Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Cannabis Use and Incidence of Testicular Cancer: A 42-Year Follow-up of Swedish Men between 1970 and 2011

Russell C. Callaghan, Peter Allebeck, Olof Akre, Katherine A. McGlynn and Anna Sidorchuk
Russell C. Callaghan
1Northern Medical Program, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: russ.callaghan@unbc.ca
Peter Allebeck
2Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olof Akre
3Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Katherine A. McGlynn
4Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anna Sidorchuk
2Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0428 Published November 2017
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Given current drug policy reforms to decriminalize or legalize cannabis in numerous countries worldwide, the current study assesses the relation between cannabis use and the development of testicular cancer.

Methods: The study included a population-based sample (n = 49,343) of young men ages 18–21 years who underwent conscription assessment for Swedish military service in 1969–1970. The conscription process included a nonanonymous questionnaire eliciting information about drug use. Conscription information was linked to Swedish health and administrative registry data. Testicular cancers diagnosed between 1970 and 2011 were identified by International Classification of Diseases-7/8/9/10 testicular cancer codes in the Swedish National Patient Register, the Cancer Register, or the Cause of Death Register. Cox regression modeling was used to estimate the hazards associated with cannabis use and time to diagnosis of testicular cancer.

Results: No evidence was found of a significant relation between lifetime “ever” cannabis use and the subsequent development of testicular cancer [n = 45,250; 119 testicular cancer cases; adjusted HR (aHR), 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83–2.45]. “Heavy” cannabis use (defined as usage of more than 50 times in lifetime, as measured at conscription) was associated with the incidence of testicular cancer (n = 45,250; 119 testicular cancer cases; aHR 2.57; 95% CI, 1.02–6.50).

Conclusions: The current study provides additional evidence to the limited prior literature suggesting cannabis use may contribute to the development of testicular cancer.

Impact: Emerging changes to cannabis drug policy should consider the potential role of cannabis use in the development of testicular cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(11); 1644–52. ©2017 AACR.

This article is featured in Highlights of This Issue, p. 1579

Introduction

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug worldwide (1). According to 2015 World Drug Report (1), approximately 180 million people (3.9% of the global population) consumed cannabis in the past year, and it is likely that these numbers are due, in part, to the common perception that its use confers minimal health risks (2).

Globally, a range of nations, including countries of the European Union, Australia, and the Americas, have recently implemented or proposed reforms to the ways in which they control cannabis use (3–6), thereby departing from traditional approaches of criminal prohibition dominant throughout most of the 20th century (7). In light of the current international debates and policy changes regarding cannabis decriminalization/legalization in many regions (8–10), as well as its widespread global use, it is critically important to assess the impact of cannabis smoking on human health, especially on the development of cancers (11–13). Almost all research on the potential cannabis–cancer connection has focused on those cancers causally related to tobacco smoking (e.g., lung cancer, head and neck cancers; refs. 11, 12), but a small group of recent studies (14–16) also has found a suggestive link between cannabis use and the development of testicular cancers, which are traditionally unassociated with tobacco use (17).

Testicular cancer is the most common type of cancer among young men, with a peak incidence occurring between the ages 15 and 40 years (18)—an age range in which cannabis use most frequently occurs (1). Rates of testicular cancer appear to be increasing rapidly over time in the United States and Europe (16, 19, 20), but the etiology remains unclear. Three U.S.-based case–control studies (14–16) have found that cannabis use appears to confer an increased risk of developing testicular cancer. A meta-analytic summary of these three studies has shown that current, chronic (defined as cannabis use ≥ 10 years), and frequent (defined as at least once/week) cannabis use were all significantly associated with testicular cancer incidence (21). Although a recent review on this topic (11) has called for longitudinal studies to address the potential weaknesses of recall and selection biases in the available case–control studies, it is important to note that the relatively low incidence of testicular cancer creates nearly insurmountable cohort-design challenges, such as enrollment of sufficiently large samples and follow-up over long time periods.

