Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Are vasectomies a risk factor for prostate cancer?

Rajiv Singal, MD
Conditions
August 2, 2014
Share
Tweet
Share

Recently, I realized that patients coming to my office seeking vasectomies required an additional piece in their counseling. What led to this change? Earlier this month a study out of Harvard University suggested an association between vasectomy and lethal prostate cancer. Published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers found that “men with a history of vasectomy had a 10% increased risk of prostate cancer, with a 19% higher risk of a more lethal form of the disease.”

At first glance the study sounds quite frightening, particularly when one considers that vasectomy is a common form of birth control, with prevalence rates of more than 10% across the industrialized world. Over my 19-year career I have done approximately 2,200 vasectomies. First conducted successfully on a canine subject in the early 19th century, the modern “no-scalpel” method can typically be completed within a few minutes.

Regardless of its routine nature, the procedure still makes some men cross their legs when they consider it. They come in to see me in spite of this discomfort. Their wives tend to have borne the burdens of childbirth and family planning, and now that their families are complete, the men are looking to shoulder their share of the contraceptive responsibilities.

“Vasectomies are as reliable as anything short of abstinence,” I typically reassure my patients. “There’s a low failure rate, and a very low likelihood of complications.” Known risks include infection, bleeding and chronic testicular pain.

The Harvard study has made my reassurances a little more complicated. It’s based on the data pool provided by the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study: a Harvard School of Public Health-sponsored study of 49,405 men working in health-related fields who were between the ages of 40 and 75 in 1986 and then followed until 2010.

Of these men, approximately 12,000 had vasectomies. In parallel, 6,023 were diagnosed with prostate cancer, with 811 of those men dying of the disease. When the researchers crunched the numbers, it turned out that the men who had undergone vasectomies were comparatively more likely to develop prostate cancer. Additionally, the vasectomy group seemed slightly more predisposed to develop a more lethal form of prostate cancer. Nevertheless it is worth noting that for a disease that will affect one in seven men in their lifetime, the overall risk of death for both groups is comparatively small, with only 1.6% of the men dying of prostate cancer over the 24-year study period.

Media coverage upon publication of this study was both swift and intensive and generated much discussion in the urology community. For example, my Australian colleague Declan Murphy described within hours a patient challenging him about his previous reassurance that vasectomy doesn’t cause prostate cancer. “Since then we have had headlines in the mass media all over the world,” wrote Declan on his blog.

But what those headlines don’t say is that this is not a new topic. In fact, researchers analyzing this same pool of subjects published a study back in 1993 positing the same link between vasectomy and prostate cancer. Since then, a 2002 meta-analysis looking at 23 different studies concluded that any association between vasectomy and prostate cancer was small and possibly explained by something called “selection bias” — because men who undergo vasectomies tend to have earlier contact with urologists, and thus are more likely to get diagnosed with prostate cancer. After a thorough review of the literature the American Urological Association concludes that “vasectomy is not a risk factor” for prostate cancer in its guidelines.

While the Harvard study attempted to insulate its findings from any selection bias, I don’t see urologists changing course anytime soon. At best the risk is small. Furthermore, a biological explanation remains elusive. The Harvard study only found an association between prostate cancer and vasectomy in the specific population it studied. The study authors write, “The biologic mechanisms behind the association … are not clear.”

Prostate cancer is usually a hormonally fueled disease. Meanwhile, vasectomy has little effect on hormone levels and simply disrupts a tube transporting sperm. A causal link between the two could rewrite our understanding of the development of prostate cancer.

In the future, I certainly will discuss this study with my patients. I will also use the opportunity to educate them about more established prostate cancer risk factors, such as family history, ethnicity and advancing age. Prostate cancer will continue to remain a challenging and complex clinical entity. Until there is better data, I will continue to advise my patients of the considerable merits of vasectomy in shared family planning.

Rajiv Singal is director of urology, Medcan Clinic. He can be reached on Twitter @DrRKSingal.  This article originally appeared in the National Post. 

Prev

Scribes put humanity back into the practice of medicine

August 2, 2014 Kevin 67
…
Next

What if jet lag was infectious?

August 2, 2014 Kevin 0
…

ADVERTISEMENT

Tagged as: Oncology/Hematology

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Scribes put humanity back into the practice of medicine
Next Post >
What if jet lag was infectious?

