ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2015
Prospectively Identified Incident Testicular Cancer Risk in a Familial Testicular Cancer Cohort.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Associations between maternal periconceptional exposure to PMScientific reports · 2024Article
- Racial differences in testicular cancer in the United States: descriptive epidemiology.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Article
- The genomic landscape of testicular germ cell tumours: from susceptibility to treatment.Nature reviews. Urology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHuman testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) have a strong genetic component and a high familial relative risk. However, linkage analyses have not identified a rare, highly penetrant familial TGCT (FTGCT) susceptibility locus. Currently, multiple low-penetrance genes are hypothesized to underlie the familial multiple-case phenotype. The observation that two is the most common number of affected individuals per family presents an impediment to FTGCT gene discovery. Clinically, the prospective TGCT risk in the multiple-case family context is unknown.
methodsWe performed a prospective analysis of TGCT incidence in a cohort of multiple-affected-person families and sporadic-bilateral-case families; 1,260 men from 140 families (10,207 person-years of follow-up) met our inclusion criteria. Age-, gender-, and calendar time-specific standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for TGCT relative to the general population were calculated using SEER*Stat.
resultsEight incident TGCTs occurred during prospective FTGCT cohort follow-up (versus 0.67 expected; SIR = 11.9; 95% CI, 5.1-23.4; excess absolute risk = 7.2/10,000). We demonstrate that the incidence rate of TGCT is greater among bloodline male relatives from multiple-case testicular cancer families than that expected in the general population, a pattern characteristic of adult-onset Mendelian cancer susceptibility disorders. Two of these incident TGCTs occurred in relatives of sporadic-bilateral cases (0.15 expected; SIR = 13.4; 95% CI, 1.6-48.6).
conclusionsOur data are the first to indicate that despite relatively low numbers of affected individuals per family, members of both multiple-affected-person FTGCT families and sporadic-bilateral TGCT families comprise high-risk groups for incident testicular cancer. IMPACT: Men at high TGCT risk might benefit from tailored risk stratification and surveillance strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.