Systematic review and meta-analysis of the associations between body mass index, prostate cancer, advanced prostate cancer, and prostate-specific antigen

Abstract

Purpose

The relationship between body mass index (BMI) and prostate cancer remains unclear. However, there is an inverse association between BMI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), used for prostate cancer screening. We conducted this review to estimate the associations between BMI and (1) prostate cancer, (2) advanced prostate cancer, and (3) PSA.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Embase for studies until 02 October 2017 and obtained individual participant data from four studies. In total, 78 studies were identified for the association between BMI and prostate cancer, 21 for BMI and advanced prostate cancer, and 35 for BMI and PSA. We performed random-effects meta-analysis of linear associations of log-PSA and prostate cancer with BMI and, to examine potential non-linearity, of associations between categories of BMI and each outcome.

Results

In the meta-analyses with continuous BMI, a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with a percentage change in PSA of − 5.88% (95% CI − 6.87 to − 4.87). Using BMI categories, compared to normal weight men the PSA levels of overweight men were 3.43% lower (95% CI − 5.57 to − 1.23), and obese men were 12.9% lower (95% CI − 15.2 to − 10.7). Prostate cancer and advanced prostate cancer analyses showed little or no evidence associations.

Conclusion

There is little or no evidence of an association between BMI and risk of prostate cancer or advanced prostate cancer, and strong evidence of an inverse and non-linear association between BMI and PSA. The association between BMI and prostate cancer is likely biased if missed diagnoses are not considered.

Background

Prostate cancer is the second commonest male cancer worldwide, [1] and the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in the UK, with an estimated 47,151 diagnoses in 2015 [2]. Generally, most prostate cancers are slow growing, but can metastasize to the bones, lungs, and brain. Worldwide, there were an estimated 307,000 deaths from prostate cancer in 2012 [1], and in the UK, around 11,600 men died from prostate cancer in 2016 [2].

Body mass index (BMI) has been associated with many cancers [3], but its association with prostate cancer is unclear. Previous meta-analyses and reviews have suggested that BMI is not associated with prostate cancer [4, 5], positively associated with prostate cancer [6, 7], inversely associated with localized prostate cancer [8], and positively associated with advanced [8], aggressive [9], high-grade, and fatal prostate cancers [4]. These meta-analyses were either limited to cohort studies [4, 5, 7, 8] or in need of updating [6, 7]. Additionally, no meta-analysis assessed potential non-linear associations between BMI and risk of prostate cancer or advanced prostate cancer. We therefore sought to perform an updated review of the literature, including more studies, and additionally examining non-linear associations.

BMI has also been inversely associated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) [10], although no previous meta-analysis of this relationship exists. The presence of such an association could bias observed relationships between BMI and prostate cancer as PSA testing often plays a key role in diagnosis. More specifically, a negative association between BMI and PSA could lead to a spurious negative association or mask a positive association between BMI and localized prostate cancer, as obese men, with lower PSA values, would be less likely to be offered a biopsy as the result of a PSA test. A negative association between BMI and PSA could also induce a spurious positive association between BMI and advanced prostate cancer, as obese men may be diagnosed later, due to their lower PSA levels. In addition, if the association between BMI and prostate cancer (or advanced prostate cancer) is non-linear, then studies with different distributions of BMI will give rise to different estimates of the BMI-prostate cancer association. There may also be an association between BMI and prostate cancer screening behavior (including uptake of PSA testing), though studies have shown conflicting results. In the USA, men with high BMI values were more likely to receive PSA tests [11], whereas in the UK men with both very low and high BMI values were less likely to receive a PSA test [12]. This further complicates the relationship between BMI and prostate cancer diagnosis (though not BMI and PSA values), and this review does not aim to assess this association.

We systematically reviewed the literature for all relevant studies and performed meta-analyses. We also examined these relationships using individual participant data (IPD) from prostate cancer studies. In analyzing the IPD studies, we aimed to account for incomplete and PSA-dependent diagnosis by imputing prostate cancer status for all men who did not receive a biopsy, and in doing, avoid potential bias resulting from an association between BMI and PSA.

Our objectives were to i) precisely quantify the (assumed linear) associations between BMI and prostate cancer, advanced prostate cancer, and PSA; ii) update previous meta-analyses using all relevant evidence, including case–control studies; and iii) explore potential non-linearity in these associations. Our overall aim was to understand whether BMI is a risk factor for prostate cancer, and to identify whether failure to account for the role of PSA in many prostate cancer diagnoses is likely to lead to biased estimates of the association between BMI and prostate cancer.

Methods

Eligibility criteria

We performed a systematic review in which we included original articles published in peer reviewed journals that measured an association between BMI and total prostate cancer incidence and/or advanced prostate cancer; and studies that measured an association between BMI and PSA, including supplements and meeting abstracts; human randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case–control, cohort, cross-sectional, and non-randomized experimental studies. If the abstract did not specifically mention BMI but mentioned height or weight, we acquired the full text to determine if BMI was calculable from data included in the publication.

We excluded reviews, books, commentaries, letters, and animal and cell-line studies; studies examining pre-malignant disease if there was no mention of prostate cancer or PSA; studies where BMI was measured after diagnosis of prostate cancer, as this increases the likelihood of reverse causality; and studies that we considered to be at critical risk of bias (see ‘Risk of Bias Assessment’ below).

We determined the effect estimate to be for advanced prostate cancer if the individual studies labeled the effect as “advanced” or “aggressive,” or if the effect was for locally advanced, extra-prostatic, nodular or metastatic prostate cancer. Advanced prostate cancer represents clinically meaningful cancer, with lower survival rates than non-advanced cancers. High-grade prostate cancer on its own was not considered equivalent to advanced prostate cancer and was not extracted, as the definition of “high-grade” has been inconsistent over time, incorporating Gleason scores (the definition of which has changed over time [13]), tumor, node, metastases [TNM] scores, and PSA levels.

Data sources

We searched Medline and Embase databases up to 02 October 2017 for studies in humans associating BMI with either prostate cancer or PSA. The search query was as follows (each term as a text word search): (BMI or body mass index or obese or obesity or body weight or body size or adiposity) AND (prostate cancer or prostate neoplasm or PSA or prostate-specific antigen) NOT psoriatic arthritis. Psoriatic arthritis was excluded as its initialism is also PSA. We also reviewed the reference lists of previous meta-analyses for further studies for inclusion [6, 8, 14]. Duplicate studies were removed prior to download using the Ovid deduplication tool.

Data extraction

One author (SH) screened the titles and abstracts of all papers for inclusion and retrieved full texts for all studies that met the inclusion criteria. Full texts were also sought if no abstract was available or if the abstract did not include sufficient information to decide on inclusion. We also sought full texts for conference abstracts, if a corresponding full text was not found in the original search. If no full text could be found, and the abstract provided insufficient information for inclusion, the study was excluded. We excluded one published paper where we could not locate a full text [15].

One author (SH) screened all full texts for inclusion, and one of three independent reviewers (KT, ET, HJ) reviewed the first 60 full texts to check for consistency. We resolved any inconsistency with discussion to clarify screening criteria. A random subset of the remaining studies [30 full texts] was also reviewed by the independent reviewers to check for drift from inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Both SH and RL independently extracted all relevant data from included studies, with disagreements resolved by discussion. The first ten extractions were also performed by HEJ, KT, and ELT to check for consistency.

We categorized prostate cancer studies as “before” if BMI was measured on average at least two years before diagnosis (prospective studies), and “same time” if BMI was measured on average less than two years before diagnosis. In general, “before” studies were cohort studies and “same time” studies were case–control studies. We considered the “before” studies to be at lower risk of reverse causation.

We extracted data that were (or could be transformed to) an odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) quantifying the continuous association between BMI and total and advanced prostate cancer risk, and a regression coefficient for the association between BMI and log-PSA. Log-PSA was used as an outcome rather than PSA as we assumed a multiplicative association between BMI and PSA, which fits with the theory that haemodilution is responsible for any observed association [16]. Studies reported associations in a variety of ways; a detailed list of the statistical conversions used to estimate the ORs, HRs, and regression coefficients and their standard errors (SEs) is in Supplementary appendix 1.

We estimated linear associations, taking BMI as a continuous exposure variable, and assessing the possibility of non-linear associations by coding BMI as a categorical exposure. Specifically, we estimated linear associations between BMI and the log odds of prostate cancer or advanced prostate cancer, and between BMI and log transformed PSA. For simplicity, we refer to linear associations as “continuous” throughout. The following BMI categories were used: normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (25 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 30 kg/m2), and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). We refer to these as “categorical” associations throughout.

