BACKGROUND: Associations between metabolic syndrome (MetS) components and prostate cancer development have not been studied comprehensively; results have been divergent. Using the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment panel III (NCEP) and International Diabetes Federation (IDF) definitions of the MetS, we investigated such associations taking competing risks of death into consideration. METHODS: In the prospective Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men of 2,322 Caucasian men with 34 years of follow-up baseline, MetS measurements at age 50 years were used. Cumulative incidence of prostate cancer and death with/without the MetS were calculated. Competing risk of dying was taken into account by calculating the conditional probability of prostate cancer with/without the MetS. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-seven prostate cancers were identified. Prostate cancer probability by age 80 years with baseline MetS compared with without MetS was nonsignificantly higher [5.2 percent units (confidence interval (CI), -0.8% to 11.3%; NCEP); 2.7 percent units (CI, -2.7% to 8.0%; IDF)]; cumulative incidence proportions of death was significantly higher [19.3 percent units (CI, 13.4-25.3%; NCEP); 15.3 percent units (CI, 9.5-21.1%; IDF)]; and conditional probability of prostate cancer considering death from other causes was significantly higher [7.3 percent-units (CI, 0.2-14.5%); odds ratio of 1.64 (CI, 1.03-2.23; NCEP)] and nonsignificantly higher [5.0 percent-units (CI, -1.6% to 11.6%); odds ratio of 1.43 (CI, 0.89-1.90; IDF]. CONCLUSIONS: The MetS by the NCEP definition is associated with prostate cancer, taking the competing risk of early death from other causes into account. IMPACT: The results further highlight the public health effect of the increasing prevalence of MetS and the importance of considering competing risks when studying risk factors for cancer. (c)2010 AACR.
BACKGROUND: Associations between metabolic syndrome (MetS) components and prostate cancer development have not been studied comprehensively; results have been divergent. Using the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment panel III (NCEP) and International Diabetes Federation (IDF) definitions of the MetS, we investigated such associations taking competing risks of death into consideration. METHODS: In the prospective Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men of 2,322 Caucasian men with 34 years of follow-up baseline, MetS measurements at age 50 years were used. Cumulative incidence of prostate cancer and death with/without the MetS were calculated. Competing risk of dying was taken into account by calculating the conditional probability of prostate cancer with/without the MetS. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-seven prostate cancers were identified. Prostate cancer probability by age 80 years with baseline MetS compared with without MetS was nonsignificantly higher [5.2 percent units (confidence interval (CI), -0.8% to 11.3%; NCEP); 2.7 percent units (CI, -2.7% to 8.0%; IDF)]; cumulative incidence proportions of death was significantly higher [19.3 percent units (CI, 13.4-25.3%; NCEP); 15.3 percent units (CI, 9.5-21.1%; IDF)]; and conditional probability of prostate cancer considering death from other causes was significantly higher [7.3 percent-units (CI, 0.2-14.5%); odds ratio of 1.64 (CI, 1.03-2.23; NCEP)] and nonsignificantly higher [5.0 percent-units (CI, -1.6% to 11.6%); odds ratio of 1.43 (CI, 0.89-1.90; IDF]. CONCLUSIONS: The MetS by the NCEP definition is associated with prostate cancer, taking the competing risk of early death from other causes into account. IMPACT: The results further highlight the public health effect of the increasing prevalence of MetS and the importance of considering competing risks when studying risk factors for cancer. (c)2010 AACR.
Authors: Eberhard Varenhorst; Hans Garmo; Lars Holmberg; Jan Adolfsson; Jan-Erik Damber; Magnus Hellström; Jonas Hugosson; Rolf Lundgren; Pär Stattin; Magnus Törnblom; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: Scand J Urol Nephrol Date: 2005
Authors: S O Andersson; A Wolk; R Bergström; H O Adami; G Engholm; A Englund; O Nyrén Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1997-03-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Naveed Sattar; Allan Gaw; Olga Scherbakova; Ian Ford; Denis St J O'Reilly; Steven M Haffner; Chris Isles; Peter W Macfarlane; Chris J Packard; Stuart M Cobbe; James Shepherd Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-07-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J Slade Hubbard; Sabine Rohrmann; Patricia K Landis; E Jeffrey Metter; Denis C Muller; Reubin Andres; H Ballentine Carter; Elizabeth A Platz Journal: Urology Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jari A Laukkanen; David E Laaksonen; Leo Niskanen; Eero Pukkala; Anna Hakkarainen; Jukka T Salonen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Wambui G Gathirua-Mwangi; Patrick O Monahan; Mwangi J Murage; Jianjun Zhang Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jan Hammarsten; Jan-Erik Damber; Mohammad A Haghsheno; Dan Mellström; Ralph Peeker Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: M Gacci; G I Russo; C De Nunzio; A Sebastianelli; M Salvi; L Vignozzi; A Tubaro; G Morgia; S Serni Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Katharine N Sourbeer; Lauren E Howard; Gerald L Andriole; Daniel M Moreira; Ramiro Castro-Santamaria; Stephen J Freedland; Adriana C Vidal Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: K Esposito; P Chiodini; A Capuano; G Bellastella; M I Maiorino; E Parretta; A Lenzi; D Giugliano Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Barbra A Dickerman; Johanna E Torfadottir; Unnur A Valdimarsdottir; Kathryn M Wilson; Laufey Steingrimsdottir; Thor Aspelund; Julie L Batista; Katja Fall; Edward Giovannucci; Lara G Sigurdardottir; Laufey Tryggvadottir; Vilmundur Gudnason; Sarah C Markt; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 7.396