
==== Front
JNCI Cancer Spectr
JNCI Cancer Spectr
jncics
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
2515-5091
Oxford University Press

39180334
10.1093/jncics/pkae070
pkae070
Article
AcademicSubjects/MED00010
Adiposity assessed close to diagnosis and prostate cancer prognosis in the EPIC study
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2660-7866
Cariolou Margarita MPH Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Writing - original draft Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9219-4436
Christakoudi Sofia PhD Methodology Resources Writing - review & editing Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

Gunter Marc J PhD Writing - review & editing Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2294-307X
Key Tim DPhil Writing - review & editing Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Pérez-Cornago Aurora PhD Writing - review & editing Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Travis Ruth DPhil Writing - review & editing Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6236-6804
Zamora-Ros Raul PhD Writing - review & editing Unit of Nutrition and Cancer, Cancer Epidemiology and Research Programme, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), Barcelona, Spain

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8350-7194
Petersen Kristina Elin T PhD Writing - review & editing Danish Cancer Institute, Diet, Cancer and Health, Copenhagen, Denmark

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4385-2097
Tjønneland Anne MD, PhD Writing - review & editing Danish Cancer Institute, Diet, Cancer and Health, Copenhagen, Denmark
Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen , Denmark

Weiderpass Elisabete MD, PhD Writing - review & editing International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3751-3929
Kaaks Rudolf PhD Writing - review & editing Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

Seibold Petra PhD Writing - review & editing Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

Inan-Eroglu Elif PhD Writing - review & editing Department of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany

Schulze Matthias B DrPH Writing - review & editing Department of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany
Institute of Nutritional Science, University of Potsdam, Nuthetal, Germany

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5758-9069
Masala Giovanna MD Writing - review & editing Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention, and Clinical Network, Florence, Italy

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4472-1179
Agnoli Claudia MSc Writing - review & editing Epidemiology and Prevention Unit, IRCCS National Cancer Institute Foundation, Milan, Italy

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2666-414X
Tumino Rosario MD Writing - review & editing Hyblean Association for Epidemiological Research, AIRE ONLUS Ragusa, Ragusa, Italy

Di Girolamo Chiara PhD Writing - review & editing Centre for Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, Orbassano, Italy

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9793-7913
Aizpurua Amaia MSc Writing - review & editing Ministry of Health of the Basque Government, Sub directorate for Public Health and Addictions of Gipuzkoa, San Sebastián, Spain
Biodonostia Health Research Institute, Epidemiology of Chronic and Communicable Diseases Group, San Sebastián, Spain

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9972-9779
Rodriguez-Barranco Miguel PhD Writing - review & editing Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública, Granada, Spain
Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs. GRANADA, Granada, Spain
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain

Santiuste Carmen MD Writing - review & editing Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain
Department of Epidemiology, Murcia Regional Health Council, Murcia-IMIB, Spain

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9242-6364
Guevara Marcela MD, PhD Writing - review & editing Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain
Instituto de Salud Pública y Laboral de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
Navarra Institute for Health Research, Pamplona, Spain

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4533-1722
Aune Dagfinn PhD Writing - review & editing Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
Department of Nutrition, Oslo New University College, Oslo, Norway
Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0198-1897
Chan Doris S M PhD Conceptualization Funding acquisition Resources Supervision Writing - review & editing Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

Muller David C PhD Methodology Supervision Visualization Writing - review & editing Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8452-8472
Tsilidis Konstantinos K PhD Conceptualization Funding acquisition Methodology Project administration Resources Supervision Visualization Writing - review & editing Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece

Correspondence to: Konstantinos K. Tsilidis, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, White City Campus, 90 Wood Lane, London W12 0BZ, UK (e-mail: k.tsilidis@imperial.ac.uk).
10 2024
24 8 2024
24 8 2024
8 5 pkae0706 3 2024
2 7 2024
7 8 2024
18 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Adiposity has been characterized as a modifiable risk factor for prostate cancer. Its association with outcomes after prostate cancer diagnosis, however, must be better understood, and more evidence is needed to facilitate the development of lifestyle guidance for patients with prostate cancer.

Methods

We investigated the associations between adiposity indices close to prostate cancer diagnosis (up to 2 years before or up to 5 years after diagnosis) and mortality in 1968 men of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. Men were followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Cox proportional hazards models were adjusted for age and year of diagnosis, disease stage and grade, and smoking history and stratified by country.

Results

Each 5-unit increment in prediagnosis or postdiagnosis body mass index combined was associated with a 30% higher rate of all-cause mortality and a 49% higher rate of prostate cancer–specific mortality. Similarly, each 5-unit increment in prediagnosis body mass index was associated with a 35% higher rate of all-cause mortality and a 51% higher rate of prostate cancer–specific mortality. The associations were less strong for postdiagnosis body mass index, with a lower number of men in analyses. Less clear positive associations were shown for waist circumference, hip circumference, and waist to hip ratio, but data were limited.

Conclusions

Elevated levels of adiposity close to prostate cancer diagnosis could lead to higher risk of mortality; therefore, men are encouraged to maintain a healthy weight. Additional research is needed to confirm whether excessive adiposity after prostate cancer diagnosis could worsen prognosis.