When several papers reported on the same study, for continuous associations we prioritized papers that presented continuous effect estimates (e.g., HR or OR per 1 kg/m2 increase in BMI) over papers presenting categorical effect estimates (e.g., HR or OR for overweight and obese groups versus normal weight), and these were prioritized over mean differences. For categorical associations, we extracted estimates from papers presenting categorical associations only. If duplicate studies presented the same effect estimate types in multiple papers, the paper with the largest number of participants was used in the meta-analysis. If both adjusted (e.g., for potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, etc.) and unadjusted results were given in the same paper, the most-adjusted model was used in the meta-analysis.

If the data were insufficient to estimate a regression coefficient, OR or HR and SE, we extracted a p value, the number of participants and direction of association from the most relevant analysis for use in an albatross plot [17].

Risk of bias assessment

SH and RL assessed the risk of bias in each study independently using an assessment tool created for a previous meta-analysis [18], with disagreements resolved by discussion. This tool uses the categories of assessment from a draft of the ROBINS-I tool [19], and questions from the CASP case–control and cohort questionnaires [20, 21], see Supplementary appendix 2.

We assessed risk of bias in six categories: confounding, selection of participants, missing data, outcome measurement, exposure measurement, and results’ reporting. We assigned overall and category-specific risks of bias: either low, moderate, high, critical, or unclear (if there was insufficient information to assign a risk). We based the overall risk of bias on a subjective combination of the category-specific risk of biases, looking at the maximum risk of bias that could have been introduced into the study by each category. The overall risk of bias was not low in any study, as all studies were observational and thus potentially subject to unmeasured confounding.

We determined that a study had a critical risk of bias if i) age was not accounted for in either the design or analysis of the study and, for BMI-prostate cancer case–control studies, if there was more than a 3-year difference in the mean or median ages of cases and controls, because age is strongly associated with BMI [22], prostate cancer risk [23], and PSA [23]; or ii) if the design of the study was such that participation was conditional upon PSA levels, both for the association between BMI and PSA (as this would involve conditioning on the outcome) and the association between BMI and prostate cancer (as this would involve conditioning on a collider) [24].

Studies with a critical risk of bias were excluded prior to analysis and were not considered further.

In the studies found in the systematic review, it was generally unclear whether men considered as not having prostate cancer had received biopsies. Usually, the controls were “not known to have prostate cancer,” rather than “known not to have prostate cancer.” Therefore, screening could have introduced bias in the association between BMI and prostate cancer. Although we did not consider this a critical risk of bias, we sought to investigate and quantify this bias using large studies where biopsy status was known, and IPD available.

Individual participant data studies

Studies that offered prostate biopsies if the participants’ PSA were above threshold values (screening studies) were excluded from our systematic review for having a critical risk of bias. However, we noted that some of the largest potentially relevant studies for our research questions were screening studies, and that bias due to screening could potentially be accounted for using imputation of prostate cancer status if IPD were available. This would then allow these studies to be included in the meta-analyses.

We approached four prospective studies looking at prostate cancer to obtain IPD: Krimpen [25], Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) [26], Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian cancer screening trial (PLCO) [27] and Prostate Testing for cancer and treatment trial (ProtecT) [28]. These studies were chosen because they were large studies of prostate cancer with known PSA screening protocols, or the biopsy status of all participants was known. Key to informing the imputation model was PCPT, which offered biopsies to all participants regardless of PSA level. This information allowed us to predict prostate cancer status for men with a PSA level below the threshold for biopsy in the other three studies using multiple imputation. However, PCPT only included men with a PSA less than 3.0 ng/ml, biasing both the BMI-PSA and BMI-prostate cancer analyses, and as such was excluded from the meta-analyses due to the critical risk of bias from conditioning on a collider or outcome. Imputation is valid if the missing data (prostate cancer status) is missing at random given other variables in the imputation model, so imputing prostate cancer is not biased even though PCPT is restricted to men with a PSA less than 3.0 ng/ml, as PSA is in the imputation model [29].

For each IPD study, we requested data measured at baseline on BMI and PSA, as well as age, family history of prostate cancer and ethnicity. We also requested data on prostate cancer status (including tumor, node, metastases [TNM], and Gleason scores). For each man who was not biopsied, we imputed prostate cancer status by the end of the study in which he participated using multiple imputation. We included baseline age, BMI, log-PSA, family history of prostate cancer, and study as explanatory variables to predict prostate cancer status using multiple imputation. BMI, log-PSA, and family history of prostate cancer were also imputed if missing.

We checked the validity of the imputation model by checking whether the predicted incidence of prostate cancer among men without prostate biopsies was credible, given results from autopsy studies [30]. Additionally, we visually inspected a plot of estimated prostate cancer risk against PSA for the imputed studies, to see whether the predicted risk of prostate cancer at low PSA levels for each study was plausible (see Supplementary Appendix 3.4).

In each of the three included IPD studies, we estimated associations between BMI and (1) prostate cancer, (2) advanced prostate cancer, and (3) PSA. We restricted the analyses to men with white ethnicity (due to low numbers of non-white men and therefore difficulties in imputation), and adjusted the analyses for age, family history of prostate cancer (for prostate cancer analyses), and prostate cancer status (for the PSA analyses). Full details of the IPD studies, the imputation method, and statistical analyses are available in Supplementary Appendix 3.

Combining data

Meta-analysis

We combined estimates from studies identified through the systematic review and the IPD studies using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. We performed separate meta-analyses of continuous and categorical associations for each outcome (prostate cancer, advanced prostate cancer, and PSA). All meta-analysis results are presented in forest plots.

Studies presenting HRs and ORs were analyzed and presented separately. For studies presenting ORs, “same time” and “before” studies were meta-analyzed in subgroups, and labeled as such in forest plots. Studies presenting HRs were all classed as “before” studies, and labeled simply “HR.” The results are presented as the HR or OR for prostate cancer or advanced prostate cancer and percentage change in PSA for a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI. Heterogeneity was tested for and quantified using the Cochran’s Q and I2 statistics [31, 32].

In meta-analyses of categorical associations, studies from the systematic review were included if they presented ORs or HRs for overweight and/or obese men relative to normal weight men (for the outcomes of prostate cancer and advanced prostate cancer) or means and SDs of PSA or log-PSA for each of these BMI categories (for the outcome of PSA). ORs and HRs that were presented for other categories of BMI were not used (such as morbidly obese, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), though we combined the mean and SD of PSA for different categories with neighboring categories when sufficient information was available.

Meta-regression

Meta-regression [33] was used to determine if the effect estimates from individual studies included in the meta-analyses varied by study-level factors. For all meta-regressions, we considered ethnicity (non-white versus white in each study, defined as > 80% white participants or from a country with a majority white population), mid-year of recruitment, mean BMI in the study, and the overall risk of bias (high versus medium). For the associations between BMI and prostate cancer and advanced prostate cancer, we also considered the mean age at diagnosis, and study mean time between BMI measurement and diagnosis.

Funnel plots

Funnel plots [34] were drawn to assess for small study effects in each analysis [35].

Albatross plots

As not all studies reported enough information to be included in the meta-analyses, we also present albatross plots containing results from studies with and without sufficient information to be included in the meta-analyses [17]. These are plots of the p value of an association against the number of participants and can be used to assess heterogeneity between studies and assess the rough magnitude of an association using limited information. By indicating which studies had insufficient data to contribute to meta-analysis on the albatross plots, we determined whether inclusion of the remaining studies would have altered the overall interpretation of the evidence.

Results

In total, 9,127 papers were found that had keywords for BMI and prostate cancer or PSA. After title and abstract screening, 725 papers remained (see Fig. 1, PRISMA flow diagram). After full text screening, risk of bias assessment, and removal of papers reporting the same studies, 78 studies examined the association between BMI and prostate cancer [67 with data for meta-analysis], 21 studies examined the association between BMI and advanced prostate cancer [18 with data for meta-analysis], and 35 studies examined the association between BMI and PSA [20 with data for meta-analysis, one of which only had data for categorical associations].

