BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) and prostate cancer (PCa) are highly prevalent conditions worldwide. Current evidence suggests the emerging hypothesis that MetS could play a role in the development and progression of several neoplasms. The aims of this study are to evaluate the impact of MetS and MetS factors on PCa incidence, on the risk of high-grade PCa and to analyze the role of MetS and single MetS components on the development of aggressive PCa features.
METHODS: A systematic literature search and analysis on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Academic One File databases until September 2015 was performed by 2 independent reviewers to evaluate the associations between MetS and PCa incidence, and between MetS and high-grade PCa incidence (bioptical Gleason Score⩾ 8, Prognostic Group 4–5 according to the novel prostate cancer grading system). Also, the association between MetS and individual MetS components with pathological Gleason Score⩾8,extra-capsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence (defined as two consecutive PSA values ⩾0.2 ng ml− 1 after radical prostatectomy) was evaluated.
RESULTS: 24 studies were selected including a total of 132 589 participants of whom 17.35% had MetS. There was a slight association between MetS and PCa incidence (odds ratio (OR) = 1.17 (1.00–1.36), P = 0.04) and between high-grade PCa and MetS (OR = 1.89 (1.50–2.38), Po0.0001) but the studies were statistically heterogeneous. No association was found between MetS components and PCa risk except for hypertension. MetS was significantly associated with pathologic Gleason Score ⩾8 (OR = 1.77 (1.34–2.34); Po0.01), extra-capsular extension (OR = 1.13 (1.09–1.18); Po0.01), seminal vesicle invasion (OR = 1.09 (1.07–1.12); Po0.01), positive surgical margins (OR = 1.67 (1.47–1.91); Po0.01) and biochemical recurrence (OR = 1.67 (1.04–2.69); Po0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of MetS is associated with worse oncologic outcomes in men with PCa, in particular with more aggressive tumor features, and biochemical recurrence.
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy in industrialized nations1 and the sixth leading cause of cancer death among men worldwide.2 The rate of PCa in western countries is 10–15 times higher than Asian countries and most PCa related deaths occur in developed nations; however, in the last few decades, the incidence of PCa and related mortality in Southeast Asia has seemingly increased as this region has gradually begun embracing the western lifestyle including sedentary habits and a high fat diet.3
Although the pathogenesis of PCa has multiple causes, the only established risk factors are age, race, and family history.4 However, current evidence from epidemiological studies and experimental translational research suggests the emerging hypothesis that metabolic syndrome (MetS) could play a role in the development and progression of several neoplasms.5
MetS is a common clinical condition with a complex etiology, including high-fat intake, sedentary lifestyle and genetic factors. Moreover, MetS is a cluster of risk factors for cardiovascular and metabolic complications, that includes visceral obesity, hyperten- sion, hyperglycemia, low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL cholesterol), and hypertriglyceridemia.6 MetS has been proposed as one of the leading causes of the variability of geographic incidence and mortality of PCa. In particular, the association between MetS and PCa has been postulated on the basis of the rise of PCa occurrence among Asian migrants, suggesting that westernization is an important risk factor for PCa.7 To this regard, metabolic abnormalities that are typical of the western areas, like diabetes and obesity, can play an important role in the development and progression of PCa.
The underlining mechanisms linking MetS and PCa could be the alteration of insulin and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I),8 the modiﬁcations of sex steroid pathways, such as increased serum estradiol levels, sex hormone-binding globulin concentration and decreased free testosterone level.9,10 Moreover, chronic prostatic inﬂammation as observed in patients with MetS is associated with a milieu enriched in cytokines, inﬂammatory mediators and growth factors, which may lead to an uncontrolled proliferative response. In fact, increased circulating levels of MetS-related cytokines as well as leptin and adiponectin alterations have been preliminarily associated with PCa carcinogenesis.11
Current preclinical and clinical research on MetS and PCa is still discordant and has failed to determine the real impact of MetS, and/or of its individual component, on PCa incidence and aggressiveness. The aims of this systematic review and meta- analysis are to evaluate the impact of MetS and MetS factors on PCa incidence and risk of high-grade PCa and to analyze their role in the development of the aggressive features of PCa.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic literature search
This analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.12 We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Academic One File databases using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) indexes, keyword searches, and publication types until September 2015. The search was limited to English-Language articles. The search terms included 'prostate', 'prostate cancer', 'prostate speciﬁc antigen', 'prostate biopsy', 'metabolic syndrome', 'obesity, 'hypertension', 'triglycerides', 'cholesterol', 'recurrence', 'high-grade', 'extra-capsu- lar extension', 'positive margin', 'seminal vesicle invasion', 'Gleason score' and 'prostate biopsy'. Reference lists in relevant articles and reviews were also screened for additional studies.
