Cited by 137Testicular diseases and treatmentsCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Cannabis exposure and risk of testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Gurney, J., Shaw, C., Stanley, J., Signal, V., Sarfati, D.·2015·BMC Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aetiology of testicular cancer remains elusive. In this manuscript, we review the evidence regarding the association between cannabis use and testicular cancer development. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we reviewed literature published between 1(st) January 1980 and 13(th) May 2015 and found three case-control studies that investigated the association between cannabis use and development of testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs). RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Using meta-analysis techniques, we observed that a) current, b) chronic, and c) frequent cannabis use is associated with the development of TGCT, when compared to never-use of the drug. The strongest association was found for non-seminoma development--for example, those using cannabis on at least a weekly basis had two and a half times greater odds of developing a non-seminoma TGCT compared those who never used cannabis (OR: 2.59, 95% CI 1.60-4.19). We found inconclusive evidence regarding the relationship between cannabis use and the development of seminoma tumours. It must be noted that these observations were derived from three studies all conducted in the United States; and the majority of data collection occurred during the 1990's.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12885-015-1905-6

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The evidence is inconclusive for testicular seminomas, and lung cancer, neck and head cancers because of the possible roles of tobacco use, and other confounders.

    “The evidence is inconclusive for testicular seminomas, and lung cancer, neck and head cancers because of the possible roles of tobacco use, and other confounders.”

    From Cannabis, cannabinoids and health: a review of evidence on risks and medical benefits (2025) · cites this paper as [67]

    The Results (Meta-analysis results; page not provided) say there was insufficient evidence to conclude that cannabis use was associated with seminoma development. The paper does not assess lung or head and neck cancers, or attribute inconclusive evidence for those cancers to tobacco use or other confounders. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The strongest association was found for non-seminoma development and weekly cannabis use.

    “The strongest association was found for non-seminoma development and weekly cannabis use.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [4]McGlynn KA Cook MB The epidemiology of testicular cancer. Male reproductive cancers: epidemiology, pathology and genetics 2009 New York Springer
  2. [8]Lacson JCA Carroll JD Tuazon E Castelao EJ Bernstein L 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 21 5374 83 10.1002/cncr.27554 22965656 PMC3775603 · DOI
  3. [13]Stroup D Berlin J Morton S Olkin I Williamson G Rennie D Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting JAMA 2000 283 15 2008 12 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 10789670 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [21]Sterne JA, Bradburn MJ, Egger M. Meta-analysis in stata. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: Wiley; 2006. p. 347–69.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gurney, J., Shaw, C., Stanley, J., Signal, V., & Sarfati, D.
Affiliations
University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
Gurney, J.
Venue
BMC Cancer
Published
2015-11-11
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
897-897
ISSN
1471-2407 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2118479499
Cited by
137
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Health Research Council of New Zealand (NZ) (14/052)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Testicular diseases and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
cannabis use, testicular cancer, testicular germ cell tumors, non-seminoma, seminoma, cancer risk factors, chronic cannabis use, case-control study
MeSH terms
Cannabis, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal, Risk Factors, Testicular Neoplasms, United States, Case-Control Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review