Fig. 1
figure1

PRISMA flow diagram showing the number of studies in each stage of the systematic review

A summary of all results is given in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of results

BMI and prostate cancer

Continuous BMI

Of the 78 studies examining the association between BMI and prostate cancer [25, 27, 28, 36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110], 11 (14%) could not be included in the meta-analysis due to insufficient data but were included in the albatross plot [100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110]. All studies are detailed in Supplementary Table 1, with the results of the risk of bias assessment in Supplementary Table 2. All studies in the meta-analysis adjusted for age in either the study design or analysis, while 23 studies (34%) adjusted for smoking status, 22 (33%) for ethnicity, 20 (30%) for family history of prostate cancer, 13 (19%) for education, 10 (15%) for area, 10 (15%) for diabetes, 10 (15%) for physical activity, 9 (13%) for alcohol, 6 (9%) for diet, and 6 (9%) for income. No other variable (of 24 other variables) was adjusted for in more than four studies.

In total, 9,513,326 men from 67 studies were included in the HR and OR meta-analyses, (9,351,795 in 30 HR studies, 161,531,383 in 37 OR studies); of these, 201,311 (2.1%) men had prostate cancer (157,990 cases [1.7%] in HR studies, 41,863 [25.9%] in OR studies). The random-effects meta-analyses (Figs. 2 and 3) estimated the average HR and OR for prostate cancer for a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI to be 1.01 (95% CI 0.99–1.04, p = 0.29) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.96–1.02, p = 0.64), respectively. There was strong evidence for heterogeneity in effect estimates across studies for the studies reporting an HR (p < 0.001, I2 = 79.9%), and studies reporting an OR (p < 0.001, I2 = 65.8%). Pooled estimates from fixed-effect meta-analyses were essentially the same.

Fig. 2
figure2

Forest plot for the association between BMI and prostate cancer (hazard ratios)

Fig. 3
figure3

Forest plot for the association between BMI and prostate cancer (odds ratios)

From a meta-analysis including only IPD studies, the estimated average OR for prostate cancer for a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was 0.98 (95% CI 0.95–1.01) (Supplementary Appendix 3.6). Analyzed without imputation (complete case analysis), the estimated OR was only 0.94 (95% CI 0.91–0.97).

There was limited evidence of (positive) small study effects on the funnel plot for HRs, but not ORs (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2). The albatross plot (Supplementary Fig. 3) showed that the eleven studies without sufficient information for meta-analysis were spread evenly across both positive and negative effect sizes, consistent with the null result seen in the meta-analysis.

Meta-regression (Supplementary Table 3) on study-level variables did not explain any of the heterogeneity.

Categorical BMI

Thirteen of the studies included in the continuous meta-analyses above presented HRs or ORs for overweight and/or obese men versus normal weight men [25, 27, 28, 45, 52, 53, 60, 69,70,71,72, 78, 111]. Only ten studies presented HRs or ORs for overweight men, whereas all thirteen presented HRs or ORs for obese men versus normal weight men. In total, there were 252,771 participants and 32,277 men with prostate cancer included in this meta-analysis; two studies [53, 111] did not report how many men were in each BMI subgroup and were not included in these totals.

Supplementary Table 4 shows the mean BMI, total number of men, and number of men with prostate cancer in each category of BMI, and Supplementary Table 5 shows the HRs and ORs for prostate cancer for each study for overweight and obese versus normal weight men. Forest plots are presented in Supplementary Figs. 4 and 5. For the random-effects meta-analysis, the average HR for prostate cancer between overweight and normal weight men was estimated to be 1.02 (95% CI 0.98–1.05, p = 0.35) with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.66), and the average OR was estimated to be 0.99 (95% CI 0.91–1.08, p = 0.81, combined across ORs for BMI measured before and at the same time as prostate cancer diagnosis) with little evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 32.6%, p = 0.19). The average HR for prostate cancer between obese and normal weight men was estimated to be 0.97 (95% CI 0.93–1.01, p = 0.16), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.80), and the average OR was estimated to be 0.90 (95% CI 0.81–1.00, p = 0.05, combined across ORs), with some evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 41.6%, p = 0.10). Fixed-effect models gave very similar results.

Fig. 4
figure4

Forest plot for the association between BMI and advanced prostate cancer (hazard ratios)

Fig. 5
figure5

Forest plot for the association between BMI and advanced prostate cancer (odds ratios)

The heterogeneity in the average OR for prostate cancer between obese and normal weight men may have been due to differences between IPD and non-IPD studies. There was no evidence of heterogeneity for either IPD (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.91–1.04, p = 0.46) or non-IPD (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.67–0.89, p < 0.001) studies when considered separately (I2 = 0.0% for both, p = 0.93 and p = 0.54, respectively).

BMI and Advanced Prostate Cancer

Continuous BMI

Of the 21 studies examining the association between BMI and advanced prostate cancer [25, 27, 28, 40, 42, 49, 52,53,54,55, 57, 58, 65, 93, 98, 103, 104, 107, 112,113,114], 3 studies (14%) could not be included in the meta-analysis due to insufficient data but were included in an albatross plot [103, 104, 107]. The studies examining the association between BMI and advanced prostate cancer are detailed in Supplementary Table 6, with the results of the risk of bias assessment in Supplementary Table 7. All studies in the meta-analysis adjusted for age in either the study design or analysis, while 9 studies (50%) adjusted for smoking status, 9 (50%) for family history of prostate cancer, 8 (44%) for ethnicity, 7 (39%) for education, 6 (33%) for diabetes, and 5 (28%) for physical activity. No other variable (of 15 other variables) was adjusted for in more than four studies.

In total, 1,146,847 men were included from 18 studies (1,052,344 in 11 HR studies, 94,503 in seven OR studies); of these, 12,037 (1.0%) men had advanced prostate cancer (8,123 [0.8%] in HR studies, 3,914 [4.1%] in OR studies). The random-effects meta-analyses (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) estimated the average HR and OR for advanced prostate cancer for a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI to be 1.06 (95% CI 1.01–1.12, p = 0.013) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.94–1.06, p = 0.99), respectively. There was little evidence for heterogeneity in effect estimates across studies reporting an HR (I2 = 24.4%, p = 0.21), and no evidence for heterogeneity in effect estimates across studies reporting an OR (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.54). The fixed-effect analysis showed essentially the same results.

When IPD studies were analyzed separately, the estimated average OR for advanced prostate cancer for a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92–1.09), Supplementary Appendix 3.6. The effect estimate when analyzed without imputation (complete case analysis) was slightly lower, with an estimated average OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.89–1.08).

The funnel plots (Supplementary Figs. 6 and 7) did not show evidence of any small study effects. The albatross plot (Supplementary Fig. 8) showed that the three studies without sufficient information for meta-analysis all estimated a positive association between BMI and advanced prostate cancer risk. One small study of 1,474 men, Putnam (2000) [104], estimated an inconsistently strong effect. Because this study was so small, it does not change our interpretation of the meta-analyses.

Meta-regression (Supplementary Table 8) did not show evidence of any variation in results due to study-level variables.

Categorical BMI

Six of the studies included in the continuous meta-analysis presented HRs or ORs for overweight and/or obese men versus normal weight men [25, 27, 28, 52,53,54]. Only five studies presented results for overweight versus normal weight men, whereas all six presented results for obese versus normal weight men. In total, there were 169,530 participants included in this analysis, and 2,381 men had advanced prostate cancer (1.4%) (one study [53] did not report how many men were in each BMI subgroup and was not included in these totals).

Supplementary Table 9 shows the mean BMI, total number of men, and number of men with advanced prostate cancer in each category of BMI, and Supplementary Table 10 shows the HRs and ORs for advanced prostate cancer, for each study for overweight and obese versus normal weight men. Forest plots are presented in Supplementary Figs. 9 and 10. For the random-effects meta-analysis, the average HR for advanced prostate cancer between overweight and normal weight men was estimated to be 1.04 (95% CI 0.94–1.15, p = 0.44), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.74), and the average OR was estimated to be 1.09 (95% CI 0.91–1.29, p = 0.35), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.78). The average HR for advanced prostate cancer between obese and normal weight men was estimated to be 1.15 (95% CI 0.92–1.44, p = 0.22), with evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 53.7%, p = 0.02), and the average OR was estimated to be 1.00 (95% CI 0.82–1.23, p = 0.97), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.74). Fixed-effect models gave very similar results.

BMI and PSA

Continuous BMI

Of the 34 studies providing information on the association between BMI (as a continuous variable) and PSA [25, 27, 28, 115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145], 15 studies (42%) could not be included in the meta-analysis due to insufficient data but were included in an albatross plot [131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145]. All included studies are detailed in Supplementary Table 11, with the results of the risk of bias assessment in Supplementary Table 12. All studies in the meta-analysis adjusted for age in either the study design or analysis, while 9 studies (47%) adjusted for ethnicity. No other variable (of 13 other variables) was adjusted for in more than four studies.

