Prostate cancer and vasectomy: a hospital-based case-control study in China, Nepal and the Republic of Korea

Vasectomy and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context

Previous reports have shown an association between vasectomy and prostate cancer (PCa). However, there exist significant discrepancies between studies and systematic reviews due to a lack of strong causal association and residual confounding factors such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.

Objective

To assess the association between vasectomy and PCa, in both unadjusted and PSA screen-adjusted studies.

Evidence acquisition

We performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in January 2022 for studies that analyzed the association between vasectomy and PCa.

Evidence synthesis

A total of 37 studies including 16 931 805 patients met our inclusion criteria. A pooled analysis from all studies showed a significant association between vasectomy and any-grade PCa (odds ratio [OR] 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10–1.37; p < 0.001; I² = 96%), localized PCa (OR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06–1.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 31%), or advanced PCa (OR 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02–1.13; p = 0.006; I² = 0%). The association with PCa remained significant when the analyses were restricted to studies with a low risk of bias (OR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02–1.10; p = 0.02; I² = 48%) or cohort studies (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04–1.13; p < 0.0001; I² = 64%). Among studies adjusted for PSA screening, the association with localized PCa (OR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03–1.09; p < 0.001; I² = 0%) remained significant. Conversely, vasectomy was no longer associated with localized high-grade (p = 0.19), advanced (p = 0.22), and lethal (p = 0.42) PCa.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis found an association between vasectomy and any, mainly localized, PCa. However, the effect estimates of the association were increasingly close to null when examining studies of robust design and high quality. On exploratory analyses including studies, which adjusted for PSA screening, the association for aggressive and/or advanced PCa diminished.

Patient summary

In this study, we found an association between vasectomy and the risk of developing localized prostate cancer without being able to determine whether the procedure leads to a higher prostate cancer incidence.

Association between vasectomy and risk of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The debate over the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer has been lasted about 40 years and there is no sign of stopping. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate whether vasectomy is associated with prostate cancer based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date evidence available.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched inception to March 14, 2021 without year or language restriction. Multivariable adjusted risk ratios (RRs) were used to assess each endpoint. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

A total of 58 studies involving 16,989,237 participants fulfilled inclusion criteria. There was significant association of vasectomy with risk of any prostate cancer (risk ratio, 1.18, 95% CI, 1.07-1.31). Association between vasectomy and advanced prostate cancer (risk ratio, 1.06, 95% CI, 1.01-1.12), low-grade prostate cancer (risk ratio, 1.06, 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), and intermediate-grade prostate cancer (risk ratio, 1.12, 95% CI, 1.03-1.22) were significant. There was no significant association between vasectomy and prostate cancer-specific mortality (risk ratio, 1.01, 95% CI, 0.93-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that vasectomy was associated with the risk of any prostate cancer and advanced prostate cancer. From the current evidence, patients should be fully informed of the risk of prostate cancer before vasectomy.

Prostate cancer management: long-term beliefs, epidemic developments in the early twenty-first century and 3PM dimensional solutions