Drawing upon a uniquely large, population-based sample (n = 49,343) of Swedish young men ages 18–21 years undergoing extensive medical and psychiatric assessments required during the process of compulsory conscription into military service in Sweden in 1969–1970, the current retrospective cohort study aimed to assess the possible link between self-reported cannabis use, measured at conscription, and the subsequent development of testicular cancer over a 42-year follow-up period.

Materials and Methods

Study cohort

The study cohort included 49,343 Swedish males born between 1949 and 1951 who underwent extensive medical and psychological assessment for the nationwide conscription for compulsory Swedish military service occurring in 1969 to 1970 (see Table 1 for initial sample details). Cohort members' ages (at conscription assessment) ranged from 18 to 21 years. Only 2%–3% of all young men were exempted from the conscription process due to severe mental or physical conditions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of the study sample of 49,343 conscripts born in 1949 to 1951 and ages 18–21 at conscription by exposure status

Data collection: process, sources, and linkage

Conscription assessment.

The Swedish conscription process included a large battery of evaluations, including physical and psychologic assessments, as well as nonanonymous self-report questionnaires on familial, social, and behavioral items (22). The 1969–1970 conscription also collected additional self-reported information about use of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. All men underwent a medical examination, and diagnoses were recorded according to International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-8. Persons who reported or showed signs of mental disorder were referred to a psychiatrist, who recorded a diagnosis, if a disorder was identified (23).

Linkage of conscription assessment data with other Swedish health and social registries

All individuals living in Sweden are assigned a unique personal number in national Swedish registers, enabling linkage of data across registries (24). Statistics Sweden provided the researchers with the nonidentifiable individual-level study data. The dataset included a unique anonymized identifier for each person to allow linkage of conscription information to registry data. According to the principles outlined in the International Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological Studies from the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS; ref. 25), individual consent was not relevant or required for the current study, as the data were not personally identifiable (meaning that individuals included in the study were unknown to the researcher and hence could not be contacted to obtain consent; see Guideline 4). The Stockholm Regional Ethical Review Board provided ethical clearance for the project and permission for data linkage (Dnr 2016/3:7).

Our cohort study relied on the linkage of 6 data sources: (i) information from Swedish young men undergoing conscription assessment in 1969–1970; (ii) the Swedish Patient Register, 1964–2011; (iii) the National Cancer Register, 1958–2010; (iv) the National Cause of Death Register, 1952–2011; (v) the Swedish Total Population Register, 1968–2011 (which captures date of emigration out of and immigration into Sweden); and (vi) the Swedish Multigenerational Register, 1973–2011.

Study outcome: testicular cancer

Diagnoses of testicular cancer were identified by use of the Swedish version of ICD-7/8/9/10 codes appearing in the National Patient Register, the Cancer Register, or the Cause of Death Register (see Supplementary Table S1). Incident cases of testicular cancer were identified in the main and supplementary diagnoses in the National Patient Register and the primary diagnoses in the Cancer Register, as well as in the underlying and contributory causes of death diagnoses in the Cause of Death Register. In addition, in the initial sample, no cases of testicular cancer were identified during the period before conscription or at the conscription assessment. The current study was not able to access histologic subtype information on testicular cancer and, as a result, assessment of the potential association between cannabis use and specific subtypes was not possible.

Measurement of cannabis use

Lifetime, ever cannabis use.

The variable instantiating lifetime, “ever” use of cannabis was created from the following 3 questions in the self-reported, nonanonymous conscription-assessment questionnaire: (1) have you ever tried the following substances? (give an answer yes or no about every drug); (2) what substance did you take first?; and (3) what substance have you taken most frequently? If the participant indicated cannabis use in response to any of these three questions, the variable of lifetime, ever cannabis use was coded as “yes.”

Lifetime level of cannabis use.