In total, 264,970 men from 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The random-effects meta-analysis (Fig. 6) estimated the average percentage change in PSA for a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI to be -5.88% (95% CI − 6.87 to − 4.87, p < 0.001). There was strong evidence for heterogeneity in effect estimates across studies (I2 = 60.0%, p < 0.001). The fixed-effect analysis showed essentially the same result with narrower confidence intervals (percentage change in PSA = -− 5.99%, 95% CI − 6.48 to − 5.49, p < 0.001).

Fig. 6
figure6

Forest plot for the association between BMI and PSA. AD aggregate data from systematic review, IPD individual participant data

The funnel plot (Supplementary Fig. 11) showed little evidence of small study effects. The albatross plot (Supplementary Fig. 12) showed that the excluded studies were broadly consistent with the meta-analysis effect size.

Meta-regression (Supplementary Table 13) did not explain any of the observed heterogeneity.

Categorical BMI

Sixteen of the studies included in the continuous meta-analysis presented PSA or log-PSA levels for overweight and/or obese men and normal weight men [25, 27, 28, 115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122, 124, 125, 127, 129, 146], and one further study presented only categorical results [147]. Overall, there were 17 studies and 218,700 participants included in this analysis.

Supplementary Table 14 displays the average log-PSA in each BMI subgroup for all 17 included studies, and Supplementary Table 15 displays the percentage MD in PSA for all comparisons. Forest plots are presented in Supplementary Figs. 13 and 14. For the random-effects meta-analysis, the average percentage change in PSA between overweight and normal weight men was estimated to be − 3.43% (95% CI − 5.57 to − 1.23, p = 0.002), with strong evidence of heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 80.9%, p < 0.001), and the average percentage change in PSA between obese and normal weight men was estimated to be − 12.9% (95% CI − 15.2 to − 10.7, p < 0.001), with strong evidence of heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 69.5%, p < 0.001). The pooled estimates from fixed-effect meta-analyses were slightly lower for the change in PSA between overweight and normal weight men (percentage change = -2.56%, 95% CI − 3.34 to − 1.78, p < 0.001), but similar for the change in PSA between obese and normal weight men (percentage change = -12.1%, 95% CI − 13.2 to − 11.1, p < 0.001).

The difference in log-PSA between the obese and normal groups (-0.139) was almost four times the difference between the overweight and normal weight groups (-0.035). The weighted mean BMI across all studies was 22.2 kg/m2 for the normal BMI category, 26.5 kg/m2 for the overweight category, and 31.3 kg/m2 for the obese category. We therefore consider this evidence that there is a non-linear association between BMI and log-PSA.

Discussion

Overall prostate cancer

There was no compelling evidence to suggest there is a linear association between BMI and prostate cancer risk as the effect estimate was null with a very tight confidence interval, nor an association between being overweight and prostate cancer risk, and only weak evidence for a small reduction in prostate cancer risk in obesity. However, there is likely a reduced risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer in overweight/obese men due to the role of PSA screening or testing in many prostate cancer diagnoses. This is reflected in our analyses of the IPD studies: the complete case analysis in which we ignored the problem of incomplete diagnosis (not all men being biopsied) suggested a negative association between BMI and prostate cancer. This association was attenuated to the null after imputation of missing prostate cancer status in non-biopsied men. This finding is consistent with our hypothesis regarding the expected direction of bias due to the negative association of BMI with PSA.

Obese men with prostate cancer may also have a higher risk of missed diagnoses due to having larger prostates [148], which are associated with a lower likelihood of detecting prostate cancer at biopsy [149, 150]. Bias from PSA testing will be highest in populations with a high level of PSA screening. In other populations, obesity may affect the chance of receiving a PSA test, and therefore receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis, for example, if obese men access primary care more.

Overall, our results are consistent with previous meta-analyses. A random-effects dose–response meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted by Markozannes et al. [4] using data from the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) as part of the continuous update project [151]. Markozannes included 39 studies with 3,798,746 participants and 88,632 men with prostate cancer (2.3%) for the association between BMI and prostate cancer (excluding studies on mortality), including many of the same studies we included in our meta-analysis. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for prostate cancer for a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was 1.00 (95% CI 0.97–1.03), consistent with our results. In addition, an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis by Kyrgiou et al. [3] concluded that there was no strong evidence for an association between BMI and prostate cancer risk, with a summary OR for prostate cancer for a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI of 1.03 (95% CI 0.99–1.06).

Advanced prostate cancer

There was some evidence to suggest a positive linear association between BMI and the risk of advanced prostate cancer, but only among studies reporting an HR (HR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.01–1.12, p = 0.013). This association was null in studies reporting an OR (OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94–1.06), but still consistent with a small positive association in studies, such that the difference between the two groups of studies may be due to chance or differences in study design or population. Additionally, there may be collider bias [24] in both estimates from conditioning on prostate cancer, since any unmeasured confounders associated with both prostate cancer and advanced prostate cancer could induce an association between BMI and advanced prostate cancer.

Markozannes conducted a meta-analysis of prospective studies of BMI and combined advanced, high-grade, and fatal prostate cancer using WCRF data, which included 23 studies with 1,676,220 participants and 11,204 men with advanced/high-grade/fatal prostate cancer (0.67%) [4]. The RR for advanced/high-grade/fatal prostate cancer for a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was 1.08 (95% CI 1.04–1.12). The effect estimate may be increased in the WCRF analysis by the inclusion of high-grade and/or fatal prostate cancers or exclusion of case–control studies. Kyrgiou et al. [3] concluded that there was weak evidence for a positive association between increasing BMI and advanced prostate cancer risk, with a RR for advanced prostate cancer for a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI of 1.09 (95% CI 1.02–1.16), although our meta-analysis included more up-to-date studies with a stricter inclusion criteria.

PSA

There was strong evidence of an inverse association between BMI and PSA, which we found to be likely non-linear, decreasing more quickly between overweight and obese than normal weight and overweight. On average, obese men have an estimated 12.9% lower PSA than a normal weight man, and overweight men 3.4% lower PSA. We could only find one previous review of the association between BMI and PSA, which did not include a meta-analysis or estimate effect size [152]. Their conclusion was that many studies reported an inverse association between BMI and PSA, in agreement with our findings.

It could thus be potentially beneficial to account for BMI when interpreting the results of a PSA test, however, prospective research would be necessary to confirm whether this would have a beneficial effect on prostate cancer-related outcomes. One suggestion based on these results is to increase an overweight man’s PSA by 3.5% (multiply by 1.035) before comparing to a threshold, and an obese man’s PSA by 13% [10, 153]. As an example of the impact of doing so, 23% of men in ProtecT were obese, and 1.9% of these men had an observed PSA of less than 3.0 ng/ml, but a ‘corrected’ PSA above a 3.0 ng/ml threshold for biopsy when adjusted for the effect of BMI on PSA.

Strengths and Limitations

We synthesized data from many studies, including participants from many different populations at different time points, improving generalizability. The total number of participants included in analyses was also very large, and as such all pooled effect estimates were precise. By including studies where BMI was measured before, and those where it was measured at the same time as prostate cancer detection, we could compare different study types: there was little difference between these two study types for all outcomes in the continuous analyses, suggesting the findings are robust to reverse causation of BMI change by prostate cancer diagnosis. By including IPD studies and imputing prostate cancer status in men who were not biopsied, we were able to show and account for bias in the association between BMI and prostate cancer from PSA testing.

A further strength of this study was the inclusion of studies where only a p value and number of participants could be extracted, using albatross plots.

However, there are limitations. Many of the studies included in the meta-analysis compared men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer versus men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. In the screening studies, most men were not biopsied. Assuming that none of these men had prostate cancer would be a strong assumption and likely lead to bias. We addressed this problem by treating prostate cancer status as missing in these men and using multiple imputation. We performed checks on the validity of our imputation model, but we note the limitation that our results may have been sensitive to the choice of this model. In the meta-analysis of all studies, we limited bias due to testing for prostate cancer with PSA by excluding studies that exclusively screened for prostate cancer (and thus would have the greatest bias), but as PSA screening is used in general practice the bias could not be entirely removed. The proportion of prostate cancers detected by testing with PSA likely varied in each study, potentially accounting for some of the heterogeneity in studies examining the association between BMI and prostate cancer and advanced prostate cancer. Indeed, all the heterogeneity between OR results for prostate cancer between obese and normal weight men were due to differences between the imputed IPD studies versus the non-IPD studies.