We deﬁned MetS according to the USA National Cholesterol Education Program—Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III), which requires at least three of the following ﬁve components: central obesity (waist circumference 494 cm or body mass index (BMI) ⩾ 30 kg/m2, elevated triglycerides (⩾1.7 mmol l − 1 or 150 mg dl− 1), elevated blood pressure (⩾130/85 mm Hg), elevated fasting glucose (⩾6.1 mmol l − 1 or 110 mg dl− 1) and reduced HDL cholesterol ( o1.03 mmol l − 1 or 40 mg dl− 1). We also included trials based on the MetS criteria proposed by the International Federation of Diabetes and the American Heart Association/ National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI criteria),13 by The Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism of Turkey metabolic syndrome diagnostic criteria, and by the Chinese Adult Dyslipidemia Prevention Guide,14,15 with the aim to cover all the possible ethnic differences in MetS parameters.
The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was to evaluate the associations between MetS and PCa incidence and between MetS and high-grade PCa (bioptical Gleason Score ⩾ 8, Prognostic Group 4–5 according to the novel prostate cancer grading system16) incidence. The secondary outcomes were the association between MetS and individual MetS components with pathological Gleason Score ⩾ 8, extra-capsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence (deﬁned as two consecutive PSA values ⩾ 0.2 ng ml − 1).
Two independent reviewers (GIR and AS) revised the studies. Citation lists of retrieved articles were screened manually to ensure accuracy of the search strategy. References of the included papers were hand searched to identify other potentially relevant studies. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Discrepancies for inclusion between the investigators were resolved by discussion or further consultation with a third author (MG). The quality of these eligible citations was assessed using Newcastle—Ottawa quality scoring system; two authors scored independently. We created evidence tables reporting study characteristics, outcome measures, MetS deﬁnition and study quality. We selected studies that investigated the relationship between MetS and PCa as per our outcomes of interest.
For the meta-analysis, the association between MetS and outcome of interest was determined by calculating the Ln (OR). We also estimated the role of each MetS component in this risk among the selected studies. Begg’s and Egger’s methods were used to assess publication bias. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q and I2 statistics. A p value ⩽ 0.05 was considered statistically signiﬁcant. Moreover, a multivariate logistic regression analysis, weighting each study for the number of patients enrolled, was used to verify the independent effect of MetS components on PCa incidence. The analysis was performed using RevMan software v.5.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).
Overall, 327 studies were identiﬁed from the databases and relevant references. After evaluating the title and abstract of each study, 24 were identiﬁed as eligible for this systematic review, including a total of 132 589 participants: 19 229 (17.35%) with and 93 111 (82.65%) without MetS (Table 1). Figure 1 shows the ﬂow diagram of the search results. The quality assessment score (Newcastle—Ottawa quality scoring system) was 450% in more than half of the studies (20/24).
MetS and PCa incidence/high-grade PCa incidence
As derived from the meta-analysis, the presence of MetS was associated with a 17% increased risk of PCa (pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.17 (1.00–1.36), Figure 2a). There was a statistically signiﬁcant heterogeneity in these studies (χ2 = 66.05, I2 = 74%; P o0.01). Moreover, the risk of high-grade PCa (bioptical Gleason Score ⩾ 8) was signiﬁcantly associated with the presence of MetS (OR = 1.89 (1.50–2.38) (P o0.0001) (Figure 2b). The risk of having PCa was not conﬁrmed by the sub-analysis including exclusively studies that applied NCEP ATP III classiﬁcation of MetS: OR = 1.09 (95% conﬁdence interval (CI): 0.93–1.27); P = 0.28 (data not shown).
Individual MetS components and PCa risk
The impact of BMI or central obesity (waist circumference) was investigated in 8 studies.15,17–23 There was a statistically signiﬁcant heterogeneity in these studies (χ2 = 20.38, I2 = 85%, P o0.01). The pooled OR (95% CI) was 1.01 (0.86–1.19, P = 0.91) (Figure 3a).
