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:ContextMounting evidence from the literature suggests that different types of training interventions can be successful at improving several aspects of male reproductive function in both fertile and infertile populations.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of exercise training on male factor infertility and seminal markers of inflammation.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, CISCOM, Springer, Elsevier Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, PEDro, Ovid (Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO), Sport Discus, Orbis, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that analyzed the impacts of selected types of exercise interventions on markers of male reproductive function and reproductive performance.Study selectionA total of 336 records were identified, of which we included 7 trials reporting on 2641 fertile and infertile men in the systematic review and network meta-analysis.Level of evidenceLevel 1 (because this is a systematic review of RCTs).Data extractionThe data included the study design, participant characteristics, inclusion and exclusion, intervention characteristics, outcome measures, and the main results of the study.ResultsThe results of network meta-analysis showed that, compared with a nonintervention control group, the top-ranking interventions for pregnancy rate were for combined aerobic and resistance training (CET) (relative risk [RR] = 27.81), moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) (RR = 26.67), resistance training (RT) (RR = 12.54), high-intensity continuous training (HICT) (RR = 5.55), and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) (RR = 4.63). While the top-ranking interventions for live birth rate were for MICT (RR = 10.05), RT (RR = 4.92), HIIT (RR = 4.38), CET (RR = 2.20), and HICT (RR = 1.55). Also, with the following order of effectiveness, 5 training strategies were significantly better at improving semen quality parameters (CET > MICT > HICT > RT > HIIT), seminal markers of oxidative stress (CET > MICT > HIIT > HICT > RT), seminal markers of inflammation (CET > MICT > HIIT > RT > HICT), as well as measures of body composition and VO2max (CET > HICT > MICT > HIIT > RT).ConclusionThe review recommends that the intervention with the highest probability of being the best approach out of all available options for improving the male factor infertility was for CET.

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.