Bimal Bhindi1, Girish S Kulkarni2, Antonio Finelli3, Shabbir M H Alibhai4, Robert J Hamilton3, Ants Toi5, Theodorus H van der Kwast6, Andrew Evans6, Karen Hersey3, Michael A S Jewett3, Alexandre R Zlotta3, John Trachtenberg3, Neil E Fleshner3. 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 Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Pathology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is an expectant management strategy for prostate cancer (PCa). The impact of obesity on progression is not well characterized in this population. OBJECTIVE: To determine if obesity is associated with progression in men on AS for low-risk PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men undergoing AS for low-risk PCa (no Gleason pattern ≥4, three or fewer cores involved or one-third or less of the total number of cores involved, and no core with >50% cancer involvement) were identified at our institution. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The outcomes were pathologic progression (defined as no longer meeting low-risk criteria on follow-up biopsy) and therapeutic progression (defined as intent to initiate active treatment). Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used, with separate models for reclassification at confirmatory biopsy (first biopsy after diagnostic biopsy) and progression beyond confirmatory biopsy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In this cohort of 565 men (median follow-up: 48 mo), 124 (22%) were obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥30kg/m(2)). Pathologic and therapeutic progression occurred in 168 men (30%) and 172 men (30%), respectively. No association was noted between obesity and risk of progression at the confirmatory biopsy. However, beyond confirmatory biopsy, obesity was associated with a greater probability of pathologic progression (p=0.007) and therapeutic progression (p=0.007) in Kaplan-Meier analyses. In adjusted Cox models, each 5-unit increase in BMI was associated with an increased risk of pathologic progression (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.1; p=0.02) and therapeutic progression (HR: 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; p=0.05). The main limitation is the retrospective design, limiting the ability to assess BMI changes over time. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity was associated with a significantly increased risk of progression beyond the confirmatory biopsy. This suggests an increased risk of long-term biologic progression rather than solely misclassification. PATIENT SUMMARY: As opposed to immediate active treatment (surgery or radiation), active surveillance (AS) involves closely monitoring low-risk prostate cancers and only using active treatment if there are signs of progression. Our study is the first to suggest that obesity is associated with a higher risk of cancer progression while on AS. Further research is needed to determine if diet and exercise can decrease the risk of cancer progression while on AS.
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is an expectant management strategy for prostate cancer (PCa). The impact of obesity on progression is not well characterized in this population. OBJECTIVE: To determine if obesity is associated with progression in men on AS for low-risk PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men undergoing AS for low-risk PCa (no Gleason pattern ≥4, three or fewer cores involved or one-third or less of the total number of cores involved, and no core with >50% cancer involvement) were identified at our institution. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The outcomes were pathologic progression (defined as no longer meeting low-risk criteria on follow-up biopsy) and therapeutic progression (defined as intent to initiate active treatment). Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used, with separate models for reclassification at confirmatory biopsy (first biopsy after diagnostic biopsy) and progression beyond confirmatory biopsy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In this cohort of 565 men (median follow-up: 48 mo), 124 (22%) were obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥30kg/m(2)). Pathologic and therapeutic progression occurred in 168 men (30%) and 172 men (30%), respectively. No association was noted between obesity and risk of progression at the confirmatory biopsy. However, beyond confirmatory biopsy, obesity was associated with a greater probability of pathologic progression (p=0.007) and therapeutic progression (p=0.007) in Kaplan-Meier analyses. In adjusted Cox models, each 5-unit increase in BMI was associated with an increased risk of pathologic progression (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.1; p=0.02) and therapeutic progression (HR: 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; p=0.05). The main limitation is the retrospective design, limiting the ability to assess BMI changes over time. CONCLUSIONS:Obesity was associated with a significantly increased risk of progression beyond the confirmatory biopsy. This suggests an increased risk of long-term biologic progression rather than solely misclassification. PATIENT SUMMARY: As opposed to immediate active treatment (surgery or radiation), active surveillance (AS) involves closely monitoring low-risk prostate cancers and only using active treatment if there are signs of progression. Our study is the first to suggest that obesity is associated with a higher risk of cancer progression while on AS. Further research is needed to determine if diet and exercise can decrease the risk of cancer progression while on AS.
Authors: M A Liss; J M Schenk; A V Faino; L F Newcomb; H Boyer; J D Brooks; P R Carroll; A Dash; M D Fabrizio; M E Gleave; P S Nelson; M L Neuhouser; J T Wei; Y Zheng; J L Wright; D W Lin; I M Thompson Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 5.554
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: Lora S Wang; Colin T Murphy; Karen Ruth; Nicholas G Zaorsky; Marc C Smaldone; Mark L Sobczak; Alexander Kutikov; Rosalia Viterbo; Eric M Horwitz Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jeannette M Schenk; Marian L Neuhouser; Sarah J Beatty; Matthew VanDoren; Daniel W Lin; Michael Porter; John L Gore; Roman Gulati; Stephen R Plymate; Jonathan L Wright Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Daniel A Galvão; Dennis R Taaffe; Nigel Spry; Robert A Gardiner; Renea Taylor; Gail P Risbridger; Mark Frydenberg; Michelle Hill; Suzanne K Chambers; Phillip Stricker; Tom Shannon; Dickon Hayne; Eva Zopf; Robert U Newton Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Lisa F Newcomb; Ian M Thompson; Hilary D Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Ladan Fazli; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Priya Kunju; Raymond S Lance; Jesse K McKenney; Maxwell V Meng; Marlo M Nicolas; Martin G Sanda; Jeffry Simko; Alan So; Maria S Tretiakova; Dean A Troyer; Lawrence D True; Funda Vakar-Lopez; Jeff Virgin; Andrew A Wagner; John T Wei; Yingye Zheng; Peter S Nelson; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 7.450