4.7 Article

Increased risk of cancer among azoospermic men

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 100, 期 3, 页码 681-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.022

关键词

Azoospermia; male infertility; neoplasms

资金

  1. Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals
  2. Auxilium Pharmaceuticals
  3. Endo Pharmaceuticals
  4. Allergran
  5. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health [P01HD36289]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether men with azoospermia are at an elevated risk of developing cancer in the years following an infertility evaluation. Design: Cohort study. Setting: United States andrology clinic. Patient(s): A total of 2,238 men with complete records were evaluated for infertility at a single andrology clinic in Texas from 1989 to 2009. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Cancer incidence was determined by linkage to the Texas Cancer Registry. Result(s): In all, 451 men had azoospermia, and 1,787 were not azoospermic, with a mean age at infertility evaluation of 35.7 years. Compared with the general population, infertile men had a higher risk of cancer, with 29 cases observed compared with 16.7 expected (standardized incidence rate [SIR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-2.5). When stratifying by azoospermia status, azoospermic men had an elevated risk of cancer (SIR 2.9, 95% CI 1.4-5.4). Infertile men without azoospermia had a trend toward a higher rate of cancer (SIR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9-2.2). The Cox regression model revealed that azoospermic men had 2.2-fold higher cancer risk compared with nonazoospermic men (hazard ratio 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.8). Conclusion(s): Men with azoospermia have an increased risk of subsequently developing cancer, suggesting a possible common etiology between azoospermia and cancer development. Additional follow-up of azoospermic men after reproductive efforts end may be warranted. ((C) 2013 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

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

4.7
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