The role of HDL cholesterol was reported in 8 studies.14,17,18,21–24 There was a statistically signiﬁcant heterogeneity in these studies (χ2 = 45.57, I2 = 85%, P o0.01). In patients with HDL cholesterol o40 mg dl− 1, the pooled ORs (95% CI) of having PCa was 1.19 (0.89–1.60), thus the overall effect was not statistically signiﬁcant (P = 0.23; Figure 3b).
The possible association between triglycerides and PCa incidence was investigated in eight studies,14,15,17,18,20–23 which demonstrate signiﬁcant heterogeneity (χ2 = 44.47, I2 = 84%, P o0.01). In patients with triglycerides ⩾ 150 mg dl− 1, the pooled OR of having PCa was 1.10 (0.89–1.34) (P = 0.38) (Figure 3c).
The role of diabetes on PCa diagnosis was reported in 10 studies,14,15,17–23,25 without signiﬁcant heterogeneity (χ2 = 42.55, I2 = 81%, P = 0.09). In patients with elevated fasting glucose (⩾6.1 mmol l − 1 or 110 mg dl− 1), or a previous diagnosis of diabetes, the pooled OR (95% CI) of having PCa was not higher (OR = 0.99 (0.84–1.17), P = 0.94) (Figure 3d).
The impact of hypertension was reported in seven studies.15,17–19,21–23 There was not a statistically signiﬁcant heterogeneity in these studies (χ2 = 1.97, I2 = 0%, P = 0.92). The test of overall effect was statistically signiﬁcant (P = 0.02). Hence, elevated blood pressure was the only MetS component signiﬁ- cantly associated with a 10% increased risk of PCa OR = 1.10 (1.01–1.19) (Figure 3e).
MetS and PCa aggressiveness
Eight studies26–33 were identiﬁed as eligible for PCa aggressive- ness (Figure 1). In the meta-analysis, the presence of MetS was associated with worse oncological outcomes, including pathologic Gleason Score ⩾ 8 (OR = 1.77 (1.34–2.34); P o0.01), extra-capsular extension (OR = 1.13 (1.09–1.18); P o0.01), seminal vesicle inva- sion (OR = 1.09 (1.07–1.12); P o0.01) and positive surgical margins (OR = 1.67 (1.47–1.91); P o0.01). In patients with MetS, the pooled relative risk (RR) (95% CI) of having biochemical recurrence was 1.67 (1.04–2.69); P o0.01, Figure 4).
The impact of each component of MetS on PCa recurrence was investigated in three studies. When considering each component of MetS, obesity RR = 0.9 (95% CI: 0.73–1.16); P = 0.48), low HDL cholesterol (RR = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.70–1.11; P = 0.29), hypertriglycer- idemia (RR = 0.99 (95% CI: 0.78–1.26); P = 0.95) and hypertension (RR = 1.27 (95% CI: 0.61–2.63), P = 0.52) were not associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence. Only the presence of hyperglycemia appeared associated with an increased risk of PCa recurrence with a pooled RRs (95% CI) of 1.39 (1.06–1.81); P = 0.02) (Figure 5). No statistical association was found when evaluating other MetS components.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of included studies. MetS, metabolic syndrome; PCa, prostate cancer.
In the present comprehensive meta-analysis, we demonstrated that MetS can be considered a possible risk factor for the occurrence PCa, in particular for high-grade PCa (bioptical Gleason score ⩾ 8). Moreover, MetS is associated with worse pathologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP), including pathologic Gleason Score ⩾ 8, extra-capsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins and the consequent biochemical recurrence.
Twelve years ago, Laukkanen et al.34 proposed, for the ﬁrst time, MetS as a composite factor associated with PCa risk: In that prospective population-based study, men with MetS were twofold more likely to develop PCa than those without. In 2007, Hsing demonstrated that the association between obesity, MetS and prostate cancer incidence was inconsistent, even if in some studies obesity was associated with an increased risk of high- grade PCa.3 In 2012, Esposito et al. performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on 14 data sets (4623 P.ts), demonstrating the lack of association between MetS and risk of PCa (RR (95% CI: 1.09 (0.88–1.34), P = 0.438).5 Interestingly, in that paper, a remarkable difference among American (RR (95% CI: 0.79) (0.69–0.91),P = 0.001), Asian (RR (95% CI: 0.98 (0.71–1.36), P = 0.932) and European populations (RR (95% CI: 1.28 (0.89–1.87), P = 0.083) was clearly presented. In addition, several other cohort studies of PCa incidence in European populations have showed a signiﬁcant positive association,18,34 while analogous studies performed on American cohorts revealed no35 or even a negative association.20 The heterogeneity between these populations may arise from genetic or environmental factors, in addition to different deﬁnitions of MetS. In fact, in our review, a sub-analysis of studies based on the more rigorous NCEP ATP III classiﬁcation failed to reveal a signiﬁcant link between MetS and PCa incidence. However, considering that the currently used deﬁnitions of MetS (WHO, NCEP ATP III, EGIR, IDF) emphasize only single aspects of metabolic disorders, an exclusive classiﬁcation of MetS should not be used as the gold standard for a meta-analysis including multinational trials.36 Accordingly, in our review we found a slight, but signiﬁcant, association between MetS and PCa (RR: 1.17); this calculated risk is in line with those reported in current literature.5,37
Figure 2. Association between MetS and overall PCa risk (a) and high-grade PCa risk (b) (⩾8 Gleason Score). CI, conﬁdence interval; MetS, metabolic syndrome; PCa, prostate cancer.
When the relationship between individual MetS components and PCa risk was considered in the meta-analysis, we found only a minimal contribution for hypertension, but not for the other MetS factors. The presence of hypertension could increase the risk of PCa by activating sympathetic nervous system responses (and vice versa), resulting in PCa cell growth.11 However, it is also possible that only the concert of different factors recapitulated in the MetS concept could be deleterious for increasing PCa risk, by activating several pathways including inﬂammation, insulin resistance, visceral adiposity and hormone changes.11
In our meta-analysis of six trials enrolling more than 3000 patients we demonstrated that men with MetS are nearly 2-fold more at risk to develop a high Gleason (bioptical Gleason Score⩾ 8) PCa as compared to those without MetS. In 2004, Hammarsten ﬁrst demonstrated that men with high-grade PCa were more often dyslipidemic—that is, higher triglyceride levels and lower HDL cholesterol levels—and showed a higher insulin plasma level than those with low grade PCa.38 In a large Canadian prostate biopsy cohort of 2235 men, MetS was associated with an increased diagnosis of PCa and in particular of high-grade PCa.22 Interestingly, no individual MetS component resulted as being independently associated with PCa outcomes but rather their association. In fact, ⩾ 3 vs 0 MetS components was associated with higher odds (OR: 1.54) of PCa diagnosis.22 In the ﬁrst meta-analysis on risk of high-grade PCa according to MetS, Xiang et al.37 demonstrated that MetS was associated with an increased risk of high Gleason score PCa. In that meta-analysis, as in the present one based on the contemporary prostate cancer grading system,16 it is interesting to note that almost all the data sets reported a clinically signiﬁcant, positive correlation between MetS and high Gleason PCa (see also Figure 2b). In the last 3 years, several authors have reported an association between MetS and high risk PCa.32,39 In particular, in the ﬁrst cohort study in Europe on 349 men treated with RP, MetS was associated with an increased risk of high-grade (OR: 2.0) and locally advanced (pathological stage⩾ pT3a or N1, OR: 2.2) PCa.40 The same data were reported in a large retrospective study in 1016 Asian men, demonstrating that men with MetS presented an increased risk of prostatectomy, Gleason score ⩾ 8 (OR = 1.67), and a 1.5-fold increased risk of pT3- 4 disease (OR = 1.58), as compared to those without MetS.32
In the present study, only diabetes seems to be a potential independent risk factor for biochemical recurrence. Current literature is controversial about the association between diabetes and PCa.
Figure 3. Association between PCa and single components of MetS: waist circumference ⩾ 90 cm (or ⩾ 90 cm for Asians) (a), with HDLo40 mg dl − 1 (b), with triglycerides ⩾ 150 mg dl − 1 (c), in patients with elevated fasting glucose (⩾6.1 mmol l − 1 or 110 mg dl − 1) (d) and in patients with hypertension (e). CI, conﬁdence interval; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; MetS, metabolic syndrome; PCa, prostate cancer.
In particular, trials from the SEARCH database suggest that diabetes was not associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence,41,42 while other Asian authors indicate that poor glycemic control was signiﬁcantly associated with biochemical recurrence and with more aggressive recurrence, after RP.43,44 To critically analyze these data is not an easy task. First of all, the current literature does not report the duration of diabetes: early-onset diabetes has been shown to be associated with an increased risk of PCa diagnosis, whereas late-stage diabetes is associated with a decreased risk.45 Moreover, in most cases information on the treatment of diabetes (metformin, insulin) as well as the effectiveness of glycemic control (hypo, normo or hyper-glycemic) are not available. Finally, diabetes is associated with receiving radiation therapy more frequently than surgery, with high complication rates and treatment failure.46 On the basis of these biases, it is not possible to deﬁne the role of a history of diabetes, glycaemia levels and treatment for diabetes in PCa recurrence.
Figure 4. Association between MetS and pathological Gleason score ⩾ 8 (a), extra-capsular extension (b), seminal vesical invasion (c), positive surgical margin (d), and biochemical recurrence (e). CI, conﬁdence interval; MetS, metabolic syndrome.
Intriguing data on inﬂammation as a potential driver for PCa development and progression has recently emerged.47 The prostate gland is clearly an immunocompetent organ. Besides epithelial and stromal cells, the prostate also contains a small number of immunocompetent cells (lymphocytes, macrophages and granulo- cytes). Stromal prostatic cells are able to secrete several cytokine, chemokine and growth factors, including interleukin-8, CXCL-10 and interleukin-6 not only in response to speciﬁc proinﬂammatory stimuli (that is, tumor necrosis factor-α or the Toll-like receptor-4 agonist lipopolysaccharide), but also to metabolic insults and, in particular, to oxidized low-density lipoprotein and insulin. This suggests the hypothesis that lipids can induce and sustain an nﬂammatory response and overgrowth in human prostatic cells. Accordingly, several epidemiological studies have demon- strated a tight association between MetS, intraprostatic inﬂammation and benign prostatic enlargement.13,48,49 In contrast, whether inﬂammation has a role in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer still remains unclear. Therefore, the association between MetS and more aggressive features of PCa (high grade, clinically advanced, biochemical recurrent neoplasms) must be further investigated with targeted randomized control trials and translational research designed using a holistic approach by urologists, andrologists and endocrinologists.
Figure 5. Association between prostate cancer recurrence and single components of MetS: obesity (BMI ⩾ 30 kg/m2) (a), with HDLo40 mg dl − 1 (b), with triglycerides ⩾ 150 mg dl − 1 (c), in patients with elevated fasting glucose (⩾6.1 mmol l − 1 or 110 mg dl − 1) (d) and in patients with hypertension (e). BMI, body mass index; CI, conﬁdence interval; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; MetS, metabolic syndrome.
The main limitation of this review is the heterogeneity of the studies included (Figure 6): this methodological bias does not allow for the weighting of the overall data or for performing meta- regression analyses. Moreover, several important outcomes, including prostate cancer-speciﬁc mortality were not analyzed due to the lack of the data in the randomized control trials included in the meta-analysis. The strength of this manuscript is to have the impact of MetS on both the incidence and aggressive- ness of PCa summarized in a single review. However, it should be recognized that small risk associations (RR o2 or OR o3), such as those observed in the studies included in this meta-analysis, fall below the discriminatory ability of observational studies, and are likely to be attributable to bias rather than causal associations.50 In particular, for our analyses we used Gleason Score 8 (Prognostic Group 4–5) as the cut off point: we believe this is the very ﬁrst meta-analysis based on this novel ﬁve–grade group system, which has proven to achieve the highest prognostic discrimination for all cohorts in both univariable and multivariable analysis.16
Figure 6. Funnel plot to check for the existence of publication bias of the review.
In particular, based on these data, MetS should be investigated within screening protocols, with the aim to increase early detection of more aggressive tumors; moreover, MetS could be included in current clinical nomograms with the aim to improve clinical staging and to personalize the treatment.