In the early twenty-first century, societies around the world are facing the paradoxal epidemic development of PCa as a non-communicable disease. PCa is the most frequently diagnosed cancer for men in several countries such as the USA. Permanently improving diagnostics and treatments in the PCa management causes an impressive divergence between, on one hand, permanently increasing numbers of diagnosed PCa cases and, on the other hand, stable or even slightly decreasing mortality rates. Still, aspects listed below are waiting for innovate solutions in the context of predictive approaches, targeted prevention and personalisation of medical care (PPPM / 3PM).A.PCa belongs to the cancer types with the highest incidence worldwide. Corresponding economic burden is enormous. Moreover, the costs of treating PCa are currently increasing more quickly than those of any other cancer. Implementing individualised patient profiles and adapted treatment algorithms would make currently too heterogeneous landscape of PCa treatment costs more transparent providing clear "road map" for the cost saving.B.PCa is a systemic multi-factorial disease. Consequently, predictive diagnostics by liquid biopsy analysis is instrumental for the disease prediction, targeted prevention and curative treatments at early stages.C.The incidence of metastasising PCa is rapidly increasing particularly in younger populations. Exemplified by trends observed in the USA, prognosis is that the annual burden will increase by over 40% in 2025. To this end, one of the evident deficits is the reactive character of medical services currently provided to populations. Innovative screening programmes might be useful to identify persons in suboptimal health conditions before the clinical onset of metastasising PCa. Strong predisposition to systemic hypoxic conditions and ischemic lesions (e.g. characteristic for individuals with Flammer syndrome phenotype) and low-grade inflammation might be indicative for specific phenotyping and genotyping in metastasising PCa screening and disease management. Predictive liquid biopsy tests for CTC enumeration and their molecular characterisation are considered to be useful for secondary prevention of metastatic disease in PCa patients.D.Particular rapidly increasing PCa incidence rates are characteristic for adolescents and young adults aged 15-40 years. Patients with early onset prostate cancer pose unique challenges; multi-factorial risks for these trends are proposed. Consequently, multi-level diagnostics including phenotyping and multi-omics are considered to be the most appropriate tool for the risk assessment, prediction and prognosis. Accumulating evidence suggests that early onset prostate cancer is a distinct phenotype from both aetiological and clinical perspectives deserving particular attention from view point of 3P medical approaches.

Vasectomy and the risk of prostate cancer in a Finnish nationwide population-based cohort

INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES

There are conflicting reports on the association of vasectomy and the risk of prostate cancer (PCa). Our objective was to evaluate the association between vasectomy and PCa from a nationwide cohort in Finland.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Sterilization registry of Finland and the Finnish Cancer Registry data were utilized to identify all men who underwent vasectomy between years 1987-2014 in Finland. Standard incidence ratio (SIR) for PCa as well as all-cause standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 38,124 men with vasectomy with a total of 429,937 person-years follow-up data. The median age at vasectomy was 39.7 years (interquartile range [IQR] 35.9-44.0), after vasectomy PCa was diagnosed in 413 men (122 cases 0-10 years, 219 cases 10-20 years and 72 cases >20 years from vasectomy). SIR for PCa for the vasectomy cohort was 1.15 (95% CI: 1.04-1.27). By the end of follow-up, 19 men had died from PCa, while the expected number was 20.5 (SMR 0.93 [95%CI: 0.56-1.44]). The overall mortality was decreased (SMR 0.54 [95%CI: 0.51-0.58]) among men with vasectomy.

CONCLUSION

We found a small statistically significant increase in PCa incidence after vasectomy, but in contrast the mortality of vasectomized men was significantly reduced. This may be due to higher likelihood of vasectomized men to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing, having healthier general lifestyle and other biological factors e.g. high reproductive fitness.

Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most frequent cancer diagnosis made in men and the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. Prostate cancer may be asymptomatic at the early stage and often has an indolent course that may require only active surveillance. Based on GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates, 1,276,106 new cases of prostate cancer were reported worldwide in 2018, with higher prevalence in the developed countries. Differences in the incidence rates worldwide reflect differences in the use of diagnostic testing. Prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates are strongly related to the age with the highest incidence being seen in elderly men (> 65 years of age). African-American men have the highest incidence rates and more aggressive type of prostate cancer compared to White men. There is no evidence yet on how to prevent prostate cancer; however, it is possible to lower the risk by limiting high-fat foods, increasing the intake of vegetables and fruits and performing more exercise. Screening is highly recommended at age 45 for men with familial history and African-American men. Up-to-date statistics on prostate cancer occurrence and outcomes along with a better understanding of the etiology and causative risk factors are essential for the primary prevention of this disease.

Vasectomy and the risk of prostate cancer in a prospective US Cohort: Data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have linked vasectomy with the risk of prostate cancer; however, this association has been attributed to selection bias. Since vasectomy is a common and effective form of contraception, these implications are significant. Therefore, we sought to test this association in a large observational cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the potential association between prior vasectomy and the risk of developing prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the relationship between vasectomy and prostate cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Of the 111,914 men, prostate cancer was identified in 13,885 men and vasectomies were performed in 48,657. We used multivariate analysis to examine the relationship between prostate cancer and vasectomy. We also performed propensity score-adjusted and propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

Men utilizing vasectomy were more likely to be ever married, fathers, educated, white, and screened for prostate cancer. During 4,251,863 person-years of follow-up, there was a small association between vasectomy and incident prostate cancer with a hazard ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01-1.11). However, no significant association was found when looking separately at prostate cancer by grade or stage. Conclusions were similar when using propensity adjustment and matching. Importantly, a significant interaction between vasectomy and PSA screening was identified.

