Andrew Rundle1, Yun Wang2, Sudha Sadasivan2, Dhananjay A Chitale3, Nilesh S Gupta3, Deliang Tang4, Benjamin A Rybicki2. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 3. Department of Pathology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 4. Environmental Health Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with risk of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa), but not with over-all PCa risk. However, obese men have larger prostates which may lower biopsy accuracy and cause a systematic bias toward the null in epidemiologic studies of over-all risk. METHODS: Within a cohort of 6692 men followed-up after a biopsy or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with benign findings, a nested case-control study was conducted of 495 prostate cancer cases and controls matched on age, race, follow-up duration, biopsy versus TURP, and procedure date. Data on body mass index and prostate volume at the time of the initial procedure were abstracted from medical records. RESULTS: Prior to consideration of differences in prostate volume, overweight (OR = 1.41; 95%CI 1.01, 1.97), and obese status (OR = 1.59; 95%CI 1.09, 2.33) at the time of the original benign biopsy or TURP were associated with PCa incidence during follow-up. Prostate volume did not significantly moderate the association between body-size and PCa, however it did act as an inverse confounder; adjustment for prostate volume increased the effect size for overweight by 22% (adjusted OR = 1.52; 95%CI 1.08, 2.14) and for obese status by 23% (adjusted OR = 1.77; 95%CI 1.20, 2.62). Larger prostate volume at the time of the original benign biopsy or TURP was inversely associated with PCa incidence during follow-up (OR = 0.92 per 10 cc difference in volume; 95%CI 0.88, 0.97). In analyses that stratified case-control pairs by tumor aggressiveness of the case, prostate volume acted as an inverse confounder in analyses of non-aggressive PCa but not in analyses of aggressive PCa. CONCLUSIONS: In studies of obesity and PCa, differences in prostate volume cause a bias toward the null, particularly in analyses of non-aggressive PCa. A pervasive underestimation of the association between obesity and overall PCa risk may exist in the literature.
BACKGROUND:Obesity is associated with risk of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa), but not with over-all PCa risk. However, obesemen have larger prostates which may lower biopsy accuracy and cause a systematic bias toward the null in epidemiologic studies of over-all risk. METHODS: Within a cohort of 6692 men followed-up after a biopsy or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with benign findings, a nested case-control study was conducted of 495 prostate cancer cases and controls matched on age, race, follow-up duration, biopsy versus TURP, and procedure date. Data on body mass index and prostate volume at the time of the initial procedure were abstracted from medical records. RESULTS: Prior to consideration of differences in prostate volume, overweight (OR = 1.41; 95%CI 1.01, 1.97), and obese status (OR = 1.59; 95%CI 1.09, 2.33) at the time of the original benign biopsy or TURP were associated with PCa incidence during follow-up. Prostate volume did not significantly moderate the association between body-size and PCa, however it did act as an inverse confounder; adjustment for prostate volume increased the effect size for overweight by 22% (adjusted OR = 1.52; 95%CI 1.08, 2.14) and for obese status by 23% (adjusted OR = 1.77; 95%CI 1.20, 2.62). Larger prostate volume at the time of the original benign biopsy or TURP was inversely associated with PCa incidence during follow-up (OR = 0.92 per 10 cc difference in volume; 95%CI 0.88, 0.97). In analyses that stratified case-control pairs by tumor aggressiveness of the case, prostate volume acted as an inverse confounder in analyses of non-aggressive PCa but not in analyses of aggressive PCa. CONCLUSIONS: In studies of obesity and PCa, differences in prostate volume cause a bias toward the null, particularly in analyses of non-aggressive PCa. A pervasive underestimation of the association between obesity and overall PCa risk may exist in the literature.
Authors: Jay H Fowke; Saundra S Motley; Marcia Wills; Michael S Cookson; Raoul S Concepcion; Charles W Eckstein; Sam S Chang; Joseph A Smith Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Elisabeth Möller; Kathryn M Wilson; Julie L Batista; Lorelei A Mucci; Katarina Bälter; Edward Giovannucci Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Marva M Price; Robert J Hamilton; Cary N Robertson; Maureen C Butts; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Urology Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: P Dimitropoulou; R M Martin; E L Turner; J A Lane; R Gilbert; M Davis; J L Donovan; F C Hamdy; D E Neal Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Crystal S Langlais; Janet E Cowan; John Neuhaus; Stacey A Kenfield; Erin L Van Blarigan; Jeanette M Broering; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter Carroll; June M Chan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 4.254