Summary
Several studies have found associations between aggressive prostate cancer and having a vasectomy. However, findings from two very recent meta-analyses have found that this is not the case. Therefore, the data is mixed. Herein, we detail the controversy between vasectomy and prostate cancer risk, particularly aggressive prostate cancer, by shedding some light on the molecular pathways, potential risk factors, and suggested links for those considering vasectomy and medical professionals who perform it. We conclude by supporting the American Urological Association’s position that, while patients should be informed of potential risks of vasectomy, there is no established link between prostate cancer and choosing to have a vasectomy.
Keywords: prostate, cancer, vasectomy, risk, epidemiology
Vasectomy is the foremost utilized non-diagnostic operation performed by urologists in the United States.[1] Technically, this involves cutting the vas and often removing a small piece of the vas to prevent recannulation. The net result is that sperm and other testicular by-products do not make it to the prostate and are not part of the ejaculate, therefore making vasectomy extremely effective birth control. While side effects can occur (sperm granuloma and chronic pain in the testes known as orchalgia), traditionally, vasectomy has been thought to be devoid of other long-term sequalae. However, some studies suggest that vasectomy may be linked with greater prostate cancer (PC) risk, specifically aggressive PC.[2–4] Herein, we briefly review these data, discuss the potential molecular mechanisms that could link vasectomy with PC risk, and provide some clinical insight that may explain the observed associations. Finally, we conclude with advice regarding how to discuss this risk with patients considering vasectomy.
PC is the most common solid cancer in men with over 220,000 new cases each year and the second leading cause of cancer death in men with over 27,000 deaths each year.[5] Given this high prevalence, any condition that can even modestly increase risk, could lead to a large number of excess cases. While historically, age, race, and family history were considered the only risk factors for PC[6–8], more recent studies have suggested additional risk factors such as epigenetic changes[9], inflammation and prostate tissue damage[10], smoking[11], sexually transmitted infections[12,13], and obesity.[14] Relevant to this review, several studies have also suggested a link between vasectomy and increased PC risk.[2–4]
Prior to reviewing the literature on vasectomy and PC risk, we first will review potential molecular mechanisms that have been postulated to explain the increased PC risk seen in some studies. While the exact biological mechanisms and molecular pathways through which vasectomy may influence PC risk are unclear, possible explanations have included anatomical changes in the testis[15], epididymis[16], and vas, including changes in the secretions of vas proteins.[17] Interestingly, a study found that insulin growth factor (IGF)-1 and IGF binding protein-3 (IGF-BP3) levels in the seminal plasma were significantly lower after vasectomy.[18] While IGF-1 has been significantly associated with increased PC risk in humans[19], IGF-BP3 has been associated with lower risk of PC.[20] As such, the net result of lower IGF-1 and IGF-BP3 on PC risk is hard to assess. Moreover, it has been found that vasectomized men have decreased expression of semen TGFβ-1 and TGFβ-3 relative to non-vasectomized men.[21] Given that TGFβ and has an inhibitory effect on PC tumor growth[22,23], lower TGFβ levels could contribute to higher PC risk. Furthermore, it has been suggested that changes in semen protein behavior (both up and downregulation)[21] may influence PC proliferation. Interestingly, the increased proliferation effect was modeled in rats in a study which examined the effects of vasectomy on the prostate. Like the human study, they found that vasectomy increased cell proliferation in the prostate post-vasectomy.[24] More studies in both animals and humans are required to better understand these findings.
Given the potential plausibility that vasectomy may link with PC risk, it is noteworthy that indeed, some studies have found a link between vasectomy and increased PC risk. In their 1998 systematic review of five cohort and nine case-control studies, Bernal-Delgado et al reported a 23% increased risk of PC among men who reported having a vasectomy.[25] In two independent retrospective and prospective studies, Giovannucci et al found that, in almost 25,000 men combined, vasectomy increased PC risk by 56–66%.[3,26] More recently, however, a study from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) examined nearly 50,000 men, over 6,000 of which were diagnosed with PC, with a 24-year follow-up timeframe and found that of the 25% of the men in their cohort who had had a vasectomy, there was a 10% increased risk of developing PC in general, but a 22% increased risk of developing high-grade PC.[4] Among these studies, one interesting observation is the consistent decreasing magnitude of the increased risk of PC after vasectomy over time, potentially related to the increased PSA testing over time, which has leveled the field in terms of PC detection.