The variable capturing lifetime level of cannabis use was constructed from the following conscription survey question: “How many times have you used drugs?” (response options: 1, 2–4, 5–10, 11–50, more than 50 times). For those conscripts indicating “ever” cannabis use, it was assumed that the lifetime level of drug use question applied to their cannabis use, especially as cannabis use was, by far, the most frequently used drug in the sample. Of the 5,326 persons who indicated ever using cannabis (with or without use of other drugs), 4,323 (81.2%) indicated cannabis as the drug most frequently used. Among the 879 young men who reported use of cannabis more than 50 times (with or without use of other drugs), 743 (84.5% of 879) individuals indicated cannabis as the drug most frequently used.

Other covariates included in statistical modeling

The selection of covariates for the statistical analyses in the current study included, where possible, the variables selected for the statistical modeling in the three prior case–control studies (14–16), as well as the modeling covariates recommended in a recent systematic review of the cannabis-testicular cancer area (11): age, cryptorchidism, family history of testicular cancer, tobacco use, and alcohol use.

Cryptorchidism.

Cryptorchidism was identified by retrieving individual-level information from the National Patient Register [using Swedish ICD-7/8/9/10 codes (see Supplementary Table S1)] and from the results of medical examination performed at the conscription evaluation.

Paternal history of testicular cancer.

Using the Swedish Multigenerational Register, the conscripts were linked to their biological fathers. Paternal diagnoses of testicular cancer were identified from the National Patient Register, the Cancer Register and the Cause of Death Register using the same ICD-7/8/9/10 codes defining the testicular cancer outcome (see Supplementary Table S1).

Tobacco smoking.

Data on frequency of tobacco smoking reported at the conscription assessment were retrieved from individuals' survey responses and categorized as: never smoking tobacco (reference group); 1–5 cigarettes/day; 6–10 cigarettes/day; 11–20 cigarettes/day; more than 20 cigarettes/day.

Alcohol consumption.

Alcohol consumption was calculated by combining data on self-reported quantity and frequency of consumption of beer, wine, and spirits and expressed as grams of 100% alcohol (ethanol) per week: light drinkers [(1–100 g 100% alcohol/week); reference group]; abstainers (0 g 100% alcohol/week); moderate drinkers (101–250 g 100% alcohol/week); heavy drinkers (more than 250 g 100% alcohol/week). The Swedish alcohol retail monopoly provided information about the alcohol content (ethanol) for all alcohol beverages available in Sweden in 1969–1970 (26).

Statistical analyses

We evaluated whether lifetime cannabis use and lifetime level of cannabis use were related to incidence of testicular cancer. We applied Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate the HR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) associated with cannabis use and time to diagnosis of testicular cancer. In multivariate analyses, we applied a stepwise adjustment strategy, based on the stepwise modeling recommendations of a recent systematic review of the cannabis-testicular cancer area (11). In Model 1, we adjusted for the conscripts' birth year and for established risk factors for testicular cancer (i.e., conscripts' cryptorchidism and paternal testicular cancer); in Model 2, we adjusted for the conscripts' birth year and factors associated with cannabis use (i.e., frequency of tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption volume); and finally, Model 3 was a fully adjusted model where all abovementioned risk factors were included. The presentation of model results in each stepwise strategy gives the reader an important description of the stability of the estimates across covariate combinations in each model.

All analyses relied on list-wise deletion of individuals missing data on any variables included in the analyses. A flowchart (Fig. 1) describes the initial sample and final cohort based on list-wise deletion, along with the linkage of the conscription-assessment information with other population-based health registries used in the study. Person-time was counted from January 1, 1970, until the date of diagnosis, date of death due to other reasons, date of emigration or until end of follow-up on December 31, 2011, whichever occurred first, and comprised of 1,799,273.2 person-years. The proportional hazard assumption was checked by the log-rank test for equality of survival function and the log-survival plots and was met in all models. All reported P values were two-sided, with P < 0.05 considered as statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 13.1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Cohort profile and flowchart for final analytic sample and 42-year follow-up. Flowchart depicting the process for selecting participants for the final analytic sample in the current study.

