3.8 Article

Prostate Cancer in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome Is Associated with Low Grade Gleason Score When Diagnosed on Biopsy

Journal

KOREAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 9, Pages 593-597

Publisher

KOREAN UROLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.4111/kju.2012.53.9.593

Keywords

Biopsy; Metabolic syndrome; Prostatic neoplasms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Studies on the relationship of metabolic syndrome (MS) and prostate cancer are controversial. We evaluated the association between MS and prostate cancer characteristics in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Materials and Methods: From October 2003 to May 2011, patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value >= ng/ml or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) result underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. MS was diagnosed according to the Adult Treatment Panel III. Clinicopathologic factors including PSA, DRE, prostate volume, age, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), lipid profiles, fasting blood sugar level, and MS were considered for analysis. Results: Three hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled (mean age, 68.86 +/- 8.95 years; mean PSA, 13.97 +/- 20.42 ng/ml). Seventy- five patients (21.2%) had MS and 90 patients (25.4%) were diagnosed as having prostate cancer, including 27 (30%) with MS and 63 (70%) without MS. Total PSA value and prostate volume were significant predictors for prostate cancer. However, MS and BMI were not significantly related to increased cancer risk. Prostate cancer patients with MS had significantly lower Gleason scores (average, 6.63 +/- 1.92) than did prostate cancer patients without MS (average, 7.54 +/- 1.71; p=0.029). Conclusions: Presence of MS was associated with a significantly decreased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. A larger, prospective, multicenter investigation is mandatory to clarify the relationship between MS and prostate cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available