While the above studies certainly suggest a link between vasectomy and PC risk, this does not imply vasectomy causes PC. Rather, an association is a place to start looking and suggests that something is linking vasectomy and PC – whether it is the vasectomy itself (casual), the greater screening that occurs among men who undergo vasectomy (detection bias), or some other shared factor between vasectomy and PC (explained by a confounder). Indeed, much of the association between vasectomy and PC risk in these prior studies is presumed to relate to both screening bias (i.e. vasectomies are performed by urologists and urologists are more likely to screen for PC) and detection bias (PC is detected almost solely through screening; due to the fact that men who have a vasectomy require more medical attention and thus are screened more frequently allowing more cancers to be caught: more PSA screening → more biopsies).[27] Importantly, a recent study tried to address this and concluded that this could not account for the positive association between vasectomy and aggressive PC risk.[4] Specifically, the authors adjusted for ongoing PSA testing and analyzed men who were highly screened between 1996 and 2010, which in theory should account for screening differences between men who did and did not have a vasectomy, and while vasectomy was no longer linked with overall PC risk (p=0.41), it remained linked with increased risk of higher grade PC including Gleason 7 and 8–10 PC (22–28% increased risk).
While this study certainly supports a link between vasectomy and PC risk, it is noteworthy that multiple studies found no link between vasectomy and PC risk.[28–30] Given this controversy, a recent meta-analysis examined this issue. Using data published up through 2014 (including the results from Siddiqui et al), Liu et al examined results from nine cohort studies, with data from over 1.1 million men (ages 20–75) of which 7,539 were diagnosed with PC, and found no significant differences in PC risk among men who did or did not have a vasectomy (p=0.48).[31] Moreover, in subgroups defined by time since vasectomy, geographic location, follow-up time, and year of publication, there remained no significant associations between vasectomy and PC risk within any strata. Additionally, in a leave-one-out analysis, there again, remained no significant associations between vasectomy and PC risk regardless of which paper was excluded, suggesting the results of the meta-analysis were not driven by a single-study. Finally, another meta-analysis also published in 2015 came to identical conclusions regarding the lack of significant association between vasectomy and PC risk.[32]
Given the lack of clear molecular explanations, the overall modest positive associations even in the positive studies, and the negative meta-analyses, it is difficult to accept that a true association exists between vasectomy and PC risk. While it is hoped that in time and with more studies we will have stronger evidence for or against such an association, the strongest evidence to date points to no link between vasectomy and PC risk. As such, given the clear benefits of vasectomy and the at best unclear risks, men should not be dissuaded against vasectomy due to concerns about PC. On the contrary, given the strength of the meta-analysis finding no linkage, we would advise that doctors not discuss with their patients concerns about PC. This approach is in keeping with the recommendations of the American Urological Association.[1] In our practice, we do not advise patients about these potential risks.
So, what’s the take home message? The best evidence to date suggests no link between vasectomy and PC risk, though, we cannot indisputably rule out a very weak effect. However, if in an analysis of over 1,000,000 men was unable to find a significant effect, how clinically relevant could it be?
Acknowledgments
Financial disclosure
SJ Freedland has received funding support from NIH-K24 CA160653.
Footnotes
competing interests disclosure
The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.
References
- 1.Sharlip ID, Belker AM, Honig S, et al. Vasectomy: AUA guideline. The Journal of urology. 2012;188(6 Suppl):2482–2491. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rohrmann S, Paltoo DN, Platz EA, Hoffman SC, Comstock GW, Helzlsouer KJ. Association of vasectomy and prostate cancer among men in a Maryland cohort. Cancer causes & control: CCC. 2005;16(10):1189–1194. doi: 10.1007/s10552-005-0304-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Giovannucci E, Tosteson TD, Speizer FE, Ascherio A, Vessey MP, Colditz GA. A retrospective cohort study of vasectomy and prostate cancer in US men. Jama. 1993;269(7):878–882. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Siddiqui MM, Wilson KM, Epstein MM, et al. Vasectomy and risk of aggressive prostate cancer: a 24-year follow-up study. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2014;32(27):3033–3038. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2015;65(1):5–29. doi: 10.3322/caac.21254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Albright F, Stephenson RA, Agarwal N, et al. Prostate cancer risk prediction based on complete prostate cancer family history. The Prostate. 2015;75(4):390–398. doi: 10.1002/pros.22925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Gaines AR, Turner EL, Moorman PG, et al. The association between race and prostate cancer risk on initial biopsy in an equal access, multiethnic cohort. Cancer causes & control: CCC. 2014;25(8):1029–1035. doi: 10.1007/s10552-014-0402-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Muralidhar V, Ziehr DR, Mahal BA, et al. Association Between Older Age and Increasing Gleason Score. Clinical genitourinary cancer. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zelic R, Fiano V, Grasso C, et al. Global DNA hypomethylation in prostate cancer development and progression: a systematic review. Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases. 2015;18(1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2014.45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Sfanos KS, De Marzo AM. Prostate cancer and inflammation: the evidence. Histopathology. 2012;60(1):199–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04033.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Islami F, Moreira DM, Boffetta P, Freedland SJ. A systematic review and meta-analysis of tobacco use and prostate cancer mortality and incidence in prospective cohort studies. European urology. 2014;66(6):1054–1064. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Caini S, Gandini S, Dudas M, Bremer V, Severi E, Gherasim A. Sexually transmitted infections and prostate cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer epidemiology. 2014;38(4):329–338. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2014.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Twu O, Dessi D, Vu A, et al. Trichomonas vaginalis homolog of macrophage migration inhibitory factor induces prostate cell growth, invasiveness, and inflammatory responses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2014;111(22):8179–8184. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1321884111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hu MB, Bai PD, Wu YS, et al. Higher body mass index increases the risk for biopsy-mediated detection of prostate cancer in Chinese men. PloS one. 2015;10(4):e0124668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Flickinger CJ. The effects of vasectomy on the testis. The New England journal of medicine. 1985;313(20):1283–1285. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198511143132008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Thimon V, Calvo E, Koukoui O, Legare C, Sullivan R. Effects of vasectomy on gene expression profiling along the human epididymis. Biology of reproduction. 2008;79(2):262–273. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.107.066449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Feng HM, Wen RQ, Li SQ, et al. Proteins in fluid from the proximal vas deferens of normal fertile and vasectomized men. International journal of andrology. 1995;18(2):63–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.1995.tb00387.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ovesen P, Flyvbjerg A, Orskov H. Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and IGF binding proteins in seminal plasma before and after vasectomy in normal men. Fertility and sterility. 1995;63(4):913–918. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)57502-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Wolk A, Mantzoros CS, Andersson SO, et al. Insulin-like growth factor 1 and prostate cancer risk: a population-based, case-control study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1998;90(12):911–915. doi: 10.1093/jnci/90.12.911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Neuhouser ML, Platz EA, Till C, et al. Insulin-like growth factors and insulin-like growth factor-binding proteins and prostate cancer risk: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. Cancer prevention research. 2013;6(2):91–99. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-12-0250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Batruch I, Lecker I, Kagedan D, et al. Proteomic analysis of seminal plasma from normal volunteers and post-vasectomy patients identifies over 2000 proteins and candidate biomarkers of the urogenital system. Journal of proteome research. 2011;10(3):941–953. doi: 10.1021/pr100745u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sharifi N, Hurt EM, Kawasaki BT, Farrar WL. TGFBR3 loss and consequences in prostate cancer. The Prostate. 2007;67(3):301–311. doi: 10.1002/pros.20526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sharifi N, Lechleider RJ, Farrar WL. Transforming growth factor-beta receptor III downregulation in prostate cancer: is inhibin B a tumor suppressor in prostate? Journal of molecular endocrinology. 2007;39(5):329–332. doi: 10.1677/JME-07-0084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Periera S, Martinez M, Martinez FE, Mello W., Junior Repercussions of castration and vasectomy on the ductal system of the rat ventral prostate. Cell Biology Int. 2006;30(2):169–174. doi: 10.1016/j.cellbi.2005.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bernal-Delgado E, Latour-Perez J, Pradas-Arnal F, Gomez-Lopez LI. The association between vasectomy and prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Fertility and sterility. 1998;70(2):191–200. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00142-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Giovannucci E, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. A prospective cohort study of vasectomy and prostate cancer in US men. Jama. 1993;269(7):873–877. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Zhu K, Stanford JL, Daling JR, et al. Vasectomy and prostate cancer: a case-control study in a health maintenance organization. American journal of epidemiology. 1996;144(8):717–722. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Cox B, Sneyd MJ, Paul C, Delahunt B, Skegg DC. Vasectomy and risk of prostate cancer. Jama. 2002;287(23):3110–3115. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.23.3110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Schwingl PJ, Meirik O, Kapp N, Farley TM, Cancer HRPMSoP, Vasectomy Prostate cancer and vasectomy: a hospital-based case-control study in China, Nepal and the Republic of Korea. Contraception. 2009;79(5):363–368. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Goldacre MJ, Wotton CJ, Seagroatt V, Yeates D. Cancer and cardiovascular disease after vasectomy: an epidemiological database study. Fertility and sterility. 2005;84(5):1438–1443. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.04.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Liu LH, Kang R, He J, et al. Vasectomy and risk of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Andrology. 2015;3(4):643–649. doi: 10.1111/andr.12040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Shang Y, Han G, Li J, et al. Vasectomy and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Scientific reports. 2015;5:9920. doi: 10.1038/srep09920. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
