Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 13–20 | Cite as

Interplay between exercise and BMI; results from an equal access, racially diverse biopsy study

  • Jamie Michael
  • Taofik Oyekunle
  • Lauren Howard
  • Amanda De Hoedt
  • Catherine Hoyo
  • Delores Grant
  • Stephen FreedlandEmail author
Original paper



It is unclear if exercise and BMI interact to influence prostate cancer (PC) risk. We hypothesized BMI is linked with increased aggressive PC risk but this link will be attenuated with increased exercise.


Men undergoing prostate biopsy completed a questionnaire and metabolic equivalent (MET) hours of exercise was calculated. Of 695 men, 349 had PC; 161 low-grade, and 188 high-grade. We assessed the link between exercise and PC risk, high-grade PC (Gleason 7–10), and low-grade PC (Gleason 2–6) using logistic and multinomial logistic regression. Analysis was stratified by BMI. Link between BMI and PC risk and aggressive PC was similarly tested.


On multivariable analysis, there was no link between exercise and PC diagnosis in the entire cohort (p trend = 0.18–0.71) or across BMI groups (p trend = 0.15–0.97). For the entire cohort, higher BMI was linked with increased risk of high-grade PC (OR 1.06, p = 0.008). When stratified by exercise groups, the trend for higher BMI and increased risk of high-grade PC remained (OR 1.03–1.15, p = 0.02–0.66). There were no interactions between exercise and BMI in predicting PC risk (all p ≥ 0.31).


Regardless of exercise, higher BMI was linked with higher risk of aggressive PC, while exercise was unrelated to PC risk. Confirmatory studies are needed.


Prostate biopsy Exercise BMI Veterans Prostate cancer 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10552_2018_1104_MOESM1_ESM.docx (48 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 47 KB)


  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68(1):7–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hu MB et al (2014) Obesity affects the biopsy-mediated detection of prostate cancer, particularly high-grade prostate cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis of 29,464 patients. PLoS ONE 9(9):e106677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benke IN et al (2018) Physical activity in relation to risk of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 29(5):1154–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grotta A et al (2015) Physical activity and body mass index as predictors of prostate cancer risk. World J Urol 33(10):1495–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holtermann A et al (2017) Cardiorespiratory fitness, fatness and incident diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 134:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barry VW et al (2014) Fitness vs. fatness on all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 56(4):382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guerrios-Rivera L et al (2017) Is body mass index the best adiposity measure for prostate cancer risk? Results from a veterans affairs biopsy cohort. Urology 105:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singh AA et al (2013) Association between exercise and primary incidence of prostate cancer: does race matter? Cancer 119(7):1338–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolf AM et al (1994) Reproducibility and validity of a self-administered physical activity questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol 23(5):991–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chasan-Taber S et al (1996) Reproducibility and validity of a self-administered physical activity questionnaire for male health professionals. Epidemiology 7(1):81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Colditz GA et al (2003) Physical activity and risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women. Br J Cancer 89(5):847–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu Y et al (2011) Does physical activity reduce the risk of prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 60(5):1029–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Final Report. (2008) US Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freedland SJ et al (2007) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 69(3):495–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamie Michael
    • 1
  • Taofik Oyekunle
    • 2
  • Lauren Howard
    • 2
  • Amanda De Hoedt
    • 1
  • Catherine Hoyo
    • 3
  • Delores Grant
    • 4
  • Stephen Freedland
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of UrologyVeterans Affairs Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Duke Cancer InstituteDuke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Epidemiology and Environmental EpigenomicsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biological and Biomedical SciencesNC Central UniversityDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations