Abstract
Purpose
Metabolic syndrome, a concurrence of disturbed glucose and insulin metabolism, overweight, abdominal fat distribution, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, has been reported to have some association with prostate cancer. Here, we assessed the relationship between metabolic syndrome and prostate cancer.
Materials and Methods
We assessed a total of 261 men who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy between January 2004 and May 2005. The patients were stratified into two groups, with metabolic syndrome (n=75) or without (n=186). Metabolic syndrome was defined by the criteria of National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III. We compared the clinical and pathologic features of specimens between the groups.
Results
There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mean age, serum prostate specific antigen level, prostate size, Gleason score, and pathologic stage. The tumor volume of prostate cancer was significantly higher in the metabolic syndrome group (6.6±5.5cc vs 5.0±4.5cc, p=0.010). No significant differences were observed in extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, bladder neck invasion, angiolymphatic invasion, perineural invasion, and multicentricity of cancer between the two groups. As the component of metabolic syndrome increased, the tumor volume was also found to increase (p-value=0.025).
References
1. Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Walker-Thurmond K, Thun MJ. Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. Adults. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348:1625–38.
2. Kaaks R, Lukanova A, Kurzer MS. Obesity, endogenous hormones, and endometrial cancer risk: a synthetic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002; 11:1531–43.
3. Jee SH, Ohrr H, Sull JW, Yun JE, Ji M, Samet JM. Fasting serum glucose level and cancer risk in Korean men and women. JAMA. 2005; 293:194–202.
4. Reaven GM. Banting lecture 1988. Role of insulin resistance in human disease. Diabetes. 1988; 37:1595–607.
5. Alberti KG, Zimmet PZ. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Part 1: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus provisional report of a WHO consultation. Diabet Med. 1998; 15:539–53.
6. Chung HW, Kim DJ, Jin HD, Choi SH, Ahn CW, Cha BS, et al. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome according to the new criteria for obesity. J Korean Diabetes Assoc. 2002; 5:431–42.
7. Kwon HS, Lee HJ, Lee JH, Choi YH, Ko SH. The prevalence and clinical characteristics of the metabolic syndrome in middle-aged Korean adults. Korean J Med. 2005; 68:359–68.
8. Renehan AG, Howell A. Preventing cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Lancet. 2005; 365:1449–51.
9. Laukkanen JA, Laaksonen DE, Niskanen L, Pukkala E, Hakkarainen A, Salonen JT. Metabolic syndrome and the risk of prostate cancer in Finnish men: a population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004; 13:1646–50.
10. Barnard RJ, Aronson WJ, Tymchuk CN, Ngo TH. Prostate cancer: another aspect of the insulin-resistance syndrome? Obes Rev. 2002; 3:303–8.
11. Freedland SJ, Terris MK, Platz EA, Presti JC Jr. Body mass index as a predictor of prostate cancer: development versus detection on biopsy. Urology. 2005; 66:108–13.
12. Hammarsten J, Hogstedt B. Clinical, haemodynamic, anthropometric, metabolic and insulin profile of men with high-stage and high-grade clinical prostate cancer. Blood Press. 2004; 13:47–55.
13. Wuermli L, Joerger M, Henz S, Schmid HP, Riesen WF, Thomas G, et al. Hypertriglyceridemia as a possible risk factor for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2005; 8:316–20.
14. Expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Executive summary of the third report of the national cholesterol education Program (NCEP). JAMA. 2001; 285:2486–97.
15. Western Pacific Regional Office of the World Health Organization, the International Obesity Task Force. The Asia-Pacific perspective: redefining obesity and its treatment. Sydney: Health Communications Australia;2000. http://www.obesity-asiapacific.com.
16. Valko M, Izakovic M, Mazur M, Rhodes CJ, Telser J. Role of oxygen radicals in DNA damage and cancer incidence. Mol Cell Biochem. 2004; 266:37–56.
17. Renehan AG, Zwahlen M, Minder C, O'Dwyer ST, Shalet SM, Egger M. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and cancer risk: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Lancet. 2004; 363:1346–53.
18. Hammarsten J, Hogstedt B. Hyperinsulinaemia: a prospective risk factor for lethal clinical prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2005; 41:2887–95.
20. Baillargeon J, Pollock BH, Kristal AR, Bradshaw P, Hernandez J, Basler J, et al. The association of body mass index and prostate-specific antigen in a population-based study. Cancer. 2005; 103:1092–5.
21. Moyad MA. Is obesity a risk factor for prostate cancer, and does it even matter? A hypothesis and different perspective. Urology. 2002; 59:41–50.
22. Freedland SJ, Grubb KA, Yiu SK, Humphreys EB, Nielsen ME, Mangold LA, et al. Obesity and risk of biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy at a tertiary care referral center. J Urol. 2005; 174:919–22.
23. Bassett WW, Cooperberg MR, Sadetsky N, Silva S, DuChane J, Pasta DJ, et al. Impact of obesity on prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: data from CAPSURE. Urology. 2005; 66:1060–5.
24. Freedland SJ, Giovannucci E, Platz EA. Are findings from studies of obesity and prostate cancer really in conflict? Cancer causes control. 2006; 17:5–9.
25. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA. 1999; 281:1395–400.
26. Nelson BA, Shappell SB, Chang SS, Wells N, Farnham SB, Smith JA Jr, et al. Tumour volume is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2006; 97:1169–72.
27. Khandwala HM, McCutcheon IE, Flyvbjerg A, Friend KE. The effects of insulin-like growth factors on tumorigenesis and neoplastic growth. Endocr Rev. 2000; 21:215–44.
Table 1.
MS group (n=75) | Not MS group (n=186) | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|
Age (years) | 64.8±6.2 | 64.4±6.8 | 0.946 |
FBS (mg/dl) | 137.5±43.1 | 116.5±35.8 | <0.001 |
Systolic BP (mmHg) | 140.7±13.4 | 129.5±15.4 | <0.001 |
Diastolic BP (mmHg) | 81.9±8.5 | 75.6±9.1 | <0.001 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 26.8±2.1 | 23.6±2.3 | <0.001 |
TG (mg/dl) | 143.7±50.8 | 115.2±22.2 | <0.001 |
HDL (mg/dl) | 53.9±12.4 | 59.3±14.5 | 0.007 |
PSA (ng/ml) | 10.7±9.9 | 9.8±7.4 | 0.778 |
Prostate size∗ (cc) | 40.3±15.8 | 40.1±16.3 | 0.955 |
Biopsy Gleason score | 6.4±0.6 | 6.6±0.8 | 0.431 |
Prostatectomy | 6.7±0.7 | 6.7±0.6 | 0.822 |
Gleason score Pathologic stage | 0.937† | ||
pT2 | 58 (77.3%) | 143 (76.9%) | |
≥pT3 | 17 (22.7%) | 43 (23.1%) |
Table 2.
MS group (n=75) | Not MS group (n=186) | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|
Prostate weight∗ (g) | 39.3±12.2 | 39.4±13.7 | 0.881† |
Tumor volume (cc) | 6.6±5.5 | 5.0±4.5 | 0.010† |
Extracapsular extension (%) | 15 (20.0) | 37 (19.9) | 0.984 |
Seminal vesicle invasion (%) | 6 (8.0) | 12 (6.5) | 0.655 |
Bladder neck invasion | n (%) 5 (6.7) | 9 (4.8) | 0.553 |
Multicentricity (%) | 51 (68.0) | 115 (61.8) | 0.348 |
Angiolymphatic invasion (%) | 16 (21.3) | 39 (21.0) | 0.948 |
Perineural invasion (% | %) 22 (29.3) | 53 (28.5) | 0.892 |
Table 3.
Table 4.
No. of metabolic disorder |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 (n=31) | 1 (n=77) | 2 (n=78) | 3 (n=60) | 4 (n=15) | p-value | |
Age (years) | 63.8±7.1 | 64.8±6.6 | 64.3±6.9 | 64.2±6.3 | 67.0±5.4 | 0.523 |
PSA (ng/ml) | 8.3±5.5 | 9.8±7.0 | 10.4±8.3 | 10.9±10.4 | 10.2±7.6 | 0.879 |
Prostate weight (g) | 36.9±10.1 | 41.6±16.4 | 38.1±11.7 | 39.5±13.4 | 38.8±5.8 | 0.775 |
Gleason score | 6.6±0.4 | 6.7±0.6 | 6.8±0.6 | 6.7±0.7 | 6.8±0.5 | 0.335 |
≤6 (%) | 10 (32.3) | 30 (39.0) | 19 (24.4) | 21 (35.0) | 4 (26.7) | |
≥7(%) | 23 (67.7) | 47 (61.0) | 59 (75.6) | 39 (65.0) | 11 (73.3) | 0.527∗ |
Pathologic stage | ||||||
≤T2 (%) | 27 (87.1) | 56 (72.7) | 60 (76.9) | 45 (75.1) | 13 (86.7) | |
≥T3 (%) | 4 (12.9) | 21 (27.3) | 18 (23.1) | 15 (25.0) | 2 (13.3) | 0.856∗ |
Tumor volume | ||||||
<25 percentile (%) | 12 (38.7) | 20 (26.0) | 20 (25.6) | 12 (20.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
25–50 percentile (%) | 3 (9.7) | 21 (27.3) | 23 (29.5) | 14 (23.3) | 3 (20.0) | |
50–75 percentile (%) | 9 (29.0) | 21 (27.3) | 15 (19.2) | 14 (23.3) | 9 (60.0) | 0.025∗ |
>75 percentile (%) | 7 (22.6) | 15 (19.4) | 20 (25.6) | 20 (33.4) | 3 (20.0) |