3.8 Review

Cryptorchidism and Hypospadias as a Sign of Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome (TDS): Environmental Connection

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bdra.20707

关键词

cryptorchidism; hypospadias; TDS (testicular dysgenesis syndrome), testis; environment; genetics; endocrine

资金

  1. European Commission [DEER 212844 FP7-ENV-2007-1, QLK4-CT-2002-00603, QLK4-CT2001-00269, QLK4-CT1999-01422]
  2. Academy of Finland
  3. Turku University Hospital
  4. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  5. Pediatric Research Foundation
  6. Danish Medical Research Council
  7. Svend Andersen's Foundation
  8. Velux Foundation
  9. Danish Network on Endocrine Disrupters (DAN-ED)
  10. Novo Nordisk Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cryptorchidism and hypospadias are common genital birth defects that affect 2-9% and 0.2-1% of male newborns, respectively. The incidence of both defects shows large geographic variation, and in several countries increasing trends have been reported. The conditions share many risk factors, and they are also inter-linked to the risk of testis cancer and poor semen quality. Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome (TDS) may underlie many cases of all these male reproductive health problems. Genetic defects in androgen production or action can cause both cryptorchidism and hypospadias, but these are not common. A monogenic reason for cryptorchidism or hypospadias has been identified only in a small proportion of all cases. Environmental effects appear to play a major role in TDS. Exposure to several persistent chemicals has been found to be associated with the risk of cryptorchidism, and exposure to anti-androgenic phthalates has been shown to be associated with hormonal changes predisposing to male reproductive problems. Despite progress in identification of endocrine-disrupting substances, we are still far from knowing all the risk factors for these birth defects, and advice for prevention must be based on precautionary principles. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 88:910-919, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据