DISCUSSION

Estimates of the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer are sensitive to analytic method underscoring the tenuous nature of the connection. Given the differences between men who do and do not utilize vasectomy, selection bias appears likely to explain any identified association between vasectomy and prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

With over 20 years of follow-up, no convincing relationship between vasectomy and prostate cancer of any grade was identified.

The Association Between Vasectomy and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

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.

Vasectomy and risk of prostate cancer: population based matched cohort study

OBJECTIVE

 To determine the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer, adjusting for measures of health seeking behaviour.

DESIGN

 Population based matched cohort study.

SETTING

 Multiple validated healthcare databases in Ontario, Canada, 1994-2012.

PARTICIPANTS

 326 607 men aged 20 to 65 who had undergone vasectomy were identified through physician billing codes and matched 1:1 on age (within two years), year of cohort entry, comorbidity score, and geographical region to men who did not undergo a vasectomy.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

 The primary outcome was incident prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes were prostate cancer related grade, stage, and mortality.

RESULTS

 3462 incident cases of prostate cancer were identified after a median follow-up of 10.9 years: 1843 (53.2%) in the vasectomy group and 1619 (46.8%) in the non-vasectomy group. In unadjusted analysis, vasectomy was associated with a slightly increased risk of incident prostate cancer (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.20). After adjustment for measures of health seeking behaviour, however, no association remained (adjusted hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.09). Moreover, no association was found between vasectomy and high grade prostate cancer (adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.66), advanced stage prostate cancer (adjusted odds ratio 1.04, 0.81 to 1.34), or mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.06, 0.60 to 1.85).

CONCLUSION

 The findings do not support an independent association between vasectomy and prostate cancer.

Vasectomy: potential links to an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer?

Several studies have found associations between aggressive prostate cancer (PC) and having a vasectomy. However, findings from two very recent meta-analyses have found that this is not the case. Therefore, the data are mixed. Herein, we detail the controversy between vasectomy and PC risk, particularly aggressive PC, by shedding some light on the molecular pathways, potential risk factors and suggested links for those considering vasectomy and medical professionals who perform it. We conclude by supporting the American Urological Association's position that there is no need to discuss potential prostate cancer risks with patients considering vasectomy given reasonably strong data finding no link between vasectomy and prostate cancer risk.

Vasectomy and risk of aggressive prostate cancer: a 24-year follow-up study

PURPOSE

Conflicting reports remain regarding the association between vasectomy, a common form of male contraception in the United States, and prostate cancer risk. We examined prospectively this association with extended follow-up and an emphasis on advanced and lethal disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Among 49,405 U.S. men in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, age 40 to 75 years at baseline in 1986, 6,023 patients with prostate cancer were diagnosed during the follow-up to 2010, including 811 lethal cases. In total, 12,321 men (25%) had vasectomies. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the relative risk (RR) and 95% CIs of total, advanced, high-grade, and lethal disease, with adjustment for a variety of possible confounders.

RESULTS

Vasectomy was associated with a small increased risk of prostate cancer overall (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.17). Risk was elevated for high-grade (Gleason score 8 to 10; RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.45) and lethal disease (death or distant metastasis; RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.43). Among a subcohort of men receiving regular prostate-specific antigen screening, the association with lethal cancer was stronger (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.36). Vasectomy was not associated with the risk of low-grade or localized disease. Additional analyses suggested that the associations were not driven by differences in sex hormone levels, sexually transmitted infections, or cancer treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our data support the hypothesis that vasectomy is associated with a modest increased incidence of lethal prostate cancer. The results do not appear to be due to detection bias, and confounding by infections or cancer treatment is unlikely.