Climate change, microplastics, and male infertility.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Semen quality is on the decline. While the etiology is unknown, recent literature suggests there may be a relationship between climate change, environmental toxins and male fertility. This review relays new information regarding associations between our environment and male infertility. RECENT FINDINGS: Several recent studies have documented a negative association between heat stress and spermatogenesis, which suggests that climate change may be a factor in declining in sperm counts. The influence of particle pollution on spermatogenesis has also been recently investigated, with studies demonstrating a negative association. Another possible factor are microplastics, which have been posited to reduce sperm production. Recent animal studies have shown that microplastic exposure alters both adult sperm production and prenatal male genital development. The relationship between endocrine disrupting chemicals and male fertility remains an area of active study, with recent animal and human studies suggesting an association between these chemicals and male fertility. SUMMARY: The etiology of the decline in male fertility over the past decades is yet unknown. However, changes in our environment as seen with climate change and exposure to pollutants and endocrine disrupting chemicals are proposed mechanisms for this decline. Further studies are needed to investigate this association further.

Estimating the impact of enhanced care at minority-serving hospitals on disparities in the treatment of breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancers.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to quantify disparities in cancer treatment delivery between minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) and non-MSHs for breast, prostate, nonsmall cell lung, and colon cancers from 2010 to 2019 and to estimate the impact of improving care at MSHs on national disparities. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Database (2010-2019) identified patients who were eligible for definitive treatments for the specified cancers. Hospitals in the top decile by minority patient proportion were classified as MSHs. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics compared the odds of receiving definitive treatment at MSHs versus non-MSHs. A simulation was used to estimate the increase in patients receiving definitive treatment if MSH care matched the levels of non-MSH care. RESULTS: Of 2,927,191 patients from 1330 hospitals, 9.3% were treated at MSHs. MSHs had significant lower odds of delivering definitive therapy across all cancer types (adjusted odds ratio: breast cancer, 0.83; prostate cancer, 0.69; nonsmall cell lung cancer, 0.73; colon cancer, 0.81). No site of care-race interaction was significant for any of the cancers (p > .05). Equalizing treatment rates at MSHs could result in 5719 additional patients receiving definitive treatment over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings underscore systemic disparities in definitive cancer treatment delivery between MSHs and non-MSHs for breast, prostate, nonsmall cell lung, and colon cancers. Although targeted improvements at MSHs represent a critical step toward equity, this study highlights the need for integrated, system-wide efforts to address the multifaceted nature of racial and ethnic health disparities. Enhancing care at MSHs could serve as a pivotal strategy in a broader initiative to achieve health care equity for all.

Racial differences in postpandemic trends in prostate-specific antigen screening.

Our study investigates the trends in prostate cancer screening amid the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly focusing on racial disparities between Black and White men. Utilizing data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2018, 2020, and 2022, we analyzed prostate-specific antigen screening rates in men aged 45-75 years. Our findings reveal initial declines in screening rates for both groups during the pandemic, with subsequent recovery; however, the pace of rebound differed statistically significantly between races. Whereas White men showed a notable increase in screening rates postpandemic, Black men's rates recovered more slowly. This disparity underscores the impact of socioeconomic factors, health-care access, and possibly systemic biases affecting health-care delivery. Our study highlights the need for targeted interventions to address these inequalities and ensure equitable access to prostate cancer preventive care in the aftermath of COVID-19.