This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stang, A. Articles by Jöckel, K.-H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stang, A. Articles by Jöckel, K.-H.

Etiologic Conclusions from Similar Birth Cohort Effects

Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometry, and Informatics, Medical Faculty, Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany

Karl-Heinz Jöckel

Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, University of Duisburg-Essen, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany

To the Editors: We read with interest the recent article by Bray et al. (1) who studied age-cohort-period effects of incidence time trends of testicular cancer. They hypothesize "that similar temporal patterns in the cohort dimension imply that the etiologies of seminoma and nonseminoma are largely similar if not identical." With the exception of Italy, they estimated similar birth cohort effects for seminoma and nonseminoma in several European countries.

We think that, from an epistemologic point of view, one cannot conclude that similar birth cohort effects by histologic subgroup imply similar etiologies. However, divergent birth cohort effects (given that classification errors and other biases did not occur) may imply different etiologies by subgroup. For example, smoking follows a strong birth cohort pattern in European populations. If cigarette smoke, a mixture of carcinogens, would contain a carcinogen A that specifically induced seminoma and carcinogen B that specifically induced nonseminoma, we would observe similar birth cohort effects, although the etiology differs by subgroup.

Bray et al. note that no etiologic difference "has been established with consistency." They add that "difficulties in achieving sufficient statistical power to detect truly significant effects" make analytic studies problematic. However, Bray et al.'s own analyses do not provide information on the precision of estimates. For example, what is the precision of the incidence rate ratios by birth cohorts in the Czech Republic (Fig. 3)? Was the precision of their study high enough to conclude that these estimates are similar? In addition, we recalculated the incidence rate ratios (seminoma/nonseminoma) of the period 1994 to 1996 from Fig. 2. The ratios show a range of 1.14 (France) up to 1.75 (Italy). The scatter plot does not imply a linear relationship between the incidence of seminoma and nonseminoma.

One cannot ignore the available literature that gives clues to different etiologies of seminoma and nonseminoma, although risk factors of seminoma and nonseminoma may overlap in some instances (2-7). Incidence analyses of germ cell cancers among children (excluded by Bray et al.) indicate that, up to the age of 15 years, nonseminoma is almost the only gonadal germ cell tumors and shows an early peak among boys ages 0 to 4 years (8).

In conclusion, the observation of apparently similar subgroup-specific birth cohort effects estimated with unknown precision can neither logically nor empirically (as based on several published reports) lead to the conclusion that the etiologies of seminoma and nonseminoma are "largely similar if not identical."

	References

Top References

 

1. Bray F, Richiardi L, Ekbom A, et al. Do testicular seminoma and nonseminoma share the same etiology? Evidence from an age-period-cohort analysis of incidence trends in eight European countries. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:652–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Brown LM, Pottern LM, Hoover RN, Devesa SS, Aselton P, Flannery JT. Testicular cancer in the United States: trends in incidence and mortality. Int J Epidemiol 1986;15:164–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Prener A, Hsieh CC, Engholm G, Trichopoulos D, Jensen OM. Birth order and risk of testicular cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1992;3:265–72.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Akre O, Ekbom A, Hsieh CC, Trichopoulos D, Adami HO. Testicular nonseminoma and seminoma in relation to perinatal characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:883–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Stone JM, Cruickshank DG, Sandeman TF, Matthews JP. Trebling of the incidence of testicular cancer in Victoria, Australia (1950-1985). Cancer 1991;68:211–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Stang A, Ahrens W, Bromen K, et al. Undescended testis and the risk of testicular cancer: importance of source and classification of exposure information. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:1050–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Bromen K, Stang A, Baumgardt-Elms C, et al. Testicular, other genital, and breast cancers in 1st degree relatives of testicular cancer patients and controls. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:1316–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. McGlynn KA, Devesa SS, Sigurdson AJ, Brown LM, Tsao L, Tarone RE. Trends in the incidence of testicular germ cell tumors in the United States. Cancer 2003;97:63–70.[CrossRef][Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Bray, L. Richiardi, A. Ekbom, D. Forman, E. Pukkala, M. Cuninkova, and H. Moller Etiologic conclusions from similar birth cohort effects. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., September 1, 2006; 15(9): 1752 - 1752. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stang, A. Articles by Jöckel, K.-H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stang, A. Articles by Jöckel, K.-H.