BACKGROUND: Fatherhood status has been hypothesized to affect prostate cancer risk but the current evidence is limited and contradictory. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the relationship between offspring number and the risk of prostate cancer in 161,823 men enrolled in the National Institues of Health - American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study. Participants were aged 50-71 years without a cancer diagnosis at baseline in 1995. Analysing 8134 cases of prostate cancer, Cox regression was used to estimate the association between offspring number and prostate cancer incidence while accounting for socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics. RESULTS: When examining the entire cohort, there was no relationship between fatherhood and incident prostate cancer [hazard ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-1.02]. However, after stratifying for prostate cancer screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) unscreened childless men had a lower risk of prostate cancer (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.91) compared with fathers due to the interaction between PSA screening and fatherhood (P for interaction < 0.01). A trend for the lower risk of prostate cancer among unscreened fathers compared with childless men was seen for low-grade prostate cancer (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-1.01), high-grade prostate cancer (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.37-1.04) and even fatal prostate cancer (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07-1.12). The number of children fathered was not related to prostate cancer (P(trend) = 0.17). In addition, men's inability to sire female offspring showed a weak positive association with prostate cancer in the PSA unscreened study subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest fatherhood status and offspring gender is associated with a man's prostate cancer risk.
BACKGROUND: Fatherhood status has been hypothesized to affect prostate cancer risk but the current evidence is limited and contradictory. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the relationship between offspring number and the risk of prostate cancer in 161,823 men enrolled in the National Institues of Health - American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study. Participants were aged 50-71 years without a cancer diagnosis at baseline in 1995. Analysing 8134 cases of prostate cancer, Cox regression was used to estimate the association between offspring number and prostate cancer incidence while accounting for socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics. RESULTS: When examining the entire cohort, there was no relationship between fatherhood and incident prostate cancer [hazard ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-1.02]. However, after stratifying for prostate cancer screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) unscreened childless men had a lower risk of prostate cancer (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.91) compared with fathers due to the interaction between PSA screening and fatherhood (P for interaction < 0.01). A trend for the lower risk of prostate cancer among unscreened fathers compared with childless men was seen for low-grade prostate cancer (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-1.01), high-grade prostate cancer (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.37-1.04) and even fatal prostate cancer (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07-1.12). The number of children fathered was not related to prostate cancer (P(trend) = 0.17). In addition, men's inability to sire female offspring showed a weak positive association with prostate cancer in the PSA unscreened study subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest fatherhood status and offspring gender is associated with a man's prostate cancer risk.
Authors: A Schatzkin; A F Subar; F E Thompson; L C Harlan; J Tangrea; A R Hollenbeck; P E Hurwitz; L Coyle; N Schussler; D S Michaud; L S Freedman; C C Brown; D Midthune; V Kipnis Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2001-12-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Thomas J Walsh; Michael Schembri; Paul J Turek; June M Chan; Peter R Carroll; James F Smith; Michael L Eisenberg; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Mary S Croughan Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A-M Andersson; N Jørgensen; L Frydelund-Larsen; E Rajpert-De Meyts; N E Skakkebaek Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Ulla Nordström Joensen; Rossana Bossi; Henrik Leffers; Allan Astrup Jensen; Niels E Skakkebaek; Niels Jørgensen Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: R B Hayes; L M Pottern; H Strickler; C Rabkin; V Pope; G M Swanson; R S Greenberg; J B Schoenberg; J Liff; A G Schwartz; R N Hoover; J F Fraumeni Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Xiaohui Xu; Amy B Dailey; Evelyn O Talbott; Vito A Ilacqua; Greg Kearney; Nabih R Asal Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Michael L Eisenberg; Yikyung Park; Albert R Hollenbeck; Larry I Lipshultz; Arthur Schatzkin; Mark J Pletcher Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2011-09-26 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Michael L Eisenberg; Paul Betts; Danielle Herder; Dolores J Lamb; Larry I Lipshultz Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Heidi A Hanson; Ross E Anderson; Kenneth I Aston; Douglas T Carrell; Ken R Smith; James M Hotaling Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Sara M Wirén; Linda I Drevin; Sigrid V Carlsson; Olof Akre; Erik C Holmberg; David E Robinson; Hans G Garmo; Pär E Stattin Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 7.396