Overall, there were large amounts of heterogeneity between non-IPD studies in the continuous analyses of BMI and prostate cancer, and advanced prostate cancer. This could be due to heterogeneity across populations, methods of diagnosing prostate cancer, or differential adjustment for confounders in each study-specific analysis. Equally, because the studies may not have used the same definition of advanced prostate cancer, and because advanced prostate cancers could be locally advanced prostate cancer, nodes or metastatic cancer, these studies may be relatively heterogeneous. This may have attenuated any association between BMI and advanced prostate cancer. Additionally, PSA testing rates changed differently over time in different countries, and although we tested for an effect of changing PSA testing rates over time using meta-regression, we may not have been able to capture differences in effect estimates for prostate cancer between studies from changing PSA testing rates, as well as differences between countries.

There was also evidence of heterogeneity between studies examining the associations between BMI and PSA. As with the prostate cancer studies, the PSA studies adjusted for different confounders, therefore residual confounding may have increased heterogeneity. It is also possible the association between BMI and PSA varies by population, though our meta-regressions did not find any explanatory factors.

There was at least a moderate risk of bias for all studies, as all studies were observational and therefore could have been biased by unobserved confounding. We attempted to limit effects of bias by identifying key confounders and only including studies without a critical risk of bias. There was also no evidence from the meta-regression that the studies with a medium risk of bias had systematically different effect estimates than those with a high risk of bias.

In the categorical analyses, it was only possible to combine studies presenting results for specific categories of BMI. As such, relatively few studies were included; a superior approach would be to gather IPD from all eligible studies and to determine the precise form of any non-linear associations, which would also allow more accurate corrections to men’s PSA levels.

Conclusion

There was little evidence of any association between BMI and prostate cancer risk, and some evidence for a small positive association with advanced prostate cancer risk. There was, however, strong evidence for an inverse non-linear association between BMI and PSA. There was evidence from IPD studies to suggest this could bias the association between BMI and prostate cancer in screening studies. Studies in populations where PSA testing is involved in diagnosis of prostate cancer should determine whether an exposure could be associated with PSA, and thus whether the observed association with prostate cancer could be biased.

References

  1. 1.

    World Health Organisation International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 012: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012 [Internet]. 2015 [cited 18 Dec 2015]. https://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx

  2. 2.

    Cancer Research UK. Prostate Cancer Statistics [Internet]. 2019 [cited 31 Jan 2019]. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer

  3. 3.

    Kyrgiou M, Kalliala I, Markozannes G, Gunter MJ, Paraskevaidis E, Gabra H et al (2017) Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature. BMJ 356:j477

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Markozannes G, Tzoulaki I, Karli D, Evangelou E, Ntzani E, Gunter MJ et al (2016) Diet, body size, physical activity and risk of prostate cancer: an umbrella review of the evidence. Eur J Cancer 69:61–69

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Zhang X, Zhou G, Sun B, Zhao G, Liu D, Sun J et al (2015) Impact of obesity upon prostate cancer-associated mortality: a meta-analysis of 17 cohort studies. Oncol Lett 9(3):1307–1312

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    MacInnis RJ, English DR (2006) Body size and composition and prostate cancer risk: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Cancer Causes Control 17(8):989–1003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Renehan AG, Tyson M, Egger M, Heller RF, Zwahlen M (2008) Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet 371:569–578

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Discacciati A, Orsini N, Wolk A (2012) Body mass index and incidence of localized and advanced prostate cancer—a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Ann Oncol 23(7):1665–1671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Allott EH, Masko EM, Freedland SJ (2013) Obesity and prostate cancer: weighing the evidence. Eur Urol 63(5):800–809

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Harrison S, Tilling K, Turner EL, Lane JA, Simpkin A, Davis M et al (2016) Investigating the prostate specific antigen, body mass index and age relationship: is an age—BMI-adjusted PSA model clinically useful? Cancer Causes Control 27(12):1465–1474

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Scales CD, Curtis LH, Norris RD, Schulman KA, Dahm P, Moul JW (2007) Relationship between body mass index and prostate cancer screening in the United States. J Urol 177(2):493–498

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Littlejohns TJ, Travis RC, Key TJ, Allen NE (2016) Lifestyle factors and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in UK Biobank: implications for epidemiological research. Cancer Epidemiol 45:40–46

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Chen N, Zhou Q (2016) The evolving gleason grading system. Chin J Cancer Res. 28:58–64

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hu MB, Liu SH, Jiang HW, Bai PD, Ding Q (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):e106677

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Du SF, Shi LY, He SP (1996) A case-control study of prostate cancer. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 17(6):343–345

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Harrison S, Tilling K, Turner EL, Lane JA, Simpkin A, Davis M et al (2016) Investigating the prostate specific antigen, body mass index and age relationship: is an age-BMI-adjusted PSA model clinically useful? Cancer Causes Control 27(12):1465–1474

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Harrison S, Jones HE, Martin RM, Lewis SJ, Higgins JPT (2017) The albatross plot: a novel graphical tool for presenting results of diversely reported studies in a systematic review. Res Synth Methods 8(3):281–289

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Harrison S, Lennon R, Holly J, Higgins JPT, Gardner M, Perks C et al (2017) Does milk intake promote prostate cancer initiation or progression via effects on insulin-like growth factors (IGFs)? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer causes Control 28(248):1–32

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    CASP. CASP Case Control Checklist. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). 2014 [cited 24 Nov 2015]. https://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_63fb65dd4e0548e2bfd0a982295f839e.pdf

  21. 21.

    CASP. CASP Cohort Study Checklist. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). 2014 [Cited 24 Nov 2015]. https://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_e37a4ab637fe46a0869f9f977dacf134.pdf

  22. 22.

    Vlassopoulos A, Combet E, Lean MEJ (2013) Changing distributions of body size and adiposity with age. Int J Obes 38:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Harrison S, Tilling K, Turner EL, Lane JA, Simpkin A, Davis M et al (2016) Investigating the prostate specific antigen—body mass index and age relationship: is an age-BMI adjusted PSA model clinically useful? Cancer Causes Control 27(12):1465–1474

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cole SR, Platt RW, Schisterman EF, Chu H, Westreich D, Richardson D et al (2010) Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. Int J Epidemiol 39(2):417–420

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Blanker MH, Groeneveld FPMJ, Prins A, Bernsen RMD, Bohnen AM, Bosch JLHR (2000) Strong effects of definition and nonresponse bias on prevalence rates of clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia: The Krimpen study of male urogenital tract problems and general health status. BJU Int 85(6):665–671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Parnes HL, Minasian LM, Godley PA et al (2013) Long-term survival of participants in the prostate cancer prevention trial. N Engl J Med 369(7):603–610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR et al (2012) Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 104(2):125–132

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Lane JA, Donovan JL, Davis M, Walsh E, Dedman D, Down L et al (2014) Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: Study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 15(10):1109–1118

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hughes RA, Heron J, Sterne JAC, Tilling K (2019) Accounting for missing data in statistical analyses: multiple imputation is not always the answer. Int J Epidemiol 48(4):1294–1304

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bell KJL, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P (2015) Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: a systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer 137(7):1749–1757

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ Br Med J 327(7414):557–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Cochran WG (1954) The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 10(1):101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Meta-regression. In: Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (eds) Introd to meta-analysis. Wiley, John Hoboken, pp 187–203

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Sterne JAC, Becker BJ, Egger M (2006) The funnel plot. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Bornstein M (eds) Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustments. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 73–98

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J 315(7109):629–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Severson RK, Grove JS, Nomura AM, Stemmermann GN (1988) Body mass and prostatic cancer: a prospective study. BMJ 297(6650):713–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Mills PK, Beeson WL, Phillips RL, Fraser GE (1989) Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men. Cancer 64(3):598–604

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Andersson S-O, Wolk A, Bergstrom R, Adami H-O, Engholm G, Englund A et al (1997) Body size and prostate cancer: a 20-year follow-up study among 135006 Swedish Construction Workers. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 89(5):385–389. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/89.5.385

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Cerhan JR, Torner JC, Lynch CF, Rubenstein LM, Lemke JH, Cohen MB et al (1997) Association of smoking, body mass, and physical activity with risk of prostate cancer in the Iowa 65+ Rural Health Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 8(2):229–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Willett WC (1997) Height, body weight, and risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 6(8):557–563

