Importance: Despite 3 decades of study, there remains ongoing debate regarding whether vasectomy is associated with prostate cancer. Objective: To determine if vasectomy is associated with prostate cancer. Data Sources: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for studies indexed from database inception to March 21, 2017, without language restriction. Study Selection: Cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies reporting relative effect estimates for the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators performed study selection independently. Data were pooled separately by study design type using random-effects models. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was any diagnosis of prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes were high-grade, advanced, and fatal prostate cancer. Results: Fifty-three studies (16 cohort studies including 2 563 519 participants, 33 case-control studies including 44 536 participants, and 4 cross-sectional studies including 12 098 221 participants) were included. Of these, 7 cohort studies (44%), 26 case-control studies (79%), and all 4 cross-sectional studies were deemed to have a moderate to high risk of bias. Among studies deemed to have a low risk of bias, a weak association was found among cohort studies (7 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09; P < .001; I2 = 9%) and a similar but nonsignificant association was found among case-control studies (6 studies; adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.88-1.29; P = .54; I2 = 37%). Effect estimates were further from the null when studies with a moderate to high risk of bias were included. Associations between vasectomy and high-grade prostate cancer (6 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89-1.21; P = .67; I2 = 55%), advanced prostate cancer (6 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.20; P = .11; I2 = 18%), and fatal prostate cancer (5 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14; P = .68; I2 = 26%) were not significant (all cohort studies). Based on these data, a 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.2%) absolute increase in lifetime risk of prostate cancer associated with vasectomy and a population-attributable fraction of 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.9%) were calculated. Conclusions and Relevance: This review found no association between vasectomy and high-grade, advanced-stage, or fatal prostate cancer. There was a weak association between vasectomy and any prostate cancer that was closer to the null with increasingly robust study design. This association is unlikely to be causal and should not preclude the use of vasectomy as a long-term contraceptive option.
Importance: Despite 3 decades of study, there remains ongoing debate regarding whether vasectomy is associated with prostate cancer. Objective: To determine if vasectomy is associated with prostate cancer. Data Sources: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for studies indexed from database inception to March 21, 2017, without language restriction. Study Selection: Cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies reporting relative effect estimates for the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators performed study selection independently. Data were pooled separately by study design type using random-effects models. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was any diagnosis of prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes were high-grade, advanced, and fatal prostate cancer. Results: Fifty-three studies (16 cohort studies including 2 563 519 participants, 33 case-control studies including 44 536 participants, and 4 cross-sectional studies including 12 098 221 participants) were included. Of these, 7 cohort studies (44%), 26 case-control studies (79%), and all 4 cross-sectional studies were deemed to have a moderate to high risk of bias. Among studies deemed to have a low risk of bias, a weak association was found among cohort studies (7 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09; P < .001; I2 = 9%) and a similar but nonsignificant association was found among case-control studies (6 studies; adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.88-1.29; P = .54; I2 = 37%). Effect estimates were further from the null when studies with a moderate to high risk of bias were included. Associations between vasectomy and high-grade prostate cancer (6 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89-1.21; P = .67; I2 = 55%), advanced prostate cancer (6 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.20; P = .11; I2 = 18%), and fatal prostate cancer (5 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14; P = .68; I2 = 26%) were not significant (all cohort studies). Based on these data, a 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.2%) absolute increase in lifetime risk of prostate cancer associated with vasectomy and a population-attributable fraction of 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.9%) were calculated. Conclusions and Relevance: This review found no association between vasectomy and high-grade, advanced-stage, or fatal prostate cancer. There was a weak association between vasectomy and any prostate cancer that was closer to the null with increasingly robust study design. This association is unlikely to be causal and should not preclude the use of vasectomy as a long-term contraceptive option.
Authors: K Zhu; J L Stanford; J R Daling; B McKnight; A Stergachis; M K Brawer; N S Weiss Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1996-10-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Eric J Jacobs; Rebecca L Anderson; Victoria L Stevens; Christina C Newton; Ted Gansler; Susan M Gapstur Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Catherine M Tangen; Phyllis J Goodman; Cathee Till; Jeannette M Schenk; M Scott Lucia; Ian M Thompson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Frederico R Romero; Antonio W Romero; Rui Manuel S de Almeida; Fernando Cesar de Oliveira; Renato Tambara Filho Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Karl Smith; Jose Maria Castaño; Maria Dolores Chirlaque; Hans Lilja; Antonio Agudo; Eva Ardanaz; Miguel Rodríguez-Barranco; Heiner Boeing; Rudolf Kaaks; Kay-Tee Khaw; Nerea Larrañaga; Carmen Navarro; Anja Olsen; Kim Overvad; Aurora Perez-Cornago; Sabine Rohrmann; Maria José Sánchez; Anne Tjønneland; Konstantinos K Tsilidis; Mattias Johansson; Elio Riboli; Timothy J Key; Ruth C Travis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Madhur Nayan; Robert J Hamilton; Erin M Macdonald; Qing Li; Muhammad M Mamdani; Craig C Earle; Girish S Kulkarni; Keith A Jarvi; David N Juurlink Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-11-03
Authors: Lauren E McCullough; Maret L Maliniak; Avnika B Amin; Julia M Baker; Davit Baliashvili; Julie Barberio; Chloe M Barrera; Carolyn A Brown; Lindsay J Collin; Alexa A Freedman; David C Gibbs; Maryam B Haddad; Eric W Hall; Sarah Hamid; Kristin R V Harrington; Aaron M Holleman; John A Kaufman; Mohammed A Khan; Katie Labgold; Veronica C Lee; Amyn A Malik; Laura M Mann; Kristin J Marks; Kristin N Nelson; Zerleen S Quader; Katherine Ross-Driscoll; Supriya Sarkar; Monica P Shah; Iris Y Shao; Jonathan P Smith; Kaitlyn K Stanhope; Marisol Valenzuela-Lara; Miriam E Van Dyke; Kartavya J Vyas; Timothy L Lash Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 14.957
Authors: Visalini Nair-Shalliker; Albert Bang; Sam Egger; Xue Qin Yu; Karen Chiam; Julia Steinberg; Manish I Patel; Emily Banks; Dianne L O'Connell; Bruce K Armstrong; David P Smith Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 9.075