4.7 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of perinatal variables in relation to the risk of testicular cancer-experiences of the mother

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 1532-1542

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyp287

Keywords

Epidemiology; meta-analysis; pregnancy; review; systematic; testicular neoplasms

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched using sensitive search strategies. Meta-analysis was undertaken using STATA 10. Results A total of 5865 references were retrieved, of which 67 met the inclusion criteria and contributed data to at least one perinatal analysis. Random effects meta-analysis found maternal bleeding during pregnancy [odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.73], birth order (primiparous vs not, 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16; second vs first, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-0.99; third vs first, OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-1.01; fourth vs first, OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.94) and sibship size (2 vs 1, OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75-1.15; 3 vs 1, OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74-1.07; 4 vs 1, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90) to be associated with testicular cancer risk. Meta-analyses that produced summary estimates which indicated no association included maternal age, maternal nausea, maternal hypertension, pre-eclampsia, breech delivery and caesarean section. Meta-regression provided evidence that continent of study is important in the relationship between caesarean section and testicular cancer (P = 0.035), and a meta-analysis restricted to the three studies from the USA was suggestive of association (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.07-2.56). Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis has found evidence for associations of maternal bleeding, birth order, sibship size and possibly caesarean section with risk of testicular cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available