Results

Testicular cancer cases

Figure 2 depicts the 135 testicular cancer cases identified in the initial sample (n = 49,343) during the follow-up between 1970 and 2011. Over 50% of the cases occurred among men ages 25–40 years.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Number of incident cases of testicular cancer by age group and level of cannabis use. Bar chart demonstrating the number of incident cases (n = 135) of testicular cancer diagnosed during follow-up time (1970–2011) among original conscripts born in 1949–1951 (n = 49,343) by age at diagnosis across levels of cannabis use.

Cohort description

Table 1 provides a description of the baseline characteristics of cohort members in the initial study sample. More than half of the cohort members indicated that they were current smokers, and approximately 20% reported moderate-to-heavy alcohol consumption. Approximately 11% of the baseline sample reported lifetime “ever” cannabis, and among these “ever” cannabis users, approximately 16.5% (n = 879) indicated cannabis usage of more than 50 times in lifetime.

Cox modeling results

In Table 2, the fully adjusted model (Model 3) demonstrated no evidence of a significant relation between “ever” cannabis use and development of testicular cancer [adjusted HR (aHR), 1.42; 95% CI, 0.83–2.45]. In the fully adjusted model, cryptorchidism was the only variable significantly associated with development of testicular cancer (aHR, 6.26; 95% CI, 2.30–17.01).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Incidence rates (IRs), HRs, and 95% CI for testicular cancer (n = 119 cases) by exposure to “ever” cannabis use in 45,250 conscripts with data available on all study covariates

In Table 3, “heavy” cannabis use (aHR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.02–6.50) and cryptorchidism (aHR, 6.24; 95% CI, 2.30–16.97) were significantly related to testicular cancer, whereas tobacco use and alcohol consumption showed no evidence of significant associations with the outcome.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

IRs, HRs, and 95% CI values for testicular cancer (n = 119 cases) by exposure to lifetime level of cannabis use in 45,250 conscripts with data available on all study covariates

Discussion

In this Swedish record-linkage study, we found that self-reported “heavy” cannabis use—defined as self-reported use of more than 50 times in lifetime at the conscription assessment period—was significantly associated with a 2.5-fold increased hazard of subsequent testicular cancer. The study found no evidence of a significant relation between “ever” cannabis use and the development of testicular cancer. This null finding may be due to heterogeneity of cannabis use in the “ever” group, as this category contained only a minority who reported “heavy” cannabis use and a majority of individuals indicating minimal lifetime cannabis exposure (e.g., 1–4 times in lifetime). In addition to the current study finding a significant relation between cannabis use and testicular cancer, our prior work drawing upon the same Swedish conscript cohort found that cannabis use was significantly associated with the development of lung cancer (12).

The available three prior case–control studies in the area have shown a significant pooled association between testicular cancer and current, frequent (i.e., ≥ weekly use) and lengthy cannabis use (i.e., ≥10 years), as well as a much stronger relation between cannabis use and the development of nonseminomatous germ cell tumors rather than seminomatous germ cell tumors (21). The Daling and colleagues (14) and Lacson and colleagues (15) case–control studies found a modest but statistically significant association between “ever” cannabis use and testicular cancer, whereas Trabert and colleagues (16) found no evidence of a relation between “ever” cannabis use and testicular cancer. Meta-analytic estimates have shown no evidence of a statistically significant pooled relation between “ever” use and testicular cancer, when these three case–control studies were aggregated (11, 21). Although the current study and the three previous studies have shown a relation between frequency and duration of cannabis use and the development of testicular cancer, the field still lacks evidence of a clear dose–response curve—a prerequisite for establishing a persuasive argument for the causal link. The current study showed no evidence of a gradient of risk across cannabis-use frequency variables, and the three prior case–controls studies relied on dichotomized cannabis-use frequency variables, such as “≥ weekly use: yes/no”—a design structure which does not allow for the assessment of a dose–response relation.

