4.4 Article

Prediagnostic Body Mass Index Trajectories in Relation to Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djw225

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Intramural Program of the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health
  2. Department of Health and Human Services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Evidence suggests that obesity in adulthood is associated with increased risk of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, studies of body mass index (BMI) across the adult life course and prostate cancer risks remain limited. Methods: In a prospective cohort of 69 873 men in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, we examined associations of prediagnostic BMI across the adult life course with risk of incident prostate cancer and fatal prostate cancer (prostate cancer-specific mortality). At 13 years of follow-up, we identified 7822 incident prostate cancer cases, of which 3078 were aggressive and 255 fatal. BMI trajectories were determined using latent-class trajectory modeling. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: BMI at age 20 years, 50 years, and baseline questionnaire (mean age = 63 years) were associated with increased risks of fatal prostate cancer (HRs = 1.27-1.32 per five-unit increase). In five BMI trajectories identified, fatal prostate cancer risk was increased in men who had a normal BMI (HR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.21 to 3.12) or who were overweight (HR = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.35 to 5.18) at age 20 years and developed obesity by baseline compared with men who maintained a normal BMI. Aggressive and nonaggressive prostate cancer were not associated with BMI, and modest inverse associations were seen for total prostate cancer. Conclusions: Our results suggest that BMI trajectories during adulthood that result in obesity lead to an elevated risk of fatal prostate cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据