World Cancer Research Fund network of charities American Institute for Cancer Research 10.13039/100000969 World Cancer Research Fund 10.13039/501100000321
==== Body
pmcProstate cancer is a major public health burden challenging the economic and health-care systems of many countries globally (1,2). It is the second-most frequently diagnosed malignancy after lung cancer and the fifth-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men worldwide (1.7 million cases and 500 000 annual deaths expected by 2030) (3-5). Most men have a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer and up to 99% 10-year survival (6), whereas the 5-year survival for individuals with late-stage disease is approximately 30% (6). Survival rates have substantially improved (5,7,8), but extended survival often coexists with increased cancer-related comorbidities, including obesity (9).

General adiposity (body mass index [BMI]) has been inversely associated with the risk of developing localized and total prostate cancer (10-12); general adiposity (BMI) and abdominal adiposity (waist circumference, waist to hip ratio) have been positively associated with the risk of developing aggressive (10,11,13-16) and fatal prostate cancer (10,17) in studies, including European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). The literature on potential associations between modifiable factors and prostate cancer prognosis is inconclusive (18-20). Currently, any existing lifestyle survivorship guidance is mainly extrapolated from cancer prevention recommendations. Individuals with cancer are advised to avoid obesity and adhere to a balanced lifestyle (20,21). A recent meta-analysis of observational studies reported evidence of a J-shaped association between BMI assessed at or after prostate cancer diagnosis and all-cause mortality (17 studies) and a similar association for prostate cancer–specific mortality (13 studies). No associations were identified between waist circumference and mortality (3 studies) (19). Observational studies that explored adiposity close to diagnosis in relation to prostate cancer survival are subject to limitations, such as being single centered, using a single-timepoint adiposity measure instead of measures at different timepoints throughout the cancer survivorship trajectory, focused on general adiposity without incorporating measures of abdominal or gluteofemoral (hip circumference) adiposity. A few studies investigated potential nonlinear relationships (22), but none explored stage-specific or grade-specific associations (19). Investigating the association between obesity and cancer-related survival outcomes should be among the top research priorities (23). We explored the associations among general, abdominal, and gluteofemoral adiposity assessed close to diagnosis with mortality in the EPIC study.

Methods

EPIC is a multicenter prospective cohort study that recruited volunteers aged 35-70 years between 1992 and 2000. The final cohort included 153 457 men. Study design and data-collection procedures are detailed elsewhere (24). Eligibility criteria, identification of prostate cancer cases, and outcome assessment are described in detail in the Supplementary Methods (available online). Briefly, men with prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion if they had adiposity data collected close to diagnosis (ie, up to 2 years before [prediagnosis] or up to 5 years after [postdiagnosis]) (Figure 1, A-D). Data were used from all EPIC centers apart from France, Norway, Utrecht, and Naples, which recruited only women. Data from Greece were not available for this analysis. The International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (code C61.9) was used to select individuals with primary malignant prostate tumors (25).

Figure 1. Data collection time frames showing the total number of men who had data on adiposity close to diagnosis for (A) BMI, (B) waist circumference, (C) hip circumference, and (D) waist to hip ratio. The prediagnosis analyses included men with incident prostate cancer diagnosed during cohort follow-up who had baseline (at recruitment) or follow-up anthropometric data collected up to 2 years before diagnosis. The postdiagnosis analyses included men with prevalent prostate cancer at study entry who had baseline anthropometric data collected up to 5 years after diagnosis or men with incident prostate cancer who had follow-up anthropometric data collected up to 5 years after diagnosis. The numbers shown on the diagram represent the total number of men with prostate cancer before exclusion of individuals with missing data on the covariates of the main model of the present study (ie, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, disease stage, tumor grade, and smoking status). BMI = body mass index.

Tumor grade and stage information at diagnosis was collected, if possible, from each center. Height, weight, waist, and hip circumference were obtained in all centers apart from Umea, which had information only about height and weight. Height, weight, hip, and waist circumference were measured using standard protocols in all participating EPIC centers in this study; only in Oxford, United Kingdom, were they self-reported. A follow-up assessment on average 5 years after recruitment collected data from 350 000 participants (28% men). Weight was self-reported in all centers apart from Norfolk, United Kingdom, where it was measured (24,26). At study entry, participants provided information about lifestyle, previous diseases, alcohol and tobacco consumption, exercise, diet, and sociodemographics. Supplementary Methods (available online) provides details of how important variables were defined.

Statistical analysis

Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between adiposity assessed either up to 2 years before diagnosis or up to 5 years after diagnosis in relation to all-cause and prostate cancer–specific mortality. Analyses were also performed by combining both time frames. The date of the at-recruitment or follow-up anthropometric assessment/questionnaire was considered the start of follow-up, and the date of death, emigration, withdrawal or loss to follow-up or last follow-up, whichever occurred first, was the end of follow-up. In the analysis of prostate cancer–specific mortality; all other deaths were censored. We obtained estimates of the linear associations between adiposity variables and mortality per 5 kg/m2 increments in BMI, 10-cm increments in waist and hip circumference, and 0.1-unit increments in waist to hip-ratio. Restricted cubic splines were also used to investigate possible nonlinear associations, with 3 knots at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of the adiposity variable distribution (27). Nonlinearity was evaluated graphically and using the likelihood ratio test, comparing models with and without the restricted cubic spline term (28-30). The median value of each adiposity variable in each analysis was used as the referent.