The mechanism by which cannabis affects the development of testicular cancer is not well elucidated. It is known, however, that active compounds in phytocannabinoids, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), bind to cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2) in many human organs, including the testes (27, 28). Experimental animal studies have shown that by binding to CB1 and CB2 in Leydig cells and Sertoli cells of the testes, levels of testosterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone are affected, as is the survival of Sertoli cells (29–32). Aberration in both steroid hormone levels and gonadotropin levels suggests that cannabinoids may cause a general perturbation to the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis, which could result in tumorigenesis (33). Much more research in this area, including timing of exposure, is required, however.

Our results should be interpreted with caution, given a number of important study limitations. The key variable instantiating conscripts' lifetime level of cannabis use relied on an indirect assessment of cannabis use. It was assumed that for those conscripts indicating “ever” cannabis use, the conscription survey question eliciting information about lifetime level of drug use (i.e., “How many times have you used drugs?”) applied to individuals' cannabis use. This appears to be a reasonable assumption, given that cannabis users in the sample typically indicated cannabis as their most frequently used drug. For example, approximately 81% of “ever” cannabis users and 84% of “heavy” cannabis users indicated cannabis as their most frequently used drug. In addition, the current study did not have information about cannabis use after the conscription-assessment period, but European studies have demonstrated that adolescent cannabis use, especially those patterns associated with regular use, abuse, or dependence, tend to persist and remain relatively stable throughout the developmental years of the 20s and early 30s (34, 35). Even though unmeasured postconscription changes in cannabis use may have affected our results, such misclassification biases would tend to attenuate our HR estimates and push our findings toward the null. For example, if “heavy” cannabis users (at baseline) later became nonusers of cannabis, this pattern would lead to a diminished hazard of testicular cancer associated with the cannabis-use variable; if nonusers of cannabis (at baseline) became cannabis users during the follow-up, this pattern would lead to an underestimate of the testicular-cancer risk in the initial cannabis-exposed groups, as this pattern would create an inflated risk in the nonusing reference group (defined at baseline). An additional limitation was that the study had no information on the histology of the testicular cancers. While meta-analytic pooled estimates of the three existing case–control studies have shown a relation between cannabis-use frequency and testicular cancer, especially the nonseminoma subtype, the current study was not able to estimate the hazards of cannabis use and the subsequent development of seminoma or nonseminoma subtypes.

Although the current study does have limitations, it is important also to acknowledge the project's strengths. The study included a large population-based sample of young men, who underwent an extensive conscription assessment. This individual-level conscription information was linked to population-based health registries, including the Swedish cancer registry, with virtually complete coverage. This data-linking procedure allowed the study to incorporate a 42-year follow-up for members of the initial cohort. As a result, the project is the first cohort study assessing the potential relation between cannabis use and the development of testicular cancer, and it makes an important contribution to the literature finding a potential association between cannabis use and the incidence of testicular cancer. Given current international developments to decriminalize or legalize cannabis use in a number of countries worldwide, it is critically important for legislation initiatives to consider the possible health consequences of cannabis use in the cost-benefit analysis underpinning rational drug policy development.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: R.C. Callaghan, P. Allebeck, A. Sidorchuk

Development of methodology: R.C. Callaghan, P. Allebeck, A. Sidorchuk

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): P. Allebeck, A. Sidorchuk

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): R.C. Callaghan, P. Allebeck, O. Akre, K.A. McGlynn, A. Sidorchuk

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: R.C. Callaghan, P. Allebeck, O. Akre, K.A. McGlynn, A. Sidorchuk

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): R.C. Callaghan, P. Allebeck, A. Sidorchuk

