OBJECTIVES: To correlate endocrine parameters in elderly men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) to patient age and clinical parameters such as prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and uroflowmetry and to compare the clinical and endocrinologic parameters in men with or without hypogonadism. METHODS: Men (40 years old or older) with untreated LUTS as defined by an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of 7 or greater due to benign prostatic hyperplasia were included in this study and underwent the following investigations: IPSS, free uroflow study, postvoid residual volume, transrectal ultrasound for assessment of prostate volume, serum PSA determination, and an endocrine study, including testosterone, human luteinizing hormone, human follicle-stimulating hormone, prolactin, dehydroepiandrostendione-sulphate (DHEA-S), and prolactin. RESULTS: Three hundred twelve men (mean age 62.8 +/- 10.6 years, range 40 to 91) were analyzed. The serum levels of estradiol (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.19), human luteinizing hormone (r = 0.32), human follicle-stimulating hormone (r = 0.19), and DHEA-S (r = -0.39) correlated (P <0.05) with age; no such correlation was seen for testosterone (r = 0.04; P0.05) or prolactin (r = 0.09; P0.05). Estradiol (but not testosterone) correlated (r = 0.17, P = 0.01) with prostate volume. The peak flow rate and PSA did not correlate with any endocrinologic parameter. Hypogonadism (serum testosterone less than 3.0 ng/mL) was detected in 22.1% of patients and had no impact on clinical (IPSS, peak flow rate, prostate volume, and PSA level) or endocrine (human luteinizing hormone, human follicle-stimulating hormone, estradiol, prolactin, and DHEA-S) parameters. CONCLUSIONS: A number of age-related endocrine changes are seen in elderly men with LUTS. Hypogonadism is seen in approximately one fifth of elderly men with LUTS, but in our study it had no impact on symptom status, PSA level, prostate volume, uroflowmetry, or endocrine parameters.
OBJECTIVES: To correlate endocrine parameters in elderly men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) to patient age and clinical parameters such as prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and uroflowmetry and to compare the clinical and endocrinologic parameters in men with or without hypogonadism. METHODS:Men (40 years old or older) with untreated LUTS as defined by an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of 7 or greater due to benign prostatic hyperplasia were included in this study and underwent the following investigations: IPSS, free uroflow study, postvoid residual volume, transrectal ultrasound for assessment of prostate volume, serum PSA determination, and an endocrine study, including testosterone, human luteinizing hormone, human follicle-stimulating hormone, prolactin, dehydroepiandrostendione-sulphate (DHEA-S), and prolactin. RESULTS: Three hundred twelve men (mean age 62.8 +/- 10.6 years, range 40 to 91) were analyzed. The serum levels of estradiol (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.19), human luteinizing hormone (r = 0.32), human follicle-stimulating hormone (r = 0.19), and DHEA-S (r = -0.39) correlated (P <0.05) with age; no such correlation was seen for testosterone (r = 0.04; P0.05) or prolactin (r = 0.09; P0.05). Estradiol (but not testosterone) correlated (r = 0.17, P = 0.01) with prostate volume. The peak flow rate and PSA did not correlate with any endocrinologic parameter. Hypogonadism (serum testosterone less than 3.0 ng/mL) was detected in 22.1% of patients and had no impact on clinical (IPSS, peak flow rate, prostate volume, and PSA level) or endocrine (human luteinizing hormone, human follicle-stimulating hormone, estradiol, prolactin, and DHEA-S) parameters. CONCLUSIONS: A number of age-related endocrine changes are seen in elderly men with LUTS. Hypogonadism is seen in approximately one fifth of elderly men with LUTS, but in our study it had no impact on symptom status, PSA level, prostate volume, uroflowmetry, or endocrine parameters.
Authors: Alan R Kristal; Jeannette M Schenk; YoonJu Song; Kathryn B Arnold; Marian L Neuhouser; Phyllis J Goodman; Daniel W Lin; Frank Z Stanczyk; Ian M Thompson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 4.897