Nested multivariable models were adjusted for relevant covariates selected a priori, on the basis of subject matter knowledge, including age and year of diagnosis, Gleason score/grade, tumor stage, prostate-specific antigen level, smoking status, and physical activity (Supplementary Table 1, available online). Model 1 was adjusted for age and year of diagnosis. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for disease stage and grade. Model 3, which represented our main model and is the one presented in our results, was additionally adjusted for smoking status. A fourth model, additionally adjusted for lifetime number of cigarettes per day, physical activity, and prostate-specific antigen level, resulted in similar results but a considerably larger percentage of missing data. All models were stratified by country to account for potential center-specific differences, including follow-up procedures and questionnaires (26,31). We performed complete-case analyses restricted to individuals with complete information about the covariates of each model (32,33). The number of men and deaths per model are shown in Supplementary Table 2 (available online). To examine the influence of covariates, we performed sensitivity analyses, including in models 1 and 2 the same participants as in model 3 (the main model). As a proxy for socioeconomic status, the prediagnosis or postdiagnosis BMI combined model was additionally adjusted for highest school level. The postdiagnosis models were also adjusted for prediagnosis BMI in sensitivity analysis. Analyses were conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) BMI categories, but inference was the same (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4, available online).

Graphical inspection of the smoothed scaled Schoenfeld residuals showed no violation of the proportional hazards assumption (34-36). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess potential reverse causation and selection bias (details in Supplementary Methods, available online). We also performed analyses by tumor stage and grade at diagnosis, smoking status, and year of BMI measurement (1 and 2 years before diagnosis and for each year after diagnosis) because each year may reflect differences in the cancer care continuum. A P value of .05 was considered statistically significant; statistical tests were 2 sided. R, version 4.0.5, software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used for analyses.

Results

Cohort characteristics

A total of 1968 men with prostate cancer had adiposity data collected up to 2 years before or up to 5 years after diagnosis. Important tumor and lifestyle characteristics of these men are shown in Table 1. Some data were missing for prostate-specific antigen (45%), tumor stage (39%), tumor grade (34%), lifetime cigarettes per day (31%), physical activity (15%), and smoking status (4%), but all men had complete information for age and year of diagnosis (Supplementary Table 5, available online). Tumor and baseline lifestyle characteristics of the men with prostate cancer who were not included in this study (if they did not have adiposity data close to diagnosis) were not materially different from those of the men who were included. Important characteristics of those included in the main BMI analyses (after removing men with missing covariate data) were comparable to the characteristics of the total number of men who had BMI data close to diagnosis (with missing data) (Supplementary Table 6, available online). Key characteristics of the 1968 men were also largely similar by the World Health Organization categories (Supplementary Table 7, available online).

Table 1. Tumor and lifestyle characteristics of the men diagnosed with prostate cancer who had prediagnosis or postdiagnosis adiposity dataa

	BMI (N = 1968)	Waist circumference (n = 1091)	Hip circumference (n = 793)	Waist to hip ratio (n = 793)	
Follow-up time (ie, from return of either baseline or follow-up questionnaire until censoring), median (5th-95th percentile), y	9.5 (2.0-17.6)	8.4 (2.0-18.3)	7.6 (2.0-18.8)	7.6 (2.0-18.8)	
Age at diagnosis, median (5th-95th percentile), y	66 (55-77)	65 (54-74)	65 (54-75)	65 (54-75)	
Disease stage—EPIC stage classification, No. (%)					
 In situ	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	
 Localized	710 (36)	308 (28)	116 (15)	116 (15)	
 Metastatic	49 (3)	6 (1)	6 (1)	6 (1)	
 Metastatic, regional	77 (4)	41 (4)	18 (2)	18 (2)	
 Metastatic, distant	56 (3)	52 (5)	17 (2)	17 (2)	
 Unknown/missing	1076 (55)	684 (63)	636 (80)	636 (80)	
Tumor stage—TNM code or, if TNM not available, EPIC stage classification , No. (%)					
 Localized (T0-T2 and N0-NX and M0)	824 (42)	314 (29)	123 (16)	123 (16)	
 Advanced (T3-T4 and/or N1-N3 or M1)	382 (19)	191 (18)	129 (16)	129 (16)	
 Unknown/missing	762 (39)	586 (54)	541 (68)	541 (68)	
Tumor grade—EPIC grade classification, No. (%)					
 Well differentiated	58 (3)	24 (2)	24 (3)	24 (3)	
 Moderately differentiated	282 (14)	119 (11)	119 (15)	119 (15)	
 Poor/undifferentiated	91 (5)	280 (26)	40 (5)	40 (5)	
 Unknown/missing	1537 (78)	668 (61)	610 (77)	610 (77)	
Tumor grade—Gleason score or, if not available, EPIC grade classification, No. (%)					
 Gleason score 2-6 (well differentiated)	632 (32)	272 (25)	156 (20)	156 (20)	
 Gleason score 7 (moderately differentiated)	456 (23)	208 (19)	146 (18)	146 (18)	
 Gleason score 8-10 (poorly or undifferentiated)	211 (11)	117 (11)	65 (8)	65 (8)	
 Unknown/undetermined	669 (34)	494 (45)	426 (54)	426 (54)	
Tumor grade—Gleason score, otherwise EPIC grade classification (Gleason score 7 [moderately differentiated] as a separate category and split into 3 + 4 or 4 + 3), No. (%)					
 Gleason score 2-6 (well differentiated)	632 (32)	272 (25)	156 (20)	156 (20)	
 Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) (moderately differentiated)	199 (10)	91 (8)	50 (6)	50 (6)	
 Gleason score 7 (4 + 3) (moderately differentiated)	78 (4)	22 (2)	18 (2)	18 (2)	
 Gleason score 8-10 (poorly or undifferentiated)	211 (11)	117 (11)	65 (8)	65 (8)	
 Unknown/undetermined	848 (43)	589 (54)	504 (64)	504 (64)	
Anthropometry					
BMI					
 BMI, median (5th-95th percentile)	26 (22-33)	26 (22-33)	26 (22-33)	26 (22-33)	
 Underweight (<18.5), No. (%)	8 (0)	5 (0)	5 (1)	5 (1)	
 Normal weight (18.5-24.9), No. (%)	643 (33)	363 (33)	262 (33)	262 (33)	
 Overweight (25-29.9), No. (%)	1037 (52)	572 (52)	414 (52)	414 (52)	
 Obese (≥30), No. (%)	280 (14)	151 (14)	112 (14)	112 (14)	
 Unknown, No. (%)	—b	—b	—b	—b	
Waist circumference					
 Waist circumference, median (5th-95th percentile)	97 (82-115)	97 (82-115)	97 (81-115)	97 (81-115)	
 Unknown, No. (%)	877 (45)	—b	—b	—b	
Hip circumference					
 Hip circumference, median (5th-95th percentile)	101 (90-114)	101 (90-114)	101 (90-114)	101 (90-114)	
 Unknown, No. (%)	1175 (60)	298 (27)	—b	—b	
Waist to hip ratio					
 Waist to hip ratio, median (5th-95th percentile)	1 (0.85-1.06)	0.96 (0.85-1.06)	0.96 (0.85-1.06)	0.96 (0.85-1.06)	
 Unknown, No. (%)	1175 (60)	298 (27)	—b	—b	
Smoking status, No. (%)					
 Never smoker	645 (33)	334 (31)	243 (31)	243 (31)	
 Former smoker	979 (50)	537 (49)	397 (50)	397 (50)	
 Current smoker	270 (14)	182 (17)	118 (15)	118 (15)	
 Unknown	74 (4)	38 (3)	35 (4)	35 (4)	
Cambridge Physical Activity Index, No. (%)					
 Inactive	495 (25)	284 (26)	215 (27)	215 (27)	
 Moderately inactive	591 (30)	396 (36)	298 (38)	298 (38)	
 Moderately active	322 (16)	197 (18)	126 (16)	126 (16)	
 Active	256 (13)	184 (17)	124 (16)	124 (16)	
 Missing	304 (15)	30 (3)	30 (4)	30 (4)	
Highest school level (baseline), No. (%)					
 None	29 (2)	6 (1)	6 (1)	6 (1)	
 Primary school completed	657 (33)	364 (33)	266 (34)	266 (34)	
 Technical/professional school	433 (22)	249 (23)	174 (22)	174 (22)	
 Secondary school	224 (11)	140 (13)	116 (15)	116 (15)	
 Longer education (including university degree)	525 (27)	285 (26)	185 (23)	185 (23)	
 Not specified	78 (4)	35 (3)	35 (4)	35 (4)	
 Unknown	22 (1)	12 (1)	11 (1)	11 (1)	
Prostate-specific antigen level, median (5th-95th percentile)	11 (3-134)	12 (3-249)	11 (2-166)	11.1 (2-166)	
a Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. The characteristics of individuals are taken from each respective time frame (either baseline or follow-up) for which the individual was selected according to the eligibility criteria of this study (ie, for any variables that also had follow-up measurements). BMI = body mass index; EPIC = European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.

b Unknown or missing data.

Main results: BMI and mortality

The 1968 men with BMI data collected either up to 2 years before diagnosis (n = 1000) or up to 5 years after diagnosis (n = 968) (Figure 1, A; Supplementary Figure 1, A, available online) were followed for a median of 9.5 years from return of the baseline or follow-up questionnaire. Analysis of BMI assessed before or after diagnosis combined showed a linear increase in the rate of all-cause (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.52, Pnonlinearity = .93) and prostate cancer–specific mortality (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.84, Pnonlinearity = .11) (Table 2; Figure 2, A and B). A positive association was also observed between prediagnosis BMI and all-cause mortality (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.65, Pnonlinearity = .71) as well as prostate cancer–specific mortality (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.96, Pnonlinearity = .61) (Table 2; Figure 2, C and D). For postdiagnosis BMI and all-cause mortality, the 95% confidence intervals were wide, crossing the null (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.66, Pnonlinearity = .48). Little evidence of nonlinearity was observed for prostate cancer–specific mortality because it was based on few events (Pnonlinearity = .04) (Table 2; Figure 2, E and F).

Figure 2. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models with restricted cubic spline curves describing the association between BMI data collected before or after diagnosis combined and (A) all-cause mortality (men/deaths = 972/320); (B) prostate cancer–specific mortality (men/deaths = 972/163), prediagnosis BMI; (C) all-cause mortality (men/deaths = 570/194); (D) prostate cancer–specific mortality (men/deaths = 570/100), postdiagnosis BMI; (E) all-cause mortality (men/deaths = 372/126); (F) prostate cancer–specific mortality (men/deaths = 372/63). Hazard ratios are based on the main model, adjusted for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, disease stage, tumor grade, and smoking status; knots at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of BMI. The median BMI of the individuals included in analyses was used as the referent: 26.2 in the prediagnosis or postdiagnosis BMI analysis, 26.5 in the prediagnosis BMI analysis, and 25.9 in the postdiagnosis BMI analysis. The smooth density plot represents the density of the population across the spline variable. BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval.

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses for BMI and mortality

Of 1968 men, 42% (n = 824) had localized disease, 19% (n = 382) had advanced disease, 9% (n = 180) had metastatic disease, 39% (n = 762) had missing data, 32% (n = 632) had well-differentiated disease (Gleason scores 2-6), 23% (n = 456) had moderately differentiated disease (Gleason score 7), 11% (n = 211) had poorly or undifferentiated disease (Gleason scores 8-10), and 34% (n = 669) had missing data (Table 1). Positive and similar associations were observed between 5 kg/m2 increments of BMI and all-cause and prostate cancer–specific mortality for localized, advanced, and metastatic prostate cancer, after excluding metastatic tumors (Table 2; Supplementary Figure 2, available online), and across tumor grades (Table 2; Supplementary Figure 3, available online). Similar associations to the main analyses were observed upon exclusion of men who had died during the first year of follow-up (Table 2; Supplementary Figure 4, available online). In addition, adjusting the postdiagnosis model for baseline or prediagnosis BMI did not materially change the results (Supplementary Figure 5, available online).

Table 2. Cox proportional hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the linear association between adiposity and all-cause and prostate cancer–specific mortality (complete case analyses—main model)

	No. of events/total No. of men with prostate cancer	Hazard ratio a (95% CI)	P nonlinearity b	
Main analyses	
BMI (per 5 kg/m2)				
 All-cause mortality				
  Prediagnosis or postdiagnosis combined	320/942	1.30 (1.11 to 1.52)	.93	
  Prediagnosis	194/570	1.35 (1.11 to 1.65)	.71	
  Postdiagnosis	126/372	1.23 (0.91 to 1.66)	.48	
 Prostate cancer–specific mortality				
  Prediagnosis or postdiagnosis combined	163/942	1.49 (1.21 to 1.84)	.11	
  Prediagnosis	100/570	1.51 (1.16 to 1.96)	.61	
  Postdiagnosis	63/372	1.74 (1.13 to 2.68)	.04	
Waist circumference (per 10 cm)				
 All-cause mortality				
  Prediagnosis or postdiagnosis combined	120/362	1.16 (0.97 to 1.39)	.03	
  Prediagnosis	86/245	1.31 (1.07 to 1.61)	.06	
  Postdiagnosis	34/117	0.67 (0.40 to 1.08)	.72	
 Prostate cancer–specific mortality				
  Prediagnosis or postdiagnosis combined	79/362	1.26 (1.01 to 1.57)	.03	
  Prediagnosis	53/245	1.47 (1.14 to 1.89)	.01	
  Postdiagnosis	26/117	0.79 (0.46 to 1.37)	.79	
Hip circumference (per 10 cm)				
 All-cause mortality				
  Prediagnosis or postdiagnosis combined	45/167	1.12 (0.72 to 1.77)	.88	
  Prediagnosis	42/128	1.19 (0.74 to 1.91)	.74	
  Postdiagnosis	3/39	(Limited data)	—c	
 Prostate cancer–specific mortality				
  Prediagnosis or postdiagnosis combined	23/167	1.48 (0.80 to 2.74)	.29	
  Prediagnosis	21/128	1.88 (0.94 to 3.77)	.62	
  Postdiagnosis	2/39	(Limited data)	—c	
Waist to hip ratio (per 0.1 unit)				
 All-cause mortality				
  Prediagnosis or postdiagnosis combined	45/167	1.18 (0.70 to 1.99)	.47	
  Prediagnosis	42/128	1.24 (0.71 to 2.15)	.91	
  Postdiagnosis	3/39	(Limited data)	—c	
 Prostate cancer–specific mortality				
  Prediagnosis or postdiagnosis combined	23/167	1.47 (0.67 to 1.02)	.50	
  Prediagnosis	21/128	1.71 (0.67 to 4.34)	.75	
  Postdiagnosis	2/39	(Limited data)	—c	
Subgroup and sensitivity analyses	
Prediagnosis or postdiagnosis BMI combined, per 5 kg/m2	
 Disease staged	
  All-cause mortality				
   Localized	175/656	1.17 (0.92 to 1.49)	.19	
   Advanced (includes metastatic)	145/286	1.38 (1.09 to 1.73)	.37	
   All, excluding metastatic	233/819	1.25 (1.02 to 1.52)	.26	
   Only metastatic	87/123	1.37 (1.00 to 1.86)	.19	
  Prostate cancer–specific mortality				
   Localized	61/656	1.45 (1.01 to 2.08)	.13	
   Advanced (includes metastatic)	102/286	1.52 (1.15 to 2.02)	.39	
   All, excluding metastatic	85/819	1.57 (1.16 to 2.13)	.23	
   Only metastatic	78/123	1.35 (0.97 to 1.87)	.43	
 Tumor gradee	
  All-cause mortality				
   Well differentiated—Gleason score 2-6	106/427	1.34 (1.02 to 1.72)	.85	
   Moderately differentiated—Gleason score 7	118/359	1.20 (0.89 to 1.62)	.12	
   Poorly differentiated—Gleason score 8-10	96/156	1.21 (0.88 to 1.65)	.22	
  Prostate cancer–specific mortality				
   Well differentiated—Gleason score 2-6	34/427	1.49 (0.99 to 2.27)	.12	
   Moderately differentiated—Gleason score 7	59/359	1.33 (0.89 to 1.99)	.71	
   Poorly differentiated—Gleason score 8-10	70/156	1.51 (1.06 to 2.16)	.19	
Additional adjustment for baseline highest school level (proxy for socioeconomic status)	
All-cause mortality	318/936	1.25 (1.06 to 1.47)	.65	
Prostate cancer–specific mortality	163/936	1.43 (1.15 to 1.77)	.07	
Lagged analysis—removing deaths during the first year of follow-up	
All-cause mortality	308/930	1.34 (1.14 to 1.58)	.90	
Prostate cancer–specific mortality	155/930	1.54 (1.25 to 1.91)	.10	
Postdiagnosis BMI analyses, per 5 kg/m2	
 Lagged analysis—removing deaths during the first year of follow-up	
  All-cause mortality	117/363	1.34 (0.98 to 1.83)	.44	
  Prostate cancer–specific mortality	57/363	1.96 (1.24 to 3.08)	.04	
Additional adjustment for prediagnosis/baseline BMI	
All-cause mortality	126/372	1.04 (0.55 to 1.99)	.46	
Prostate cancer–specific mortality	63/372	1.49 (0.61 to 3.67)	.03	
By each year of BMI measurement (up to 2 y before diagnosis and up to 5 y after diagnosis), per 5 kg/m2	
First year before diagnosis	
 All-cause mortality	78/239	1.07 (0.76 to 1.50)	.52	
 Prostate cancer–specific mortality	37/239	1.51 (0.91 to 2.50)	.79	
Second year before diagnosis	
 All-cause mortality	116/331	1.59 (1.24 to 2.04)	.80	
 Prostate cancer–specific mortality	63/331	1.54 (1.11 to 2.15)	.71	
First year after diagnosis	
 All-cause mortality	52/146	1.44 (0.84 to 2.46)	.68	
 Prostate cancer–specific mortality	30/146	1.84 (0.90 to 3.74)	.03	
Second year after diagnosis	
 All-cause mortality	40/123	1.58 (0.90 to 2.76)	.42	
 Prostate cancer–specific mortality	20/123	2.09 (0.95 to 4.58)	.93	
Third year after diagnosis	
 All-cause mortality	26/77	1.05 (0.52 to 2.13)	.67	
 Prostate cancer–specific mortality	10/77	1.91 (0.49 to 7.47)	.91	
a Main model (model 3) hazard ratio adjusted for age, year of diagnosis, disease stage, tumor grade, and smoking status and stratified by EPIC country. BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval; EPIC = European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.