Study supervision: R.C. Callaghan, A. Sidorchuk

Acknowledgments

Claire Benny, BHSc (Honors) provided invaluable assistance during the article preparation and article revision phases of the project.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Online (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received May 17, 2017.
  • Revision received July 20, 2017.
  • Accepted August 22, 2017.
  • ©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. World Drug Report 2015 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.15.XI.6). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; 2015.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Berg CJ,
    2. Stratton E,
    3. Schauer GL,
    4. Lewis M,
    5. Wang Y,
    6. Windle M,
    7. et al.
    Perceived harm, addictiveness, and social acceptability of tobacco products and marijuana among young adults: marijuana, hookah, and electronic cigarettes win. Subst Use Misuse 2014;50:79–89.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Hall WD
    . The contribution of research to the development of a national cannabis policy in Australia. Addiction 2008;103:712–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hall W,
    2. Lynskey M
    . The challenges in developing a rational cannabis policy. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2009;22:258–62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Davenport S,
    2. Caulkins JP,
    3. Kleiman MAR
    . Controlling underage access to cannabis. Case Western Reserve Law Review 2015;65:541–66.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Evans-Whipp T,
    2. Plenty SM,
    3. Catalano RF,
    4. Herrenkohl TI,
    5. Toumbourou JW
    . Research and practice: longitudinal effects of school drug policies on student marijuana use in Washington state and Victoria, Australia. Am J Public Health 2015;105:994–1000.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Room R,
    2. Fischer B,
    3. Hall W,
    4. Lenton S,
    5. Reuter P
    . Cannabis policy: moving beyond stalemate. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2010.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ghosh T,
    2. Van Dyke M,
    3. Maffey A,
    4. Whitley E,
    5. Gillim-Ross L,
    6. Wolk L
    . The public health framework of legalized marijuana in Colorado. Am J Public Health 2016;106:21–7.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Wall MM,
    2. Mauro C,
    3. Hasin DS,
    4. Keyes KM,
    5. Cerda M,
    6. Martins SS,
    7. et al.
    Prevalence of marijuana use does not differentially increase among youth after states pass medical marijuana laws: Commentary on and reanalysis of US National Survey on Drug Use in Households data 2002–2011. Int J Drug Policy 2016;29:9–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hickenlooper GJW
    . Experimenting with pot: The state of Colorado's legalization of marijuana. Milbank Q 2014;92:243–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Huang YJ,
    2. Zhang Z,
    3. Tashkin DP,
    4. Feng B,
    5. Straif K,
    6. Hashibe M
    . An epidemiologic review of marijuana and cancer: an update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevent 2015;24:15–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Callaghan RC,
    2. Allebeck P,
    3. Sidorchuk A
    . Marijuana use and risk of lung cancer: a 40-year cohort study. Cancer Causes Control 2013;24:1811–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Hall W,
    2. Renström M,
    3. Poznyak V
    , editors. The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2016.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Daling JR,
    2. Doody DR,
    3. Sun X,
    4. Trabert BL,
    5. Weiss NS,
    6. Chen C,
    7. et al.
    Association of marijuana use and the incidence of testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer 2009;115:1215–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Lacson JC,
    2. Carroll JD,
    3. Tuazon E,
    4. Castelao EJ,
    5. Bernstein L,
    6. Cortessis VK
    . Population-based case-control study of recreational drug use and testis cancer risk confirms an association between marijuana use and nonseminoma risk. Cancer 2012;118:5374–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Trabert B,
    2. Sigurdson AJ,
    3. Sweeney AM,
    4. Strom SS,
    5. McGlynn KA
    . Marijuana use and testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer 2011;117:848–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Rajpert-De Meyts E,
    2. McGlynn KA,
    3. Okamoto K,
    4. Jewett MAS,
    5. Bokemeyer C
    . Testicular germ cell tumours. Lancet 2016;387:1762–74.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Winter C,
    2. Albers P
    . Testicular germ cell tumors: pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2011;7:43–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Nigam M,
    2. Aschebrook-Kilfoy B,
    3. Shikanov S,
    4. Eggener S
    . Increasing incidence of testicular cancer in the United States and Europe between 1992 and 2009. World J Urol 2015;33:623–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Ghazarian AA,
