNA fragmentation to predict male infertility and reactive oxygen species by Oxisperm kit assay. METHODS: In this case-control study, which received ethical committee approval, the participants were divided into fertile and infertile groups (50 patients in each group). RESULTS: The alkaline comet test showed the best ability to predict male infertility, followed by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labelling (TUNEL) assay, the sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test, and the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA), while the neutral comet test had no predictive power. For our patient population, the projected cut-off point for the DNA fragmentation index was 22.08% using the TUNEL assay, 19.90% using SCSA, 24.74% using the SCD test, 48.47% using the alkaline comet test, and 36.37% using the neutral comet test. Significant correlations were found between the results of the SCD test and those obtained using SCSA and TUNEL (r =0.70 and r =0.68, respectively; p<0.001), and a statistically significant correlation was also found between the results of SCSA and the TUNEL assay (r =0.77, p<0.001). Likewise, the results of the alkaline comet test showed significant correlations with those of the SCD, SCSA, and TUNEL tests (r =0.59, r =0.57, and r =0.72, respectively; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The TUNEL assay, SCSA, SCD, and the alkaline comet test were effective for distinguishing between fertile and infertile patients, and the alkaline comet test was the best predictor of male infertility.
Case-Control Studies ; Chromatin ; DNA Fragmentation ; DNA Nucleotidylexotransferase ; DNA ; Humans ; In Situ Nick-End Labeling ; Infertility ; Infertility, Male ; Male ; Male ; Methods ; Reactive Oxygen Species ; Semen ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Spermatozoa

OBJECTIVE: The male reproductive system generates, accumulates, and transports the sperm. In this study, 2 methods of surgically retrieving sperm, namely, testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) and percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA), are discussed and studied in men aged ≤38 years to achieve successful conception using assisted reproductive technology. The purpose was to assess the fertilization rate (FA), clinical pregnancy, and live birth rate (LBR) with sperm. METHODS: A total of 287 semen samples were divided into 4 groups as follows: fresh PESA (n=73), frozen PESA (n=65), fresh TESA (n=128), and frozen TESA (n=21). The DNA fragmentation test using sperm chromatin dispersion assay was measured and reported. RESULTS: FA was 70.3% and 65.5%, (P<0.022) for fresh and frozen epididymal sperm and 53.8% and 49.5%, (P<0.032) for fresh and frozen testicular sperm. LBR was 33.6% and 30.2% (P<0.075) for fresh and frozen epididymal sperm (PESA) and 22.7% and 18.2% (P<0.063) for fresh and frozen-thawed TESA sperm. CONCLUSION: Exposure to tissue shearing may adversely affect sperm quality. Increased sperm DNA damage due to long-term exposure while teasing enhances reactive oxygen species production foremost to membrane damage because of the oxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acid in lipids (lipid peroxidation), oxidation of amino acid in proteins, and inactivation of specific enzymes, all leading to enzymatic dipping and possibility of less fertilization and conception as indicated by the increase in LBR with fresh/frozen PESA compared to with fresh/frozen TESA.
Chromatin ; DNA Damage ; DNA Fragmentation ; Fertilization ; Humans ; Infertility ; Live Birth ; Male ; Membranes ; Pregnancy ; Reactive Oxygen Species ; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted ; Retrospective Studies ; Semen ; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic ; Sperm Retrieval ; Spermatozoa

The COVID-19 pandemic, which emerged in the light of day toward the end of 2019, has changed almost every field of health care basically, and oncology is no exception. After reflecting on events of the past 2 years, it becomes evident that while the pandemic has put several difficulties in the way of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and research, it has also brought about a few positive changes and once again highlighted how strong the global cancer care community is.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which emerged in the light of day toward the end of 2019, has changed almost every field of health care basically, and oncology is no exception. After reflecting on events of the past 2 years, it becomes evident that while the pandemic has put several difficulties in the way of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and research, it has also brought about a few positive changes and once again highlighted how strong the global cancer care community is.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which emerged in the light of day toward the end of 2019, has changed almost every field of health care basically, and oncology is no exception. After reflecting on events of the past 2 years, it becomes evident that while the pandemic has put several difficulties in the way of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and research, it has also brought about a few positive changes and once again highlighted how strong the global cancer care community is.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which emerged in the light of day toward the end of 2019, has changed almost every field of health care basically, and oncology is no exception. After reflecting on events of the past 2 years, it becomes evident that while the pandemic has put several difficulties in the way of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and research, it has also brought about a few positive changes and once again highlighted how strong the global cancer care community is.