4.4 Article

Are serum hormones associated with the risk of prostate cancer? Prospective results from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 57, Issue 5, Pages 930-935

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)01116-X

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG-04673] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK-44995] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To determine whether prediagnostic serum hormones are predictive of prostate cancer risk in a sample of men 40 to 70 years old at baseline. Methods. Seventeen serum hormones, including androgens, estrogens, and adrenal and pituitary hormones, were measured at baseline (1987 to 1989) and used to predict incident prostate cancer by follow-up (1995 to 1997) using data from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study, a prospective, population-based random sample. Results. Seventy men (4%) of 1576 were diagnosed with prostate cancer between the baseline and follow-up periods (approximately 8 years). None of the hormones were associated with prostate cancer risk except for androstanediol glucuronide (AAG), which exhibited a nonlinear, inverse relationship with prostate cancer (P <0.003) when age, body mass index, alcohol use, dihydrotestosterone, and total prostate-specific antigen were controlled for. Men in the second, third, and fourth quartiles of AAG relative to the first were less likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer, although only the comparison of the second versus the first achieved statistical significance (odds ratio 0.2, 99% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.6), No dose-response relationships were observed. Conclusions. The lack of association with most hormones and the nonlinear association with AAG calls into question whether serum hormones collected during midlife are risk factors for prostate cancer. UROLOGY 57: 930-935, 2001. (C) 2001, Elsevier Science Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available