    2. Trabert B,
    3. Devesa SS,
    4. McGlynn KA
    . Recent trends in the incidence of testicular germ cell tumors in the United States. Andrology 2015;3:13–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Gurney J,
    2. Shaw C,
    3. Stanley J,
    4. Signal V,
    5. Sarfati D
    . Cannabis exposure and risk of testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2015;15:1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Otto U
    . A sociopsychiatric study of a total annual population of Swedish adolescent boys. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 1976;264:5–312.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Andréasson S,
    2. Engström A,
    3. Allebeck P,
    4. Rydberg U
    . Cannabis and schizophrenia: a longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts. Lancet 1987;330:1483–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Ludvigsson JF,
    2. Otterblad-Olausson P,
    3. Pettersson BU,
    4. Ekbom A
    . The Swedish personal identity number: possibilities and pitfalls in healthcare and medical research. Eur J Epidemiol 2009;24:659–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for epidemiological studies. Geneva, Switzerland: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS)/World Health Organization; 2009.
  26. 26.↵
    1. Andreasson S,
    2. Allebeck P,
    3. Romelsjö A
    . Alcohol and mortality among young men: longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts. Br Med J 1988;296:1021–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Matsuda LA,
    2. Bonner TI,
    3. Lolait SJ
    . Cannabinoid receptors: which cells, where, how, and why? NIDA Res Monogr 1993;126:48.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Munro S,
    2. Thomas KL,
    3. Abu-Shaar M
    . Molecular characterization of a peripheral receptor for cannabinoids. Nature 1993;365:61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Kolodny RC,
    2. Masters WH,
    3. Kolodner RM,
    4. Toro G
    . Depression of plasma testosterone levels after chronic intensive marihuana use. N Engl J Med 1974;1974:872–4.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Mandal TK,
    2. Das NS
    . Testicular toxicity in cannabis extract treated mice: association with oxidative stress and role of antioxidant enzyme systems. Toxicol Ind Health 2010;26:11–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Devane WA,
    2. Dysarz FA III.,
    3. Johnson MR,
    4. Melvin LS,
    5. Howlett AC
    . Determination and characterization of a cannabinoid receptor in rat brain. Mol Pharmacol 1988;34:605–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  32. 32.↵
    1. Wenger T,
    2. Ledent C,
    3. Csernus V,
    4. Gerendai I
    . The central cannabinoid receptor inactivation suppresses endocrine reproductive functions. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2001;284:363–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Skeldon SC,
    2. Goldenberg SL
    . Urological complications of illicit drug use. Nat Rev Urol 2014;11:169–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Perkonigg A,
    2. Goodwin RD,
    3. Fiedler A,
    4. Behrendt S,
    5. Beesdo K,
    6. Lieb R,
    7. et al.
    The natural course of cannabis use, abuse and dependence during the first decades of life. Addiction 2008;103:439–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Perkonigg A,
    2. Lieb R,
    3. Hofler M,
    4. Schuster P,
    5. Sonntag H,
    6. Wittchen HU
    . Patterns of cannabis use, abuse and dependence over time: incidence, progression and stability in a sample of 1228 adolescents. Addiction 1999;94:1663–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 26 (11)
November 2017
Volume 26, Issue 11
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cannabis Use and Incidence of Testicular Cancer: A 42-Year Follow-up of Swedish Men between 1970 and 2011
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Cannabis Use and Incidence of Testicular Cancer: A 42-Year Follow-up of Swedish Men between 1970 and 2011
Russell C. Callaghan, Peter Allebeck, Olof Akre, Katherine A. McGlynn and Anna Sidorchuk
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev November 1 2017 (26) (11) 1644-1652; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0428

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Cannabis Use and Incidence of Testicular Cancer: A 42-Year Follow-up of Swedish Men between 1970 and 2011
Russell C. Callaghan, Peter Allebeck, Olof Akre, Katherine A. McGlynn and Anna Sidorchuk
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev November 1 2017 (26) (11) 1644-1652; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0428
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Early-Life Risk Factors for Breast Cancer
  • Sugary Drink Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Risk
  • HPV Testing in Self-samples and Urine
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement