Subfertility among parents of men diagnosed with testicular cancer

Paternal age and risk of testicular germ cell tumors: a cohort study of 1,000,000 men

Testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) are the most frequent cancer among young men, with increasing incidence worldwide. Advanced paternal age has been linked to adverse health outcomes in offspring, but reports on the association of paternal age with TGCT are few and inconsistent. We aimed to examine the relationship of paternal age (PAB) at birth with the risk of TGCT and by histologic type: seminoma and non-seminoma. A population-based cohort of 1,056,058 males, examined at ages 16-19 between the years 1980-2011, was linked to the Israel National Cancer Registry to obtain incident TGCT through 2012. We applied multivariable Cox regression. During 16.5 million person-years of follow-up, 1247 incident cases (604 seminomas and 643 non-seminomas) were detected. Increasing PAB was linearly associated with lower risk of TGCT (HR_{per year}  = 0.983, 95% CI: 0.974-0.993, p = 0.001), after adjustment for year of birth, years of education, height, cryptorchidism history and origin, and also with additional adjustment for maternal age at birth (MAB) (HR_{per year}  = 0.980: 0.965-0.995, p = 0.008). The association was stronger for seminoma (HR_{per year}  = 0.968: 0.946-0.989, p = 0.004) and persisted in a subset adjusted for sibship size (HR_{per year}  = 0.950: 0.917-0.983, p = 0.003). In the fully adjusted model, young PAB (15-24 vs. ≥30) was a risk factor for seminoma (HR = 1.41: 1.07-1.85, p = 0.014). In models adjusted for PAB, MAB was not associated with risk of TGCT. In conclusion, our findings suggest that young paternal age is a risk factor of TGCT, especially seminoma. The findings warrant further investigation into the possible impact of young paternal age on their offsprings' testes.

Subfertility and Risk of Testicular Cancer in the EPSAM Case-Control Study

Background/objectives

It has been suggested that subfertility and testicular cancer share genetic and environmental risk factors. We studied both subfertility and the strongest known testicular cancer susceptibility gene, the c-KIT ligand (KITLG), whose pathway is involved in spermatogenesis.

Methods

The EPSAM case-control study is comprised of testicular cancer patients from the Province of Turin, Italy, diagnosed between 1997 and 2008. The present analysis included 245 cases and 436 controls from EPSAM, who were aged 20 years or older at diagnosis/recruitment. The EPSAM questionnaire collected information on factors such as number of children, age at first attempt to conceive, duration of attempt to conceive, use of assisted reproduction techniques, physician-assigned diagnosis of infertility, number of siblings, and self-reported cryptorchidism. Genotyping of the KITLG single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs995030 was performed on the saliva samples of 202 cases and 329 controls.

Results

Testicular cancer was associated with the number of children fathered 5 years before diagnosis (odds ratio (OR) per additional child: 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58–1.04) and sibship size (OR per additional sibling: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66–0.88). When considering the reproductive history until 1 year before diagnosis, attempting to conceive for at least 12 months or fathering a child using assisted reproduction techniques was not associated with the risk of testicular cancer, nor was age at first attempt to conceive or physician-assigned diagnosis of infertility. The SNP rs995030 was strongly associated with risk of testicular cancer (per allele OR: 1.83; 95%CI: 1.26–2.64), but it did not modify the association between number of children and the risk of testicular cancer.

Conclusion

This study supports the repeatedly reported inverse association between number of children and risk of testicular cancer, but it does not find evidence of an association for other indicators of subfertility.

The rise of testicular germ cell tumours: the search for causes, risk factors and novel therapeutic targets

Since the beginning of the 20th century there has been a decline in the reproductive vitality of men within the Western world. The declining sperm quantity and quality has been associated with increased overt disorders of sexual development including hypospadias, undescended testes and type II testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs). The increase in TGCTs cannot be accounted for by genetic changes in the population. Therefore exposure to environmental toxicants appears to be a major contributor to the aetiology of TGCTs and men with a genetic predisposition are particularly vulnerable. In particular, Type II TGCTs have been identified to arise from a precursor lesion Carcinoma in situ (CIS), identified as a dysfunctional gonocyte; however, the exact triggers for CIS development are currently unknown. Therefore the transition from gonocytes into spermatogonia is key to those studying TGCTs. Recently we have identified seven miRNA molecules (including members of the miR-290 family and miR-136, 463* and 743a) to be significantly changed over this transition period. These miRNA molecules are predicted to have targets within the CXCR4, PTEN, DHH, RAC and PDGF pathways, all of which have important roles in germ cell migration, proliferation and homing to the spermatogonial stem cell niche. Given the plethora of potential targets affected by each miRNA molecule, subtle changes in miRNA expression could have significant consequences e.g. tumourigenesis. The role of non-traditional oncogenes and tumour suppressors such as miRNA in TGCT is highlighted by the fact that the majority of these tumours express wild type p53, a pivotal tumour suppressor usually inactivated in cancer. While treatment of TGCTs is highly successful, the impact of these treatments on fertility means that identification of exact triggers, earlier diagnosis and alternate treatments are essential. This review examines the genetic factors and possible triggers of type II TGCT to highlight target areas for potential new treatments.

Maintaining success, reducing treatment burden, focusing on survivorship: highlights from the third European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer

In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377-1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478-496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497-513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues. The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, ∼50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.

Influence of family size and birth order on risk of cancer: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Family size and birth order are known to influence the risk of some cancers. However, it is still unknown whether these effects change from early to later adulthood. We used the data of the Swedish Family-Cancer Database to further analyze these effects.

METHODS

We selected over 5.7 million offspring with identified parents but no parental cancer. We estimated the effect of birth order and family size by Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex, period, region and socioeconomic status. We divided the age at diagnosis in two groups, below and over 50 years, to identify the effect of family size and birth order for different age periods.

RESULTS

Negative associations for increasing birth order were found for endometrial, testicular, skin, thyroid and connective tissue cancers and melanoma. In contrast, we observed positive association between birth order and lung, male and female genital cancers. Family size was associated with decreasing risk for endometrial and testicular cancers, melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma; risk was increased for leukemia and nervous system cancer. The effect of birth order decreased for lung and endometrial cancer from age at diagnosis below to over 50 years. Combined effects for birth order and family size were marginally significant for thyroid gland tumors. Especially, the relative risk for follicular thyroid gland tumors was significantly decreased for increasing birth order.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the effect of birth order decreases from early to late adulthood for lung and endometrial cancer.

What has happened to human fertility?

Semen quality appears to have declined in recent decades in some populations, e.g. north-western Europe. At the same time, couple fertility may have increased. Hypotheses are suggested for this apparent inconsistency. Alongside the deterioration of spermatogenesis there is clear evidence of an increase in other related problems, notably testicular cancer. The sharply rising trend in this condition started a century ago--decades earlier than sometimes thought. This and other evidence clearly indicates an environmental origin, but there is also a definite genetic component. The relationship of genetics and environment is discussed in the context of the puzzle that infertility is inherited, which appears to be impossible from an evolutionary standpoint. Poor semen quality is related not only to testicular cancer but also to zygote development, in which cancer-like disruption of the genetic apparatus is observed, with serious implications for offspring health. This needs to be seen in the context that human reproduction is prone to a higher degree of impairment than that of other mammalian species, in relation to spermatogenesis, couple fertility, early pregnancy loss and embryonic aneuploidy; female- and male-mediated pathways are both implicated. It is unclear whether such human specificity originated on an evolutionary/genetic or a historico-social timescale, which is important in relation to pathogenesis. The evidence clearly indicates that the currently most popular explanation for male reproductive system impairment, the endocrine disruption hypothesis, cannot explain the main features of the descriptive epidemiology. An alternative pathogenesis is outlined, and some possible exposures considered that could be responsible.