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Lund Nilsen TI, Vatten LJ (1999) Anthropometry and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study of 22,248 Norwegian men. Cancer Causes Control 10(4):269–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Schuurman AG, Goldbohm RA, Dorant E, van den Brandt PA (2000) Anthropometry in relation to prostate cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol 151(6):541–549

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Lee IM, Sesso HD, Paffenbarger RS (2001) A prospective cohort study of physical activity and body size in relation to prostate cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes Control 12(2):187–193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Engeland A, Tretli S, Bjørge T (2003) Height, body mass index, and prostate cancer: a follow-up of 950000 Norwegian men. Br J Cancer 89(7):1237–1242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Jonssoni F, Wolk A, Pedersen NL, Lichtenstein P, Terry P, Ahlbom A et al (2003) Obesity and hormone-dependent tumors: cohort and co-twin control studies based on the Swedish Twin Registry. Int J Cancer 106(4):594–599

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Kuriyama S, Tsubono Y, Hozawa A, Shimazu T, Suzuki Y, Koizumi Y et al (2005) Obesity and risk of cancer in Japan. Int J Cancer 113(1):148–157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Oh SW, Yoon YS, Shin SA (2005) Effects of excess weight on cancer incidences depending on cancer sites and histologic findings among men: Korea National Health Insurance Corporation study. J Clin Oncol 23(21):4742–4754

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Håheim LL, Wisløff TF, Holme I, Nafstad P (2006) Metabolic syndrome predicts prostate cancer in a cohort of middle-aged Norwegian men followed for 27 years. Am J Epidemiol 164(8):769–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Kurahashi N, Iwasaki M, Sasazuki S, Otani T, Inoue M, Tsugane S (2006) Association of body mass index and height with risk of prostate cancer among middle-aged Japanese men. Br J Cancer 94(5):740–742

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Lukanova A, Björ O, Kaaks R, Lenner P, Lindahl B, Hallmans G et al (2006) Body mass index and cancer: results from the Northern Sweden Health and disease cohort. Int J Cancer 118(2):458–466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Lundqvist E, Kaprio J, Verkasalo PK, Pukkala E, Koskenvuo M, Söderberg KC et al (2007) Co-twin control and cohort analyses of body mass index and height in relation to breast, prostate, ovarian, corpus uteri, colon and rectal cancer among Swedish and Finnish twins. Int J Cancer 121(4):810–818

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Rodriguez C, Freedland SJ, Deka A, Jacobs EJ, McCullough ML, Patel AV et al (2007) Body mass index, weight change, and risk of prostate cancer in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 16(1):63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Wright ME, Chang S-C, Schatzkin A, Albanes D, Kipnis V, Mouw T et al (2007) Prospective study of adiposity and weight change in relation to prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Cancer 109(4):675–684

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Hernandez BY, Park S-Y, Wilkens LR, Henderson BE, Kolonel LN (2009) Relationship of body mass, height, and weight gain to prostate cancer risk in the multiethnic cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 18(9):2413–2421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Wallström P, Bjartell A, Gullberg B, Olsson H, Wirfält E (2009) A prospective Swedish study on body size, body composition, diabetes, and prostate cancer risk. Br J Cancer 100(11):1799–1805

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Burton A, Martin R, Galobardes B, Davey Smith G, Jeffreys M (2010) Young adulthood body mass index and risk of cancer in later adulthood: historical cohort study. Cancer Causes Control 21(12):2069–2077

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Stocks T, Hergens M-P, Englund A, Ye W, Stattin P (2010) Blood pressure, body size and prostate cancer risk in the Swedish Construction Workers cohort. Int J Cancer 127(7):1660–1668

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Bassett JK, Severi G, Baglietto L, MacInnis RJ, Hoang HN, Hopper JL et al (2012) Weight change and prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Int J Cancer 131(7):1711–1719

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Häggström C, Stocks T, Ulmert D, Bjørge T, Ulmer H, Hallmans G et al (2012) Prospective study on metabolic factors and risk of prostate cancer. Cancer 118(24):6199–6206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Shafique K, McLoone P, Qureshi K, Leung H, Hart C, Morrison DS (2012) Cholesterol and the risk of grade-specific prostate cancer incidence: evidence from two large prospective cohort studies with up to 37 years’ follow up. BMC Cancer 12:25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Rao GA, Mann JR, Bottai M, Uemura H, Burch JB, Bennett CL et al (2013) Angiotensin receptor blockers and risk of prostate cancer among united states veterans. J Clin Pharmacol 53(7):773–778

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Bhaskaran K, Douglas I, Forbes H, dos-Santos-Silva I, Leon DA, Smeeth L (2014) Body-mass index and risk of 22 specific cancers: a population-based cohort study of 5·24 million UK adults. Lancet 384(9945):755–765

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Møller H, Roswall N, Van Hemelrijck M, Larsen SB, Cuzick J, Holmberg L et al (2014) Prostate cancer incidence, clinical stage and survival in relation to obesity: a prospective cohort study in Denmark. Int J Cancer 1947:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Choi JB, Moon HW, Park YH, Bae WJ, Cho HJ, Hong SH et al (2016) The impact of diabetes on the risk of prostate cancer development according to body mass index: a 10-year nationwide cohort study. J Cancer 7(14):2061–2066

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Perez-Cornago A, Appleby PN, Pischon T, Tsilidis KK, Tjønneland A, Olsen A et al (2017) Tall height and obesity are associated with an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer: results from the EPIC cohort study. BMC Med 15(1):115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Heikkila R, Aho K, Heliovaara M, Hakama M, Marniemi J, Reunanen A et al (1999) Serum testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin concentrations and the risk of prostate carcinoma: a longitudinal study. Cancer 86(2):312–315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Giles GG, Severi G, English DR, McCredie MRE, MacInnis R, Boyle P et al (2003) Early growth, adult body size and prostate cancer risk. Int J Cancer 103(2):241–245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Jian L, Shen ZJ, Lee AH, Binns CW (2005) Moderate physical activity and prostate cancer risk: a case-control study in China. Eur J Epidemiol 20(2):155–160

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Liu X, Rybicki BA, Casey G, Witte JS (2005) Relationship between body size and prostate cancer in a sibling based case-control study. J Urol 174(6):2169–2173

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Porter MP, Stanford JL (2005) Obesity and the risk of prostate cancer. Prostate 62:316–321

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Baillargeon J, Platz EA, Rose DP, Pollock BH, Ankerst DP, Haffner S et al (2006) Obesity, adipokines, and prostate cancer in a prospective population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15(7):1331–1335

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Máchová L, Čížek L, Horáková D, Koutná J, Lorenc J, Janoutová G et al (2007) Association between obesity and cancer incidence in the population of the District Sumperk, Czech Republic. Onkologie 30(11):538–542

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Albanes D, Weinstein SJ, Wright ME, Männistö S, Limburg PJ, Snyder K et al (2009) Serum insulin, glucose, indices of insulin resistance, and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(18):1272–1279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Farhat GN, Taioli E, Cauley JA, Zmuda JM, Orwoll E, Bauer DC et al (2009) The association of bone mineral density with prostate cancer risk in the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 18(1):148–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Stark JR, Li H, Kraft P, Kurth T, Giovannucci EL, Stampfer MJ et al (2009) Circulating prediagnostic interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein and prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Int J Cancer 124(11):2683–2689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Mori M, Masumori N, Fukuta F, Nagata Y, Sonoda T, Miyanaga N et al (2011) Weight gain and family history of prostate or breast cancers as risk factors for prostate cancer: results of a case-control study in Japan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 12(3):743–747

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Bhavsar NA, Bream JH, Meeker AK, Drake CG, Peskoe SB, Dabitao D et al (2014) A peripheral circulating TH1 cytokine profile is inversely associated with prostate cancer risk in CLUE II. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 23(11):2561–2567

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Boehm K, Sun M, Larcher A, Blanc-Lapierre A, Schiffmann J, Graefen M et al (2015) Waist circumference, waist-hip ratio, body mass index, and prostate cancer risk: results from the North-American case-control study Prostate Cancer & Environment Study. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 33(11):494.e1–494.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    De SE, Boffetta PL, Ronco A, Deneo-Pellegrini H (2016) Meat consumption, related nutrients, obesity and risk of prostate cancer: a case-control study in Uruguay. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 17(4):1937–1945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Kunutsor SK, Laukkanen JA (2017) Gamma-glutamyltransferase and risk of prostate cancer: findings from the KIHD prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer 140(4):818–824

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Whittemore AS, Kolonel LN, Wu AH, John EM, Gallagher RP, Howe GR et al (1995) Prostate cancer in relation to diet, physical activity, and body size in blacks, whites, and Asians in the United States and Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 87(9):652–661

