Premium
Cancer in first‐degree relatives and risk of testicular cancer in Denmark
Author(s) -
Nordsborg Rikke Baastrup,
Meliker Jaymie R.,
Wohlfahrt Jan,
Melbye Mads,
RaaschouNielsen Ole
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
international journal of cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.475
H-Index - 234
eISSN - 1097-0215
pISSN - 0020-7136
DOI - 10.1002/ijc.25897
Subject(s) - testicular cancer , cancer , medicine , family aggregation , cancer registry , first degree relatives , oncology , odds ratio , gynecology , disease , family history
Familial aggregation of testicular cancer has been reported consistently, but it is less clear if there is any association between risk of testicular cancer and other cancers in the family. We conducted a population‐based case–control study to examine the relationship between risk of testicular cancer and 22 different cancers in first‐degree relatives. We included 3,297 cases of testicular cancer notified to the Danish Cancer Registry between 1991 and 2003. A total of 6,594 matched controls were selected from the Danish Civil Registration System, which also provided the identity of 40,104 first‐degree relatives of case and controls. Familial cancer was identified by linkage to the Danish Cancer Registry, and we used conditional logistic regression to analyze whether cancer among first‐degree relatives was associated with higher risk of testicular cancer. Rate ratio for testicular cancer was 4.63 (95% CI: 2.41–8.87) when a father, 8.30 (95% CI: 3.81–18.10) when a brother and 5.23 (95% CI: 1.35–20.26) when a son had testicular cancer compared to no familial testicular cancer. Results were similar when analyses were stratified by histologic subtypes of testicular cancer. Familial non‐Hodgkin lymphoma and esophageal cancer were associated with testicular cancer; however, these may be chance findings. The familial aggregation of testicular and possibly other cancers may be explained by shared genes and/or shared environmental factors, but the mutual importance of each of these is difficult to determine.