MetS and PCa are two common conditions related to the aging population all over the world: these diseases coexist in an increasing percentage of patients. Men with MetS present a slightly higher incidence of high-grade PCa than those without MetS. The single MetS parameters failed to result as being determinant for the risk of PCa, indicating that only their combined presence increases the risk of PCa development. More importantly, the presence of the MetS construct seems to be associated with adverse postoperative oncologic features, including high Gleason score (⩾ 8), extra-capsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins and the consequent biochemical failure. Hence, these data should be carefully assessed in decision-making of treatment and follow up. Further prospective studies are needed to better deﬁne interactions between MetS, MetS components and PCa, particularly to evaluate the possible implications for PCa management in patients with MetS and to evaluate the possible effect of MetS treatment on PCa development and progression.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.
1 Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 69–90.
2 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 5–29.
3 Hsing AW, Sakoda LC, Chua S Jr. Obesity, metabolic syndrome, and prostate cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 2007; 86: s843–s857.
4 Esposito K, Chiodini P, Capuano A, Bellastella G, Maiorino MI, Parretta E et al. Effect of metabolic syndrome and its components on prostate cancer risk: meta-ana- lysis. J Endocrinol Invest 2013; 36: 132–139.
5 Esposito K, Chiodini P, Colao A, Lenzi A, Giugliano D. Metabolic syndrome and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2012; 35: 2402–2411.
6 Alberti KG, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, Zimmet PZ, Cleeman JI, Donato KA et al. Har- monizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation 2009; 120: 1640–1645.
7 Hsing AW, Devesa SS. Trends and patterns of prostate cancer: what do they suggest? Epidemiol Rev 2001; 23: 3–13.
8 Barnard RJ, Aronson WJ, Tymchuk CN, Ngo TH. Prostate cancer: another aspect of the insulin-resistance syndrome? Obes Rev 2002; 3: 303–308.
9 Han JH, Choi NY, Bang SH, Kwon OJ, Jin YW, Myung SC et al. Relationship between serum prostate-speciﬁc antigen levels and components of metabolic syndrome in healthy men. Urology 2008; 72: 749–754, discussion 754-745.
10 Zhang PL, Rosen S, Veeramachaneni R, Kao J, DeWolf WC, Bubley G. Association between prostate cancer and serum testosterone levels. Prostate 2002; 53: 179–182.
11 De Nunzio C, Aronson W, Freedland SJ, Giovannucci E, Parsons JK. The correlation between metabolic syndrome and prostatic diseases. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 560–570.
12 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000100.
13 Gacci M, Corona G, Vignozzi L, Salvi M, Serni S, De Nunzio C et al. Metabolic syndrome and benign prostatic enlargement: a systematic review and meta-a- nalysis. BJU Int 2015; 115: 24–31.
14 Zhang JQ, Geng H, Ma M, Nan XY, Sheng BW. Metabolic Syndrome Components are Associated with Increased Prostate Cancer Risk. Med Sci Monit 2015; 21: 2387–2396.
15 Telli O, Sarici H, Ekici M, Ozgur BC, Doluoglu OG, Eroglu M et al. Does metabolic syndrome or its components associate with prostate cancer when diagnosed on biopsy? Ther Adv Med Oncol 2015; 7: 63–67.
16 Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C et al. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol 2016 Mar; 69: 428–435.
17 Beebe-Dimmer JL, Nock NL, Neslund-Dudas C, Rundle A, Bock CH, Tang D et al. Racial differences in risk of prostate cancer associated with metabolic syndrome. Urology 2009; 74: 185–190.
18 Grundmark B, Garmo H, Loda M, Busch C, Holmberg L, Zethelius B. The metabolic syndrome and the risk of prostate cancer under competing risks of death from other causes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19: 2088–2096.
19 Pelucchi C, Serraino D, Negri E, Montella M, Dellanoce C, Talamini R et al. The metabolic syndrome and risk of prostate cancer in Italy. Ann Epidemiol 2011; 21: 835–841.
20 Tande AJ, Platz EA. Folsom AR. The metabolic syndrome is associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 164: 1094–1102.
21 Lawrence YR, Morag O, Benderly M, Boyko V, Novikov I, Dicker AP et al. Association between metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer risk. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2013; 16: 181–186.
22 Bhindi B, Locke J, Alibhai SM, Kulkarni GS, Margel DS, Hamilton RJ et al. Dissecting the association between metabolic syndrome and prostate cancer risk: analysis of a large clinical cohort. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 64–70.