b Analysis of variance test of models with the restricted cubic spline term compared with models with the linear term (without the spline term).

c No available data.

d Not adjusted for disease stage apart from the analysis that excludes men with metastatic prostate cancer.

e Not adjusted for tumor grade.

Supplementary Figure 6 (available online) shows the number of men with BMI data at 1 and 2 years before diagnosis and at each year after diagnosis up to 5 years later. During the first year before diagnosis, the association between BMI and all-cause mortality appeared linear (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.76. to 1.50, Pnonlinearity = .52) and similar for prostate cancer–specific mortality, but the 95% confidence intervals crossed the null (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.51, 95% CI = 0.91 to 2.50, Pnonlinearity = .79) (Table 2; Supplementary Figure 7, A and B, available online). A stronger positive association was seen for BMI assessed in the second year before diagnosis with all-cause mortality (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.04, Pnonlinearity = .80) and prostate cancer–specific mortality (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.15, Pnonlinearity = .71) (Table 2; Supplementary Figure 7, C and D, available online). There were indications for linearity for the first 3 years after diagnosis (Supplementary Figure 8, available online), but the 95% confidence intervals were wide, crossing the null. Data were scarce beyond the third year after diagnosis (plots not shown).

Stratified analysis by smoking status showed positive associations among never smokers (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.14) and current smokers (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.98) and no association among former smokers (HR per 5 kg/m2 = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.28) for all-cause mortality (Supplementary Table 8, Supplementary Figure 9, available online). Additional adjustment for education gave similar positive associations as the main analysis (Table 2; Supplementary Figure 10, available online). Results were similar with individuals in model 3, included in models 1 and 2 (Supplementary Table 9, available online).

Waist circumference, hip circumference, waist to hip ratio, and mortality

Waist circumference data collected up to 2 years before diagnosis (n = 547) or up to 5 years after diagnosis (n = 544) were available for 1091 of the 1968 men (Figure 1, B; Supplementary Figure 1, B, available online) followed for a median of 8.4 years. Analysis of prediagnosis or postdiagnosis waist circumference combined showed a linear increase in the rate of all-cause mortality (Pnonlinearity = .03) and prostate cancer–specific mortality (Pnonlinearity = .03) up to approximately 100 cm, with limited data after this point. Results were similar for prediagnosis waist circumference but less clear in the postdiagnosis analysis because of limited data (Table 2; Supplementary Figure 11, available online). Of 1968 men, 793 had hip circumference and waist to hip ratio data up to 2 years before diagnosis (n = 390) or up to 5 years after diagnosis (n = 403) (Figure 1, C and D; Supplementary Figure 1, C and D, available online), followed for a median of 7.6 years. There were indications of positive associations in the prediagnosis and postdiagnosis groups combined and the prediagnosis analyses for all-cause and prostate cancer–specific mortality, but the 95% confidence intervals were wide, crossing the null (Table 2; Supplementary Figures 12 and 13, available online). Data were scarce and not shown for postdiagnosis hip circumference and waist to hip ratio.

Discussion

In this study, each 5-unit increment in prediagnosis or postdiagnosis BMI combined was associated with a 30% higher rate of all-cause mortality and a 49% higher rate of prostate cancer–specific mortality, independent of tumor grade, disease stage, smoking status, and other confounders. Each 5-unit increment in prediagnosis BMI was associated with a 35% higher rate of all-cause mortality and a 51% higher rate of prostate cancer–specific mortality. The associations were less strong for postdiagnosis BMI because of a lower number of men in analyses. Data on waist circumference, hip circumference, and waist to hip ratio were more limited than for BMI, but there were indications for positive associations with mortality.

Observational studies in men with prostate cancer that investigated the associations between postdiagnosis adiposity and mortality found inconsistent results. Some (18,22,37) reported positive associations and others reported inverse associations (38-41) between BMI and mortality outcomes. Most linear dose-response meta-analyses in patients with prostate cancer reported no associations (95% CIs crossing the null) between at diagnosis/postdiagnosis BMI (42-44) and prostate cancer–specific or all-cause mortality; only 1 study reported a small increase in the rate of all-cause mortality (44). Our meta-analysis of 2023 identified a J-shaped association between postdiagnosis BMI and all-cause and prostate cancer–specific mortality. Most studies adjusted for stage, tumor grade, and treatment but not for smoking status (19). In this study, we observed less clear associations for BMI assessed up to 5 years after diagnosis with mortality (only 372 men in this analysis). Little evidence of nonlinearity was seen for prostate cancer–specific mortality on the basis of few events, but we observed positive associations between BMI assessed up to 2 years before diagnosis and mortality. We hypothesized that adiposity in the 2 years before diagnosis would be representative of the adiposity level at diagnosis because many men are diagnosed with localized prostate cancer that is usually asymptomatic (5,6). Subgroup analyses, such as by disease stage, tumor grade, or smoking status, by year of BMI measurement generally showed consistent positive associations. We found positive associations between BMI and mortality that were stronger in never smokers than in current and former smokers, consistent with studies that observed stronger associations for BMI and risk of advanced prostate cancer among never smokers (45-48).

Few studies to date have investigated the relationship between at diagnosis/postdiagnosis waist circumference (49-51) in patients with prostate cancer, but found no associations with mortality. In addition, thus far, no studies in patients with prostate cancer have investigated waist to hip ratio or hip circumference after diagnosis in relation to long-term survival outcomes. Our results indicated positive associations between waist circumference, hip circumference, waist to hip ratio, and mortality, although data were limited.

The biological mechanisms linking obesity to poor survival outcomes after prostate cancer diagnosis have not been fully elucidated, and additional research is required (52). Numerous metabolic imbalances and interrelated pathways, including altered sex steroid hormones, serum insulin levels, and free insulin-like growth factor 1 levels may influence prostate cancer prognosis (52-54). Obesity-induced hormone and inflammatory changes could facilitate tumor progression (37,55) as well as higher risk of metastasis (56-58) and death (37,59). Chronically elevated insulin levels could facilitate tumor progression (5,60) and development of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease (61), a major cause of death in patients with prostate cancer (55). Obesity has been positively associated with higher neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (62,63), and strong or highly suggestive evidence supports that high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio is associated with worse survival outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (64). An elevated obesity-induced inflammatory environment could worsen treatment-related side effects, for example, leading to more severe or extended post-treatment cancer-related fatigue (65). Chronically elevated levels of glucose in blood can activate the insulin pathway and facilitate tumor progression, the repair of tumor cells after radiation therapy, or treatment resistance (65,66). Androgen-deprivation therapy is commonly given in fixed doses, irrespective of the body’s surface area, and this practice could result in insufficient testosterone suppression in men with obesity compared with men who have normal weight (67). Inadequate pharmacological castration has been associated with more aggressive tumor biology (68), higher risk of progression and metastasis, and higher rates of mortality after androgen-deprivation therapy (67,69). The influence of castration therapies at the molecular level needs to be better understood. Obesity-related gene transcription in the adipose tissue surrounding the prostate could trigger inflammatory and metabolic changes (eg, altered hormone homeostasis, altered tissue lipid composition) that could partially counteract the beneficial effects of castration therapies (70).

The strengths of this study include its prospective design, representation of men from 7 countries, detailed information about adiposity indices close to diagnosis, mortality outcomes, and confounders. Important sensitivity analyses were performed, such as by distinct subgroups of disease stage and tumor grade. The period after cancer diagnosis, during and after treatment, is particularly complex because it involves various biological, behavioral, and physiological changes (71). Involuntary lifestyle alterations related to the disease and its treatment could influence body composition and in turn negatively affect cancer outcomes (9,71-74). We did not have information about cancer treatment, complications, or disease recurrence. Adjusting for diagnosis year, disease stage, and tumor grade could have potentially mitigated the limitation of not having treatment information because these variables reflect, to some extent, the treatment received and improvements in available prostate cancer therapies over time (75-78). Lack of repeated postdiagnosis adiposity measurements did not enable us to examine how cumulative changes in adiposity (and other lifestyle factors) could influence mortality by performing time-varying analyses. Our analysis of prediagnosis or postdiagnosis adiposity combined, however, has (at least partly) accounted for this limitation. Some men did not have data on the confounders of our main model (mainly, disease stage and tumor grade), particularly for the postdiagnosis time frame. All methods to account for missing data have limitations, and we acknowledge that performing a complete-case analysis was rather simplistic but likely the best possible approach to deal with the missing data in this study. We have provided detailed information about data missingness for transparency. A missing-indicator analysis could lead to biased estimates (79), and multiple imputation could have been more useful, with smaller amounts of missing data across variables (32). We investigated potential selection bias, but no material differences were observed in important lifestyle and tumor characteristics of the men included in and excluded from the analyses because of missing data.