ADVERTISEMENT

Related Posts

  • The risk physicians take when going on social media

    Anonymous
  • 4 disturbing trends in health care

    Praveen Suthrum
  • Hormone replacement therapy is still linked to cancer

    Martha Rosenberg
  • Cancer care costs everyone too much. What can we do about it?

    Andrew Hertler, MD
  • We have a shot at preventing cervical cancer

    Lisa N. Abaid, MD, MPH
  • Obstruction of medical justice: How health care fails patients with cancer

    Miriam A. Knoll, MD

More in Conditions

  • The emotional labor of volunteering in an aging society

    Gerald Kuo
  • Understanding the evolutionary mismatch in health and modern disease

    Max Goodman, MD
  • Why Brooklyn’s aging population needs more vascular health specialists

    Anil Hingorani, MD
  • Why pediatricians are key to postpartum depression screening

    Mikenna Reiser
  • Prostate cancer genomic testing: a physician-patient’s perspective

    Francisco M. Torres, MD
  • Taiwan’s “Yi-Dong-Yang”: a preventive aging model for super-aged societies

    Gerald Kuo
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • A physician father on the Dobbs decision and reproductive rights

      Travis Walker, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Putting health back into insurance: the case for tobacco cessation

      Edward Anselm, MD | Policy
    • What is the minority tax in medicine?

      Tharini Nagarkar and Maranda C. Ward, EdD, MPH | Education
    • Will AI replace primary care physicians?

      P. Dileep Kumar, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why every physician needs a sabbatical (and how to take one)

      Christie Mulholland, MD | Physician
    • Retail health care vs. employer DPC: Preparing for 2026 policy shifts

      Dana Y. Lujan, MBA | Policy
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why patient trust in physicians is declining

      Mansi Kotwal, MD, MPH | Physician
    • How environmental justice and health disparities connect to climate change

      Kaitlynn Esemaya, Alexis Thompson, Annique McLune, and Anamaria Ancheta | Policy
    • A physician father on the Dobbs decision and reproductive rights

      Travis Walker, MD, MPH | Physician
    • The blind men and the elephant: a parable for modern pain management

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Conditions
    • Is tramadol really ineffective and risky?

      John A. Bumpus, PhD | Meds
    • Why insurance must cover home blood pressure monitors

      Soneesh Kothagundla | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • The emotional labor of volunteering in an aging society

      Gerald Kuo | Conditions
    • Understanding the evolutionary mismatch in health and modern disease

      Max Goodman, MD | Conditions
    • Silence is a survival mechanism that costs women their joy [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • FDA loosens AI oversight: What clinicians need to know about the 2026 guidance

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Policy
    • Why the U.S. health care system is failing patients and physicians

      John C. Hagan III, MD | Policy
    • Focusing on outcomes over novelty prevents AI failure in health care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 1 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • A physician father on the Dobbs decision and reproductive rights

      Travis Walker, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Putting health back into insurance: the case for tobacco cessation

      Edward Anselm, MD | Policy
    • What is the minority tax in medicine?

      Tharini Nagarkar and Maranda C. Ward, EdD, MPH | Education
    • Will AI replace primary care physicians?

      P. Dileep Kumar, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why every physician needs a sabbatical (and how to take one)

      Christie Mulholland, MD | Physician
    • Retail health care vs. employer DPC: Preparing for 2026 policy shifts

      Dana Y. Lujan, MBA | Policy
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why patient trust in physicians is declining

      Mansi Kotwal, MD, MPH | Physician
    • How environmental justice and health disparities connect to climate change

      Kaitlynn Esemaya, Alexis Thompson, Annique McLune, and Anamaria Ancheta | Policy
    • A physician father on the Dobbs decision and reproductive rights

      Travis Walker, MD, MPH | Physician
    • The blind men and the elephant: a parable for modern pain management

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Conditions
    • Is tramadol really ineffective and risky?

      John A. Bumpus, PhD | Meds
    • Why insurance must cover home blood pressure monitors

      Soneesh Kothagundla | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • The emotional labor of volunteering in an aging society

      Gerald Kuo | Conditions
    • Understanding the evolutionary mismatch in health and modern disease

      Max Goodman, MD | Conditions
    • Silence is a survival mechanism that costs women their joy [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • FDA loosens AI oversight: What clinicians need to know about the 2026 guidance

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Policy
    • Why the U.S. health care system is failing patients and physicians

      John C. Hagan III, MD | Policy
    • Focusing on outcomes over novelty prevents AI failure in health care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Are vasectomies a risk factor for prostate cancer?
1 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...