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Andersson SO, Baron J, Bergström R, Lindgren C, Wolk A, Adami HO (1996) Lifestyle factors and prostate cancer risk: a case-control study in Sweden. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 5(7):509–513

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Lagiou P, Signorello LB, Trichopoulos D, Tzonou A, Trichopoulou A, Mantzoros CS (1998) Leptin in relation to prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int J Cancer 76(1):25–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Hsieh CC, Thanos A, Mitropoulos D, Deliveliotis C, Mantzoros CS, Trichopoulos D (1999) Risk factors for prostate cancer: a case-control study in Greece. Int J Cancer 80(5):699–703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Villeneuve PJ, Johnson KC, Kreiger N, Mao Y, Paulse B, Dewar R et al (1999) Risk factors for prostate cancer: results from the Canadian National Enhanced Cancer Surveillance System. Cancer Causes Control 10(5):355–367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Hsing AW, Chua S, Gao Y, Gentzschein E, Chang L, Deng J et al (2001) Prostate cancer risk and serum levels of insulin and leptin: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(10):783–789

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Sharpe CR, Siemiatycki J (2001) Joint effects of smoking and body mass index on prostate cancer risk. Epidemiology 12(5):546–551

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Cui Y, Winton MI, Zhang ZF, Rainey C, Marshall J, De Kernion JB et al (2004) Dietary boron intake and prostate cancer risk. Oncol Rep 11(4):887–892

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Dal Maso L, Zucchetto A, La Vecchia C, Montella M, Conti E, Canzonieri V et al (2004) Prostate cancer and body size at different ages: an Italian multicentre case-control study. Br J Cancer. 90(11):2176–2180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Friedenreich CM, McGregor SE, Courneya KS, Angyalfi SJ, Elliott FG (2004) Case-control study of anthropometric measures and prostate cancer risk. Int J Cancer 110(2):278–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Bradbury BD, Wilk JB, Kaye JA (2005) Obesity and the risk of prostate cancer (United States). Cancer Causes Control 16(6):637–641

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Gallus S, Foschi R, Talamini R, Altieri A, Negri E, Franceschi S et al (2007) Risk factors for prostate cancer in men aged less than 60 years: a case-control study from Italy. Urology 70(6):1121–1126

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Chamie K, DeVere White RW, Lee D, Ok J-H, Ellison LM (2008) Agent Orange exposure, Vietnam War veterans, and the risk of prostate cancer. Cancer 113(9):2464–2470

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Chia SE, Wong KY, Cheng C, Lau W, Tan PH (2012) Sun exposure and the risk of prostate cancer in the Singapore Prostate Cancer Study: a case-control study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 13(7):3179–3185

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Fowke JH, Motley SS, Concepcion RS, Penson DF, Barocas DA (2012) Obesity, body composition, and prostate cancer. BMC Cancer 12(1):23

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Nemesure B, Wu SY, Hennis A, Leske MC (2012) Central adiposity and prostate cancer in a Black Population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 21(5):851–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Yaturu S, Zdunek S, Youngberg B (2012) Vitamin d levels in subjects with prostate cancer compared to age-matched controls. Prostate Cancer 2012:524206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Möller E, Adami HO, Mucci LA, Lundholm C, Bellocco R, Johansson J-E et al (2013) Lifetime body size and prostate cancer risk in a population-based case-control study in Sweden. Cancer Causes Control. 24(12):2143–2155

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Salem S, Hosseini M, Allameh F, Babakoohi S, Mehrsai A, Pourmand G (2013) Serum calcium concentration and prostate cancer risk: a multicenter study. Nutr Cancer 65(7):961–968

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Le Marchand L, Kolonel LN, Wilkens LR, Myers BC, Hirohata T (1994) Animal fat consumption and prostate cancer: a prospective study in Hawaii. Epidemiology 5(3):276–282

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Veierød MB, Laake P, Thelle DS (1997) Dietary fat intake and risk of prostate cancer: a prospective study of 25,708 Norwegian men. Int J Cancer 73(5):634–638

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Habel LA, Van Den Eeden SK, Friedman GD (2000) Body size, age at shaving initiation, and prostate cancer in a large, multiracial cohort. Prostate 43(2):136–143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Hsing AW, Deng J, Sesterhenn IA, Mostofi FK, Stanczyk FZ, Benichou J et al (2000) Body size and prostate cancer: a population-based case-control study in China. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 9(12):1335–1341

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Putnam SD, Cerhan JR, Parker AS, Bianchi GD, Wallace RB, Cantor KP et al (2000) Lifestyle and anthropometric risk factors for prostate cancer in a cohort of Iowa men. Ann Epidemiol 10(6):361–369

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Pan SY, Johnson KC, Ugnat AM, Wen SW, Mao Y (2004) Association of obesity and cancer risk in Canada. Am J Epidemiol 159(3):259–268

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Cox B, Sneyd MJ, Paul C, Skegg DCG (2006) Risk factors for prostate cancer: a national case-control study. Int J Cancer 119(7):1690–1694

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Littman AJ, White E, Kristal AR (2007) Anthropometrics and prostate cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 165(11):1271–1279

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Attner B, Landin-Olsson M, Lithman T, Noreen D, Olsson H (2012) Cancer among patients with diabetes, obesity and abnormal blood lipids: a population-based register study in Sweden. Cancer Causes Control 23(5):769–777

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Harding JL, Shaw JE, Anstey KJ, Adams R, Balkau B, Brennan-Olsen SL et al (2015) Comparison of anthropometric measures as predictors of cancer incidence: a pooled collaborative analysis of 11 Australian cohorts. Int J Cancer 137(7):1699–1708

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Heir T, Falk RS, Robsahm TE, Sandvik L, Erikssen J, Tretli S (2016) Cholesterol and prostate cancer risk: a long-term prospective cohort study. BMC Cancer. 16(1):643

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Park S-Y, Haiman CA, Cheng I, Park SL, Wilkens LR, Kolonel LN et al (2015) Racial/ethnic differences in lifestyle-related factors and prostate cancer risk: the Multiethnic Cohort Study. Cancer Causes Control 26(10):1507–1515

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Discacciati A, Orsini N, Andersson S-O, Andrén O, Johansson J-E, Wolk A (2011) Body mass index in early and middle-late adulthood and risk of localised, advanced and fatal prostate cancer: a population-based prospective study. Br J Cancer 105(7):1061–1068

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Robinson WR, Stevens J, Gammon MD, John EM (2005) Obesity before age 30 years and risk of advanced prostate cancer. Am J Epidemiol 161(12):1107–1114

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Geybels MS, Verhage BAJ, Arts ICW, Van Schooten FJ, Alexandra Goldbohm R, Van Den Brandt PA (2013) Dietary flavonoid intake, black tea consumption, and risk of overall and advanced stage prostate cancer. Am J Epidemiol 177(12):1388–1398

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Baillargeon J, Pollock BH, Kristal AR, Bradshaw P, Hernandez J, Basler J et al (2005) The association of body mass index and prostate-specific antigen in a population-based study. Cancer 103(5):1092–1095

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Freedland SJ, Platz EA, Presti JC, Aronson WJ, Amling CL, Kane CJ et al (2006) Obesity, serum prostate specific antigen and prostate size: Implications for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 175(2):500–504

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Bañez LL, Hamilton RJ, Partin AW, Vollmer RT, Sun L, Rodriguez C et al (2007) Obesity-related plasma hemodilution and PSA concentration among men with prostate cancer. JAMA 298(19):2275–2280

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Sohn JC, Lim MS, Chang HS, Park CH, Kim CI (2007) The association of body mass index and prostate-specific antigen. Korean J Urol 48(11):1121–1124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Ando R, Nagaya T, Hashimoto Y, Suzuki S, Itoh Y, Umemoto Y et al (2008) Inverse relationship between obesity and serum prostate-specific antigen level in healthy Japanese men: a hospital-based cross-sectional survey, 2004–2006. Urology 72(3):561–565

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Price MM, Hamilton RJ, Robertson CN, Butts MC, Freedland SJ (2008) Body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, and digital rectal examination findings among participants in a prostate cancer screening clinic. Urology 71(5):787–791

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Muller H, Raum E, Rothenbacher D, Stegmaier C, Brenner H, Mu H (2009) Association of diabetes and body mass index with levels of prostate-specific antigen: implications for correction of prostate-specific antigen cutoff values? Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 18(5):1350–1356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Park J-H, Cho B-L, Kwon H-T, Lee C-M, Han H-J (2009) Effect of body mass index and waist circumference on prostate specific antigen and prostate volume in a generally healthy Korean population. J Urol. 182(1):106–110

