Home
June 2008 July 2008 August 2008
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
Week 27 1 2 3 4 5
Week 28 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Week 29 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Week 30 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Week 31 27 28 29 30 31

Body Mass Index and its Association with Genitourinary Disorders in Men Undergoing Prostate Cancer Screening - Abstract Show Comments PDF Print E-mail
  
Monday, 07 April 2008

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada.

Elevated body mass index (BMI) may predispose to several pelvic pathologies. Aims. We tested the association between BMI and five end points, namely, (i) erectile dysfunction (ED); (ii) lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS); (iii) chronic prostatitis-associated pain (CPP); and ejaculatory dysfunction that is subdivided between (iv) pain/discomfort on ejaculation; and (v) subjectively decreased ejaculate volume.

Age, height, and weight were prospectively recorded in a cohort of 590 consecutive healthy men undergoing prostate cancer screening. Continuously coded and categorized BMI (World Health Organization classification) were studied.

Age-adjusted analyses relied on logistic and linear regression models, according to data type. Results. The average age was 54.1 years (range 30-83). Of all, 296 were overweight (50.2%, BMI 25-29.9 kg/m(2)) and 85 were obese (14.4%, BMI >/= 30 kg/m(2)). After age adjustment, elevated continuously coded BMI (P < 0.001) and elevated categorized BMI (P = 0.01) were associated with worse erectile function. Conversely, after age adjustment, elevated continuously coded BMI (P = 0.02) and elevated categorized BMI (P = 0.05) were associated with a lower rate of subjectively decreased ejaculate volume. Finally, after age adjustment, elevated categorically coded BMI was related to lower rates of CPP (P < 0.001) and to a lower rate of pain/discomfort on ejaculation (P = 0.03).

In men undergoing prostate cancer screening, the effect of BMI on the five end points is not invariably detrimental. Elevated BMI may predispose to ED, but may also decrease the rate of pain/discomfort on ejaculation and may lower the reported rate of subjectively decreased ejaculate volume. Finally, it appeared to have no effect on LUTS.

Written by
Bhojani N, Perrotte P, Hutterer G, Suardi N, Jeldres C, Shariat SF, Capitanio U, Arjane P, Widmer H, Benard F, Peloquin F, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz P.

Reference
J Sex Med. 2008 Mar 19. Epub ahead of print.
doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00811.x

PubMed Abstract
PMID:18355173

UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section

Reader Comments

Please log-in or register in order to submit comments.

Powered by AkoComment!

 
User Rating: / 1
PoorBest


 
Visitor Ratings:
Patients:
2 (1 votes)