Several recent publications reflect debate on the issue of “endocrine disrupting chemicals” (EDCs), indicating that two seemingly mutually exclusive perspectives are being articulated separately and independently. Considering this, a group of scientists with expertise in basic science, medicine and risk assessment reviewed the various aspects of the debate to identify the most significant areas of dispute and to propose a path forward. We identified four areas of debate. The first is about the definitions for terms such as “endocrine disrupting chemical”, “adverse effects”, and “endocrine system”. The second is focused on elements of hormone action including “potency”, “endpoints”, “timing”, “dose” and “thresholds”. The third addresses the information needed to establish sufficient evidence of harm. Finally, the fourth focuses on the need to develop and the characteristics of transparent, systematic methods to review the EDC literature. Herein we identify areas of general consensus and propose resolutions for these four areas that would allow the field to move beyond the current and, in our opinion, ineffective debate.

African-American men are more likely than any other racial group to die from prostate cancer. The contribution of acquired genomic variation to this racial disparity is largely unknown, as genomic from Africa is lacking. Here, we performed the first tumor-normal paired deep whole-genome sequencing for Africa. A direct study-matched comparison between African- and European-derived, treatment-naïve, high-risk prostate tumors for 15 cases allowed for further comparative analyses of existing data. Excluding a single hypermutated tumor with 55 mutations per megabase, we observed a 1.8-fold increase in small somatic variants in African- versus European-derived tumors (P = 1.02e–04), rising to 4-fold when compared with published tumor-matched data. Furthermore, we observed an increase in oncogenic driver mutations in African tumors (P = 2.92e–03); roughly 30% of impacted genes were novel to prostate cancer, and 79% of recurrent driver mutations appeared early in tumorigenesis. Although complex genomic rearrangements were less frequent in African tumors, we describe a uniquely hyperduplicated tumor affecting 149 transposable elements. Comparable with African Americans, ERG fusions and PIK3CA mutations were absent and PTEN loss less frequent. CCND1 and MYC were frequently gained, with somatic copy-number changes more likely to occur late in tumorigenesis. In addition to traditional prostate cancer gene pathways, genes regulating calcium ion-ATPase signal transduction were disrupted in African tumors. Although preliminary, our results suggest that further validation and investigation into the potential implications for elevated tumor mutational burden and tumor-initiating mutations in clinically unfavorable prostate cancer can improve patient outcomes in Africa.Significance: The first whole-genome sequencing study for high-risk prostate cancer in African men allows a simultaneous comparison of ethnic differences relative to European populations and of the influences of the environment relative to African-American men.

Prostate cancer is characterized by considerable geo-ethnic disparity. African ancestry is a significant risk factor, with mortality rates across sub-Saharan Africa of 2.7-fold higher than global averages¹. The contributing genetic and non-genetic factors, and associated mutational processes, are unknown^2,3. Here, through whole-genome sequencing of treatment-naive prostate cancer samples from 183 ancestrally (African versus European) and globally distinct patients, we generate a large cancer genomics resource for sub-Saharan Africa, identifying around 2 million somatic variants. Significant African-ancestry-specific findings include an elevated tumour mutational burden, increased percentage of genome alteration, a greater number of predicted damaging mutations and a higher total of mutational signatures, and the driver genes NCOA2, STK19, DDX11L1, PCAT1 and SETBP1. Examining all somatic mutational types, we describe a molecular taxonomy for prostate cancer differentiated by ancestry and defined as global mutational subtypes (GMS). By further including Chinese Asian data, we confirm that GMS-B (copy-number gain) and GMS-D (mutationally noisy) are specific to African populations, GMS-A (mutationally quiet) is universal (all ethnicities) and the African–European-restricted subtype GMS-C (copy-number losses) predicts poor clinical outcomes. In addition to the clinical benefit of including individuals of African ancestry, our GMS subtypes reveal different evolutionary trajectories and mutational processes suggesting that both common genetic and environmental factors contribute to the disparity between ethnicities. Analogous to gene–environment interaction—defined here as a different effect of an environmental surrounding in people with different ancestries or vice versa—we anticipate that GMS subtypes act as a proxy for intrinsic and extrinsic mutational processes in cancers, promoting global inclusion in landmark studies.

Biomedical science is rapidly developing in terms of more transparency, openness and reproducibility of scientific publications. This is even more important for all studies that are based on results from basic semen examination. Recently two concordant documents have been published: the 6th edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, and the International Standard ISO 23162:2021. With these tools, we propose that authors should be instructed to follow these laboratory methods in order to publish studies in peer-reviewed journals, preferable by using a checklist as suggested in an Appendix to this article.

The “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.