BACKGROUND: Several studies have recently suggested an association between body mass index (BMI) and disease progression after radical prostatectomy. In the current study, the authors examined this association and that between the reciprocal of BMI (INVBMI, 1/BMI) and progression-free probability in men treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. METHODS: The authors retrospectively studied 2210 patients who underwent RRP at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center between September 1986 and May 2003. Clinicopathologic variables analyzed included BMI (kg/m2), preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level (ng/mL), clinical T classification, year of surgery, race, biopsy-derived primary and secondary Gleason grades, and INVBMI, known to better correlate with percent body fat than BMI. Cox regression analysis was used to examine the possible association between BMI or its reciprocal with disease progression after controlling for the effects of common prognostic factors. The areas under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for models with and without INVBMI were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 2210 patients analyzed, 251 experienced disease progression in a median follow-up time of 25.9 months (range, 0-143 months). After adjusting for all clinical variables, both BMI (P = 0.071; hazards ratio [HR] = 1.027) and INVBMI (P = 0.041; HR < 0.001) were associated with disease progression. However, the areas under AUC for models with and without INVBMI were similar (range, 0.794-0.798). CONCLUSIONS: Although conflicting evidence has been reported regarding the link between obesity and an increased risk of developing prostate carcinoma, as well as an increased risk of developing aggressive disease and prostate carcinoma-related mortality, the authors found weak associations with disease progression for both BMI and INVBMI. These variables were of negligible prognostic value in men who received surgery. Studies with longer follow-up, that examine alternative end points, and that follow treatment(s) besides surgery are needed.
BACKGROUND: Several studies have recently suggested an association between body mass index (BMI) and disease progression after radical prostatectomy. In the current study, the authors examined this association and that between the reciprocal of BMI (INVBMI, 1/BMI) and progression-free probability in men treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. METHODS: The authors retrospectively studied 2210 patients who underwent RRP at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center between September 1986 and May 2003. Clinicopathologic variables analyzed included BMI (kg/m2), preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level (ng/mL), clinical T classification, year of surgery, race, biopsy-derived primary and secondary Gleason grades, and INVBMI, known to better correlate with percent body fat than BMI. Cox regression analysis was used to examine the possible association between BMI or its reciprocal with disease progression after controlling for the effects of common prognostic factors. The areas under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for models with and without INVBMI were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 2210 patients analyzed, 251 experienced disease progression in a median follow-up time of 25.9 months (range, 0-143 months). After adjusting for all clinical variables, both BMI (P = 0.071; hazards ratio [HR] = 1.027) and INVBMI (P = 0.041; HR < 0.001) were associated with disease progression. However, the areas under AUC for models with and without INVBMI were similar (range, 0.794-0.798). CONCLUSIONS: Although conflicting evidence has been reported regarding the link between obesity and an increased risk of developing prostate carcinoma, as well as an increased risk of developing aggressive disease and prostate carcinoma-related mortality, the authors found weak associations with disease progression for both BMI and INVBMI. These variables were of negligible prognostic value in men who received surgery. Studies with longer follow-up, that examine alternative end points, and that follow treatment(s) besides surgery are needed.
Authors: Zhao Chen; Michael Maricic; Paul Nguyen; Frederick R Ahmann; Roberta Bruhn; Bruce L Dalkin Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Ram C Tiwari; Taylor Murray; Asma Ghafoor; Alicia Samuels; Elizabeth Ward; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: José R Fernández; Moonseong Heo; Steven B Heymsfield; Richard N Pierson; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer; Zimian M Wang; Jack Wang; Matthew Hayes; David B Allison; Dympna Gallagher Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; David Elashoff; Martha K Terris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Corinne E Joshu; Alison M Mondul; Andy Menke; Cari Meinhold; Misop Han; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Stephen J Freedland; Patrick C Walsh; Elizabeth A Platz Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-02-16
Authors: John E Paes; Keding Hua; Rebecca Nagy; Richard T Kloos; David Jarjoura; Matthew D Ringel Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-06-02 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Jing Ma; Haojie Li; Ed Giovannucci; Lorelei Mucci; Weiliang Qiu; Paul L Nguyen; J Michael Gaziano; Michael Pollak; Meir J Stampfer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-10-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Christopher J DiBlasio; Ithaar H Derweesh; Michael M Maddox; Reza Mehrazin; Changhong Yu; John B Malcolm; Michael A Aleman; Anthony L Patterson; Robert W Wake; Michael W Kattan Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2012-12-21
Authors: Jacqueline M Major; Hillary S Klonoff-Cohen; John P Pierce; Donald J Slymen; Sidney L Saltzstein; Caroline A Macera; Dan Mercola; Michael W Kattan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 3.240