Bimal Bhindi1, Jennifer Locke2, Shabbir M H Alibhai3, Girish S Kulkarni4, David S Margel5, Robert J Hamilton6, Antonio Finelli6, John Trachtenberg6, Alexandre R Zlotta6, Ants Toi7, Karen M Hersey6, Andrew Evans8, Theodorus H van der Kwast8, Neil E Fleshner6. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: bimal.bhindi@mail.utoronto.ca. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Department of Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Urology and Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. 6. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Department of Pathology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A biologic rationale exists for the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and prostate cancer (PCa). However, epidemiologic studies have been conflicting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between MetS and the odds of PCa diagnosis in men referred for biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients without prior PCa diagnosis undergoing prostate biopsy were identified from a large prostate biopsy cohort (in Toronto, Canada). The definition of MetS was based on the most recent interim joint consensus definition, requiring any three of five components (obesity, elevated blood pressure, diabetes or impaired fasting glucose, low high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and hypertriglyceridemia). Both the individual components of MetS and the cumulative number of MetS components were evaluated. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The outcomes were PCa detection overall, clinically significant PCa (CSPC; defined as any Gleason pattern ≥ 4, >50% involvement of a single biopsy core, or more than one of three total number of cores involved), and intermediate- or high-grade PCa (I-HGPC; Gleason 7-10). Tests for trend and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 2235 patients, 494 (22.1%) had MetS. No individual MetS component was independently associated with PCa. However, increasing number of MetS components was associated with higher PCa grade (p<0.001), as well as progressively higher odds of PCa outcomes (three or more; ie, MetS) compared with no MetS components: Odds ratios were 1.54 for PCa overall (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-2.04; p=0.002), 1.56 for CSPC (95% CI, 1.17-2.08; p=0.002), and 1.56 for I-HGPC (95% CI, 1.16-2.10; p=0.003) in multivariable analyses. The main limitation is the retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Although the individual MetS components are not independently associated with PCa outcomes, MetS is significantly associated with higher odds of PCa diagnosis, CSPC, and I-HGPC. There is a biologic gradient between the number of MetS components and the risk of PCa, as well as cancer grade. PATIENT SUMMARY: Metabolic syndrome is a collection of metabolic abnormalities that increases one's risk for heart disease. Our study shows that an increasing degree of metabolic abnormality is also associated with an increased risk of diagnosis of overall and aggressive prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND: A biologic rationale exists for the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and prostate cancer (PCa). However, epidemiologic studies have been conflicting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between MetS and the odds of PCa diagnosis in men referred for biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients without prior PCa diagnosis undergoing prostate biopsy were identified from a large prostate biopsy cohort (in Toronto, Canada). The definition of MetS was based on the most recent interim joint consensus definition, requiring any three of five components (obesity, elevated blood pressure, diabetes or impaired fasting glucose, low high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and hypertriglyceridemia). Both the individual components of MetS and the cumulative number of MetS components were evaluated. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The outcomes were PCa detection overall, clinically significant PCa (CSPC; defined as any Gleason pattern ≥ 4, >50% involvement of a single biopsy core, or more than one of three total number of cores involved), and intermediate- or high-grade PCa (I-HGPC; Gleason 7-10). Tests for trend and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 2235 patients, 494 (22.1%) had MetS. No individual MetS component was independently associated with PCa. However, increasing number of MetS components was associated with higher PCa grade (p<0.001), as well as progressively higher odds of PCa outcomes (three or more; ie, MetS) compared with no MetS components: Odds ratios were 1.54 for PCa overall (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-2.04; p=0.002), 1.56 for CSPC (95% CI, 1.17-2.08; p=0.002), and 1.56 for I-HGPC (95% CI, 1.16-2.10; p=0.003) in multivariable analyses. The main limitation is the retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Although the individual MetS components are not independently associated with PCa outcomes, MetS is significantly associated with higher odds of PCa diagnosis, CSPC, and I-HGPC. There is a biologic gradient between the number of MetS components and the risk of PCa, as well as cancer grade. PATIENT SUMMARY:Metabolic syndrome is a collection of metabolic abnormalities that increases one's risk for heart disease. Our study shows that an increasing degree of metabolic abnormality is also associated with an increased risk of diagnosis of overall and aggressive prostate cancer.
Authors: Amar Bhindi; Bimal Bhindi; Girish S Kulkarni; Robert J Hamilton; Ants Toi; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew Evans; Alexandre R Zlotta; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: L C Macleod; L J Chery; E Y C Hu; S B Zeliadt; S K Holt; D W Lin; M P Porter; J L Gore; J L Wright Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 5.554
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: 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
Authors: Juzar Jamnagerwalla; Lauren E Howard; Adriana C Vidal; Daniel M Moreira; Ramiro Castro-Santamaria; Gerald L Andriole; Stephen J Freedland Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 7.450