23 Harding J, Sooriyakumaran M, Anstey KJ, Adams R, Balkau B, Briffa T et al. The metabolic syndrome and cancer: Is the metabolic syndrome useful for predicting cancer risk above and beyond its individual components? Diabetes Metab 2015; 41: 463–469.
24 Tuohimaa P, Tenkanen L, Syvala H, Lumme S, Hakulinen T, Dillner J et al. Interaction of factors related to the metabolic syndrome and vitamin D on risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007; 16: 302–307.
25 Beebe-Dimmer JL, Dunn RL, Sarma AV, Montie JE, Cooney KA. Features of the metabolic syndrome and prostate cancer in African-American men. Cancer 2007; 109: 875–881.
26 Castillejos-Molina R, Rodriguez-Covarrubias F, Sotomayor M, Gomez-Alvarado MO, Villalobos-Gollas M, Gabilondo F et al. Impact of metabolic syndrome on biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2011; 87: 270–275.
27 Kheterpal E, Sammon JD, Diaz M, Bhandari A, Trinh QD, Pokala N et al. Effect of metabolic syndrome on pathologic features of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2013; 31: 1054–1059.
28 Leon P, Seisen T, Cussenot O, Drouin SJ, Cattarino S, Comperat E et al. Low circulating free and bioavailable testosterone levels as predictors of high-grade tumors in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 384 e321–384 e387.
29 Macleod LC, Chery LJ, Hu EY, Zeliadt SB, Holt SK, Lin DW et al. Metabolic syn- drome, dyslipidemia and prostate cancer recurrence after primary surgery or radiation in a veterans cohort. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015; 18: 190–195.
30 Post JM, Beebe-Dimmer JL, Morgenstern H, Neslund-Dudas C, Bock CH, Nock N et al. The Metabolic Syndrome and Biochemical Recurrence following Radical Prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer 2011; 2011: 245642.
31 Sanchis-Bonet A, Ortiz-Vico F, Morales-Palacios N, Sanchez-Chapado M. The association between metabolic syndrome and prostate cancer: Effect on its aggressiveness and progression. Actas Urol Esp 2015; 39: 154–160.
32 Zhang GM, Zhu Y, Dong DH, Han CT, Gu CY, Gu WJ et al. The association between metabolic syndrome and advanced prostate cancer in Chinese patients receiving radical prostatectomy. Asian J Androl 2015; 17: 839–844.
33 Shiota M, Yokomizo A, Takeuchi A, Imada K, Kiyoshima K, Inokuchi J et al. The feature of metabolic syndrome is a risk factor for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Surg Oncol 2014; 110: 476–481.
34 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: 1646–1650.
35 Wallner LP, Morgenstern H, McGree ME, Jacobson DJ St, Sauver JL, Jacobsen SJ et al. The effects of metabolic conditions on prostate cancer incidence over 15 years of follow-up: results from the Olmsted County Study. BJU Int 2011; 107: 929–935.
36 McGrowder DA, Jackson LA, Crawford TV. Prostate cancer and metabolic syn- drome: is there a link? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012; 13: 1–13.
37 Xiang YZ, Xiong H, Cui ZL, Jiang SB, Xia QH, Zhao Y et al. The association between metabolic syndrome and the risk of prostate cancer, high-grade prostate cancer, advanced prostate cancer, prostate cancer-speciﬁc mortality and biochemical recurrence. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2013; 32: 9.
38 Hammarsten J, Hogstedt B. Hyperinsulinaemia: a prospective risk factor for lethal clinical prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41: 2887–2895.
39 Ozbek E, Otunctemur A, Dursun M, Sahin S, Besiroglu H, Koklu I et al. The metabolic syndrome is associated with more aggressive prostate cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15: 4029–4032.
40 De Nunzio C, Simone G, Brassetti A, Mastroianni R, Collura D, Muto G et al. Metabolic syndrome is associated with advanced prostate cancer in patients treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy: results from a multicentre prospective study. BMC Cancer 2016; 16: 407.
41 Kim HS, Presti JC Jr., Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Amling CL et al. Glycemic control and prostate cancer progression: results from the SEARCH database. Prostate 2010; 70: 1540–1546.
42 Jayachandran J, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JC Jr., Amling CL, Kane CJ et al. Diabetes and outcomes after radical prostatectomy: are results affected by obesity and race? Results from the shared equal-access regional cancer hospital database. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19: 9–17.
