Dataset Information

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Male Infertility and the Subsequent Risk of Cancer

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The primary objective of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the risk of developing composite outcome of all cancers, regardless of the type of cancer among men with infertility diagnosis compared to fertile counterparts. The secondary objective was to compare the pooled risk of developing individual specific cancers between two groups.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed on the databases of PubMed (including Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science to retrieve observational studies published in English language from 01.01.1990 to 28. 02. 2021. They assessed cancer events in males with an infertility diagnosis compared to controls without infertility. The outcomes of interest were a composite outcome of cancers including all known cancer types, and also specific individual cancers. The fixed/random effects model was used to analyze heterogeneous and non-heterogeneous results. Publication bias was assessed using the Harbord test, Egger test, Begg test, and funnel plot. The pooled odds ratio of cancers was calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird, and inverse variance methods. Studies’ quality and risk of bias were assessed using structured standard tools.

Results

We included eight cohort studies involving 168,327 men with the diagnosis of infertility and 2,252,806 men without it. The total number of composite outcome of cancers as well as individual cancers including prostate, testicular and melanoma were 1551, 324, 183 and 121 in the infertile men and 12164, 3875, 849, and 450 in the fertile men, respectively. The pooled OR of the composite outcome of cancers, regardless of the type of cancer, in men with infertility was 1.4 folds higher than those without infertility (pooled OR = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-1.64). Meta-analysis of individual cancers including prostate, testicular and melanoma between two groups was carried out. The pooled ORs of testicular and prostate cancers in men with the diagnosis of infertility were significantly higher than controls without infertility (pooled OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.52-2.42 and pooled OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.05-2.08, respectively). Additionally, the pooled OR of melanoma in men with infertility was 1.3 folds higher than those without infertility (pooled OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.06-1.62).

Conclusion

A greater risk of cancers in men with male infertility was found suggesting that the history of male infertility might be an important risk factor for developing cancers in later life. Further well-designed long-term population-based prospective studies, considering all known cancers and their accompanying risk factors should be conducted to support our findings.

SUBMITTER: Behboudi-Gandevani S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8551623 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature to investigate the efficacy of the intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in couples with non-male factor with respect to the clinical outcomes.MethodsThe literature search was based on EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. All studies published after 1992 until February 2020 and written in English addressing patients in the presence of normal semen parameters subjected to ICSI and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were eligible. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched for additional studies. The primary outcomes were fertilization rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and implantation rate; the secondary outcomes were good-quality embryo rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate.ResultsFour RCTs and twenty-two cohort studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. Collectively, a meta-analysis of the outcomes in RCTs showed that compared to IVF, ICSI has no obvious advantage in fertilization rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.83-1.62), clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.66-1.64), implantation rate (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.67-1.86), and live birth rate (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.43-3.15). Pooled results of cohort studies demonstrated a statistically significant higher fertilization rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.03-1.31) and miscarriage rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.06) in the ICSI group; furthermore, higher clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.94), implantation rate (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95), and live birth rate (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.94) was founded in the IVF group; no statistically significant difference was observed in good-quality embryo rate (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93-1.04).ConclusionICSI has no obvious advantage in patients with normal semen parameters. Enough information is still not available to prove the efficacy of ICSI in couples with non-male factor infertility comparing to IVF.

Project description:IntroductionThe use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has dramatically increased in patients with non-male factor infertility during the last decades. However, whether ICSI provides a significant benefit over in vitro fertilization (IVF) in these patients is still controversial. In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of ICSI on reproductive outcomes with non-male factor infertility and to provide updated evidence for clinical practice.Material and methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy between ICSI and IVF in patients with non-male factor infertility were included. The main outcomes were the live birth rate (LBR), fertilization rate (FR), and total fertilization failure (TFF). The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects models as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023427004).ResultsWe included 18 RCTs with 3249 cycles and 30 994 oocytes. The results demonstrated that ICSI reduced the risk of TFF (RR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.13-0.50, I2 = 58%) and increased FR per oocyte inseminated/injected (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08-1.20, I2 = 69%), but it did not improve LBR (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.94-1.30, I2 = 0%) or other outcomes compared with IVF. However, the difference in fertilization failure reduction between ICSI and IVF may be explained by different randomization methods (randomization based on patients vs. sibling oocytes). When considering only studies with randomization based on patients, we found no evidence of the difference between the groups (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.48-1.06, I2 = 0%). Furthermore, no differences were observed in subgroup analyses based on other factors, including female age, study period, and controlled ovarian stimulation protocols.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that ICSI leads to no difference in reproductive outcomes compared to IVF in patients with non-male factor infertility. Considering the cost and safety of ICSI, we have no evidence to support the routine use of ICSI in these populations. High-quality RCTs with large sample sizes will be needed to confirm our results and explore clinical and neonatal outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to determine whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is beneficial in patients with non-male factor infertility.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis included articles from inception to May 2022. Published studies of non-male factor infertile women undergoing ICSI or in vitro fertilization (IVF) included in PubMed, Embase, web of science, Wanfang Database, and CNKI were searched by computer, without language restrictions. A random-effect model was applied to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Letters, case reports, and review articles including meta-analyses and expert opinions were excluded. The primary endpoints were laboratory outcomes and pregnancy outcomes. The Secondary endpoints were neonatal outcomes.ResultsSix randomized controlled studies and 20 retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. In meta-analytic forest plots, compared with IVF, those who received ICSI treatment were not different in fertilization rate (RR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.90-1.09], P = 0.88), total fertilization failure rate (RR = 1.30, 95% CI [1.17-1.45], P < 0.00001), and good quality embryo rate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [ 0.86-1.02], P = 0.15), clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.70-1.01], P = 0.06), live birth rate (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.77-1.03], P = 0.13), miscarriage rate (RR = 1.06, 95% CI [0.78-1.43], P = 0.71), preterm neonatal delivery rate (RR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.67-1.26], P = 0.61), and low neonatal weight rate (RR = 1.13, 95% CI [0.80-1.61], P = 0.48). However, the implantation rate of IVF was better than ICSI (RR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.64-0.93], P = 0.005). In the subgroup analysis of the live birth rate of fresh embryo transfer, IVF performed in those ≥35 years had a higher live birth rate (RR = 0.82, 95% CI [0.78-0.83], P < 0.001).ConclusionThe findings of this study indicate that ICSI is not superior to IVF in the treatment of infertility related to non-male factors. In order to confirm this result, more high-quality clinical studies are needed.