BACKGROUND: The role of vasectomy in the development of prostate cancer remains controversial. In particular, there has been concern about detection bias and confounding in the previously published epidemiological studies examining this hypothesis. With the goal of minimizing detection bias, we have evaluated the relation between vasectomy and prostate cancer in a population without routine prostate cancer screening. METHODS: A case-control study consisting of 175 prostate cancer cases and 978 controls with cancer diagnoses other than prostate cancer was conducted at hospitals covered by the Bombay Cancer Registry in Bombay, India. History of vasectomy, demographic, and lifestyle factors were obtained by structured interview. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Standardizing by age, 8.7% of cases and 8.3% of controls had had a vasectomy. The OR for prostate cancer comparing men who had had a vasectomy to those who did not was 1.48 (95% CI: 0.80-2.72) controlling for age at diagnosis, smoking status, alcohol drinking, and other demographic and lifestyle factors. Risk of prostate cancer associated with vasectomy appeared to be higher among men who underwent vasectomy at least two decades prior to cancer diagnosis or who were at least 40 years old at vasectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Although not statistically significant, the results of this hospital-based case-control study are consistent with the hypothesis of a positive association between vasectomy and prostate cancer. Because routine prostate cancer screening is not common in this population, detection bias was unlikely to account for this association.
BACKGROUND: The role of vasectomy in the development of prostate cancer remains controversial. In particular, there has been concern about detection bias and confounding in the previously published epidemiological studies examining this hypothesis. With the goal of minimizing detection bias, we have evaluated the relation between vasectomy and prostate cancer in a population without routine prostate cancer screening. METHODS: A case-control study consisting of 175 prostate cancer cases and 978 controls with cancer diagnoses other than prostate cancer was conducted at hospitals covered by the Bombay Cancer Registry in Bombay, India. History of vasectomy, demographic, and lifestyle factors were obtained by structured interview. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Standardizing by age, 8.7% of cases and 8.3% of controls had had a vasectomy. The OR for prostate cancer comparing men who had had a vasectomy to those who did not was 1.48 (95% CI: 0.80-2.72) controlling for age at diagnosis, smoking status, alcohol drinking, and other demographic and lifestyle factors. Risk of prostate cancer associated with vasectomy appeared to be higher among men who underwent vasectomy at least two decades prior to cancer diagnosis or who were at least 40 years old at vasectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Although not statistically significant, the results of this hospital-based case-control study are consistent with the hypothesis of a positive association between vasectomy and prostate cancer. Because routine prostate cancer screening is not common in this population, detection bias was unlikely to account for this association.
Entities:
Keywords:
Asia; Bias; Biology; Cancer; Case Control Studies; Demographic Factors; Developing Countries; Diseases; Error Sources; Family Planning; Genitalia; Genitalia, Male; India; Longterm Effects; Male Sterilization; Measurement; Neoplasms; Physiology; Population; Population Dynamics; Prostate; Research Methodology; Research Report; Risk Factors; Southern Asia; Sterilization, Sexual; Studies; Time Factors; Urogenital System; Vasectomy--side effects
Authors: Bimal Bhindi; Christopher J D Wallis; Madhur Nayan; Ann M Farrell; Landon W Trost; Robert J Hamilton; Girish S Kulkarni; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner; Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
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