43 Lee H, Kuk H, Byun SS, Lee SE, Hong SK. Preoperative glycemic control status as a signiﬁcant predictor of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy. PLoS ONE 2015; 10: e0124761.
44 Oh JJ, Hong SK, Lee S, Sohn SJ, Lee SE. Diabetes mellitus is associated with short prostate-speciﬁc antigen doubling time after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2013; 45: 121–127. MetS and PCa conditions worldwide M Gacci et al
45 Grossmann M, Wittert G. Androgens, diabetes and prostate cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2012; 19: F47–F62.
46 Chan JM, Latini DM, Cowan J, Duchane J, Carroll PR. History of diabetes, clinical features of prostate cancer, and prostate cancer recurrence-data from CaPSURE (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2005; 16: 789–797.
47 Vignozzi L, Maggi M. Prostate cancer: intriguing data on inﬂammation and prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2014; 11: 369–370.
48 Corona G, Vignozzi L, Rastrelli G, Lotti F, Cipriani S, Maggi M. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: a new metabolic disease of the aging male and its correlation with sexual dysfunctions. Int J Endocrinol 2014; 2014: 329456.
49 Vignozzi L, Rastrelli G, Corona G, Gacci M, Forti G, Maggi M. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: a new metabolic disease? J Endocrinol Invest 2014; 37: 313–322.
50 Jepsen P, Johnsen SP, Gillman MW, Sørensen HT. Interpretation of observational studies. Heart 2004; 90: 956–960.
51 Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M et al. The Newcastle- Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta- analyses. Available at: http://wwwohrica/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxfor dasp. 2012.
52 Lund Håheim L, Wisløff TF, Holme I, Nafstad P. Metabolic syndrome predicts prostate cancer in a cohort of middle-aged Norwegian men followed for 27 years. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 164: 769–774.
53 Martin RM, Vatten L, Gunnell D, Romundstad P, Nilsen TI. Components of the metabolic syndrome and risk of prostate cancer: the HUNT 2 cohort, Norway. Cancer Causes Control 2009; 20: 1181–1192.
54 Inoue M, Noda M, Kurahashi N, Iwasaki M, Sasazuki S, Iso H et al. Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study Group. Impact of metabolic factors on subsequent cancer risk: results from a large-scale population-based cohort study in Japan. Eur J Cancer Prev 2009; 18: 240–247.
55 De Nunzio C, Freedland SJ, Miano R, Trucchi A, Cantiani A, Carluccini A et al. Metabolic syndrome is associated with high grade Gleason score when prostate cancer is diagnosed on biopsy. Prostate 2011; 71: 1492–1498.
56 Osaki Y, Taniguchi S, Tahara A, Okamoto M, Kishimoto T. Metabolic syndrome and incidence of liver and breast cancers in Japan. Cancer Epidemiol 2012; 36: 141–147.
57 Morote J, Ropero J, Planas J, Bastarós JM, Delgado G. Placer J et al. Metabolic syndrome increases the risk of aggressive prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2013; 111: 1031–1036.
58 Leon P, Seisen T, Cussenot O, Drouin SJ, Cattarino S, Comperat E et al. Low circulating free and bioavailable testosterone levels as predictors of high-grade tumors in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: e321–387.
59 Sourbeer KN, Howard LE, Andriole GL, Moreira DM, Castro-Santamaria R, Freed- land SJ. et al. Metabolic syndrome-like components and prostate cancer risk: results from the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) study. BJU Int 2015; 115: 736–743.
60 Kayali M, Balci M, Aslan Y, Bilgin O, Guzel O, Tuncel A et al. The relationship between prostate cancer and presence of metabolic syndrome and late-onset hypogonadism. Urology 2014; 84: 1448–1452.
61 De Nunzio C, Presicce F, Lombardo R, Cancrini F, Petta S, Trucchi A et al. Physical activity as a risk factor for prostate cancer diagnosis: a prospective biopsy cohort analysis. BJU Int 2015; 117: E29–E35.
Written by: M Gacci1, GI Russo2, C De Nunzio3, A Sebastianelli1, M Salvi1, L Vignozzi4, A Tubaro3, G Morgia2 and S Serni1
© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved 1365-7852/17
A letter from the desk of the editor: Stephan J. Freedland