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Waters K, Henderson B, Stram D, Wan P, Kolonel L, Haiman C (2009) Association of diabetes with prostate cancer risk in the multiethnic cohort. Am J Epidemiol 169(8):937–945

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Kim JM, Song PH, Kim HT, Moon KH (2011) Effect of obesity on prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and international prostate symptom score in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Korean J Urol 52(6):401–405

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Wright JL, Lin DW, Stanford JL (2011) The effect of demographic and clinical factors on the relationship between BMI and PSA levels. Prostate 71(15):1631–1637

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Li J, Thompson T, Joseph DA, Master VA (2012) Association between smoking status, and free, total and percent free prostate specific antigen. J Urol 187(4):1228–1233

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Park S-G, Choi H-C, Cho B, Kwon Y-M, Kwon H-T, Park J-H (2012) Effect of central obesity on prostate specific antigen measured by computerized tomography: related markers and prostate volume. J Urol 187(5):1589–1593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Chamie K, Oberfoell S, Kwan L, Labo J, Wei JT, Litwin MS (2013) Body mass index and prostate cancer severity: do obese men harbor more aggressive disease on prostate biopsy? Urology 81(5):949–955

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Bhindi B, Margel D, Trottier G, Hamilton RJ, Kulkarni GS, Hersey KM et al (2014) Obesity is associated with larger prostate volume but not with worse urinary symptoms: analysis of a large multiethnic cohort. Urology 83(1):81–87

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Bonn SE, Sjolander A, Tillander A, Wiklund F, Gronberg H, Balter K (2016) Body mass index in relation to serum prostate-specific antigen levels and prostate cancer risk. Int J Cancer 139(1):50–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Gray MA, Delahunt B, Fowles JR, Weinstein P, Cooke RR, Nacey JN (2004) Demographic and clinical factors as determinants of serum levels of prostate specific antigen and its derivatives. Anticancer Res 24(3B):2069–2072

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Chang IH, Han JH, Ahn SH (2008) Association of obesity with prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen velocity in healthy young men. J Urol 179(3):881–886

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Chia S-E, Lau WKO, Chin CM, Tan J, Ho SH, Lee J et al (2009) Effect of ageing and body mass index on prostate-specific antigen levels among Chinese men in Singapore from a community-based study. BJU Int 103(11):1487–1491

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Chiu PK-F, Wong AY-F, Hou S-M, Yip SK-H, Ng C-F (2011) Effect of body mass index on serum prostate-specific antigen levels among patients presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 12(8):1937–1940

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Liu M, Wang J-Y, Zhu L, Wan G (2011) Body mass index and serum lipid profile influence serum prostate-specific antigen in Chinese men younger than 50 years of age. Asian J Androl 13(4):640–643

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Wallner LP, Morgenstern H, McGree ME, Jacobson DJ, St. Sauver JL, Jacobsen SJ et al (2011) The effects of body mass index on changes in prostate-specific antigen levels and prostate volume over 15 years of follow-up: implications for prostate cancer detection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 20(3):501–508

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Gómez-Guerra LS, Hernández-Torres AU, Blanco-Guzmán A, Solís-Rodríguez DE, Ortiz-Lara GE, Cortés-González JR (2012) Effect of body mass index on PSA in northeast Mexican patients. Actas Urológicas Españolas 36(5):302–305

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Ikuerowo SO, Omisanjo OA, Bioku MJ, Ajala MO, Esho JO (2012) Effect of obesity on serum prostate-specific antigen in nigerian men. Urol Int 89(1):52–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Pater LE, Hart KW, Blonigen BJ, Lindsell CJ, Barrett WL (2012) Relationship between prostate-specific antigen, age, and body mass index in a prostate cancer screening population. Am J Clin Oncol 35(5):490–492

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Yang WJ (2013) The likelihood of having a serum PSA level of according to obesity in a screened Korean population. Asian J Androl. 15(6):770–772

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Taghavi R, Aameli M, Jahed-Ataeian S, Hasanzade J (2014) Relationship between body mass index and prostate specific antigen in patient with lower urinary tract symptoms. Urology 84(4):S318–S319

    Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Adegun PT, Adebayo PB, Atiba SA (2015) The likelihood of having serum level of PSA of ≥4.0 ng/mL and ≥10.0 ng/mL in non-obese and obese Nigerian men with LUTS. Asian J Urol. 2(3):158–162

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Zhang J, Sheng B, Ma M, Nan X (2016) An inverse association of obesity and prostate-specific antigen in elderly males. Int J Clin Exp Med 9(9):18746–18753

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Yun J, Lee H, Yang W (2017) Association between systemic inflammation and serum prostate-specific antigen in a healthy Korean population. Turkish J Urol 43(3):284–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Loeb S, Carter HB, Schaeffer EM, Ferrucci L, Kettermann A, Metter EJ (2009) Should prostate specific antigen be adjusted for body mass index? Data from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of aging. J Urol 182(6):2646–2652

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Bonn SE, Sjölander A, Tillander A, Wiklund F, Grönberg H, Bälter K (2016) Body mass index in relation to serum prostate-specific antigen levels and prostate cancer risk. Int J Cancer 139(1):50–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Lacher DA, Hughes JP (2015) Total, free, and complexed prostate-specific antigen levels among US men, 2007–2010. Clin Chim Acta 448:220–227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Wallner LP, Morgenstern H, McGree ME, Jacobson DJ, St Sauver JL, Jacobsen SJ et al (2011) The effects of body mass index on changes in prostate-specific antigen levels and prostate volume over 15 years of follow-up: implications for prostate cancer detection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20(3):501–508

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG (2008) Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol 10(4):262–280

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Al-Azab R, Toi A, Lockwood G, Kulkarni GS, Fleshner N (2007) Prostate volume is strongest predictor of cancer diagnosis at transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen values between 2.0 and 9.0 ng/mL. Urology 69(1):103–107

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    World Cancer Research Fund. World Cancer Research Fund International/American Institute for Cancer Research Continuous Update Project Report: Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Prostate Cancer [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/Prostate-Cancer-2014-Report.pdf

  152. 152.

    Skolarus TA, Wolin KY, Grubb 3rd RL (2007) The effect of body mass index on PSA levels and the development, screening and treatment of prostate cancer. Nat Clin Pract Urol 4(11):605–614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Gilbert R, Tilling K, Martin RM, Lane JA, Davis M, Hamdy FC et al (2018) Developing new age-specific prostate-specific antigen thresholds for testing for prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control 29(3):383–388

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

ProtecT Support: The ProtecT trial is funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (projects 96/20/06, 96/20/99, ISRCTN20141297) with the University of Oxford (Oxford, UK) as sponsor. The views and opinions expressed herein are our own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. We acknowledge the tremendous contribution of all the ProtecT study participants, investigators, researchers, data monitoring committee, and trial steering committee. We acknowledge the support from the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre through the Surgical Innovation and Evaluation Theme and the Surgical Interventional Trials Unit, and Cancer Research UK through the Oxford Cancer Research Centre. This work was supported by Cancer Research UK project Grants C11043/A4286, C18281/A8145, C18281/A11326, and C18281/A15064 and a programme grant (the CRUK Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme, ICEP: C18281/A19169). The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) formed by the Department of Health, the Medical Research Council (MRC), and Cancer Research UK. The NCRI provided funding through ProMPT (Prostate Mechanisms of Progression and Treatment), and this support is gratefully acknowledged. The ProtecT funding source had no role in the design, conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis and interpretation or preparation, review, or approval of the article. PCLO Support: The authors thank the Nation Cancer Institute for access to NCI’s data collected by the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The statements contained herein are solely those of the authors and do not represent or imply concurrence or endorsement by NCI. PCPT Support: Research reported in this publication was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers UM1CA182883 and U10CA37429. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Funding

This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust (PhD grant Code 102432/Z/13/Z). HEJ was supported by an MRC Career Development Award in Biostatistics (MR/M014533/1).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean Harrison.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest:

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harrison, S., Tilling, K., Turner, E.L. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the associations between body mass index, prostate cancer, advanced prostate cancer, and prostate-specific antigen. Cancer Causes Control 31, 431–449 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-020-01291-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Prostate cancer
  • Prostate-specific antigen
  • Body mass index
  • Screening
  • Meta-analysis
  • Systematic review