Purpose Increased risks of solid tumors after older radiotherapy strategies for testicular cancer (TC) are well established. Few population-based studies, however, focus on solid cancer risk among survivors of TC managed with nonradiotherapy approaches. We quantified the site-specific risk of solid cancers among testicular nonseminoma patients treated in the modern era of cisplatin-based chemotherapy, without radiotherapy. Patients and Methods Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for solid tumors were calculated for 12,691 patients with testicular nonseminoma reported to the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (1980 to 2008) and treated initially with either chemotherapy (n = 6,013) or surgery (n = 6,678) without radiotherapy. Patients accrued 116,073 person-years of follow-up. Results Two hundred ten second solid cancers were observed. No increased risk followed surgery alone (SIR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.14; n = 99 solid cancers), whereas significantly increased 40% excesses (SIR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.73; n = 111 solid cancers) occurred after chemotherapy. Increased risks of solid cancers after chemotherapy were observed in most follow-up periods (median latency, 12.5 years), including more than 20 years after treatment (SIR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.33); significantly increased three- to seven-fold risks occurred for cancers of the kidney (SIR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.79 to 5.77), thyroid (SIR, 4.40; 95% CI, 2.19 to 7.88), and soft tissue (SIR, 7.49; 95% CI, 3.59 to 13.78). Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first large population-based series reporting significantly increased risks of solid cancers among patients with testicular nonseminoma treated in the modern era of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Subsequent analytic studies should focus on the evaluation of dose-response relationships, types of solid cancers, latency patterns, and interactions with other possible factors, including genetic susceptibility.
To what extent does smoking affect gingival bleeding response to supragingival plaque? Site‐specific analyses in a population‐based study
