ArticleThe Prostate2025
History of Vasectomy Is not Associated With Prostate Cancer Progression in Men on Active Surveillance.
Article in The Prostate, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite decades of debate, there is little resolution about the relationship between vasectomy and prostate cancer, let alone disease progression in men on active surveillance. We sought to compare progression risk in men on active surveillance with or without history of vasectomy.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of data from our institutional Active Surveillance Program. To assess cancer outcomes, we evaluated baseline demographic data, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, and estimates of biopsy tumor volume in men with low-grade (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer with or without vasectomy history. Men with a vasectomy were further categorized by time between vasectomy and prostate cancer diagnosis to evaluate whether this latent period influenced disease progression. We defined disease progression as grade reclassification (GR; upgrading) to Grade Group ≥ 2 on any surveillance biopsy. Treatment in absence of GR and death not due to prostate cancer were considered competing risks. The Fine & Gray model was used to calculate univariate and multivariate subdistribution hazard ratios accounting for competing risk.
resultsA total of 1565 men with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer at diagnosis were included, of whom 373 men reported prior vasectomy and 1192 reported no history of vasectomy. GR to ≥ Grade Group 2 on any surveillance biopsy occurred in 112 (30.0%) men with prior vasectomy, compared to 386 (32.4%) men without vasectomy, at any surveillance biopsy. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, neither a history of vasectomy nor the time from vasectomy to prostate cancer diagnosis was associated with a significant risk of progression to higher grade disease.
conclusionsThis is the first investigation of prostate cancer progression risk and history of vasectomy in men on active surveillance. Given that prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis in men in the USA, identification of risk factors for adverse clinical outcomes is necessary so patients may make informed management decisions.
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.