Conclusions and future directions

Maintaining a healthy weight could lead to better prostate cancer prognosis. Additional well-designed and well-conducted observational and weight management intervention studies with larger sample sizes and repeated postdiagnosis measurements are needed. Mechanistic studies are essential to unravel the biological pathways driving tumor progression and mortality according to obesity-related factors and ultimately enable the design of targeted lifestyle interventions that will help men better cope with this disease.

Supplementary Material

pkae070_Supplementary_Data

Acknowledgements

The funder did not play a role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

We thank all participants in the EPIC cohort for their contribution to the study. We acknowledge the use of data from the EPIC-Bilthoven cohort (principle investigator W. M. Monique Verschuren). EPIC-Bilthoven thanks the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands, for their contribution and ongoing support to the EPIC Study. We acknowledge the use of data from the EPIC-Norfolk cohort (principle investigator Nick Wareham). EPIC-Norfolk thanks all the participants who have been part of the project and the many members of the study teams at the University of Cambridge who have enabled this research. We also acknowledge the use of data from the EPIC-Asturias cohort (principle investigator José Ramón Quirós), EPIC-Aarhus cohort (principle investigator Christina C. Dahm), EPIC-Malmo cohort (principle investigator Jonas Manjer), and EPIC-Umea cohort (principle investigator Bethany van Guelpen).

Disclaimer: Where authors are identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/WHO, the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article, and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy, or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/WHO.

Data availability

For information about how to apply for gaining access to EPIC data or biospecimens, please follow the instructions at https://epic.iarc.fr/access.

Author contributions

Margarita Cariolou, MPH (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Writing – original draft); Doris S. M. Chan, PhD (Conceptualization; Funding acquisition; Resources; Supervision; Writing – review & editing); Dagfinn Aune, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Marcela Guevara, MD, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Carmen Santiuste, MD (Writing – review & editing); Miguel Rodriguez-Barranco, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Amaia Aizpurua, MSc (Writing – review & editing); Chiara Di Girolamo, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Rosario Tumino, MD (Writing – review & editing); Claudia Agnoli, MSc (Writing – review & editing); Giovanna Masala, MD (Writing – review & editing); Matthias B. Schulze, DrPH (Writing – review & editing); Elif Inan-Eroglu, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Petra Seibold, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Rudolf Kaaks, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Elisabete Weiderpass, MD, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Anne Tjønneland, MD, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Kristina Elin T. Petersen, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Raul Zamora-Ros, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Ruth Travis, DPhil (Writing – review & editing); Aurora Pérez-Cornago, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Tim Key, DPhil (Writing – review & editing); Marc J. Gunter, PhD (Writing – review & editing); Sofia Christakoudi, PhD (Methodology; Resources; Writing – review & editing); David C. Muller, PhD (Methodology; Supervision; Visualization; Writing – review & editing); Konstantinos K. Tsilidis, PhD (Conceptualization; Funding acquisition; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Supervision; Visualization; Writing – review & editing).

Funding

This work was supported by the World Cancer Research Fund network of charities (American Institute for Cancer Research, World Cancer Research Fund, and Wereld Kanker Onderzoek Fonds). The coordination of EPIC is financially supported the International Agency for Research on Cancer and by the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, which has additional infrastructure support provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre. The national cohorts are supported by the Danish Cancer Society; German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy, Compagnia di SanPaolo, and National Research Council (Italy); Health Research Fund, Institute of Health Carlos III, and the regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra, and the Catalan Institute of Oncology (Spain); and Cancer Research UK (C864/A14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C8221/A29017 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (MR/N003284/1, MC-UU_12015/1 and MC_UU_00006/1 to EPIC-Norfolk; MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford) (United Kingdom).

R. Zamora-Ros was supported by the Miguel Servet II (CPII20/00009) program from Institute of Health Carlos III (co-funded by the European Social Fund investing in your future).

The open access fee was paid from the Imperial College London Open Access Fund.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.
==== Refs
References

1 Ellinger J , AlajatiA, KubatkaP, et al Prostate cancer treatment costs increase more rapidly than for any other cancer-how to reverse the trend? EPMA J. 2022;13 (1 ):1-7.35251382
2 Pernar CH , EbotEM, WilsonKM, MucciLA. The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018;8 (12 ):a030361.
3 Sung H , FerlayJ, SiegelRL, et al Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71 (3 ):209-249.33538338
4 Bashir MN. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16 (13 ):5137-5141.26225642
5 Rawla P. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World J Oncol. 2019;10 (2 ):63-89.31068988
6 Rebello RJ , OingC, KnudsenKE, et al Prostate cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7 (1 ):9.33542230
7 Barsouk A , PadalaSA, VakitiA, et al Epidemiology, staging and management of prostate cancer. Med Sci (Basel). 2020;8 (3 ):28.
8 Cancer Research UK. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/incidence#heading-Three. Accessed December 20, 2020.
9 Anderson AS , MartinRM, RenehanAG, et al ; UK NIHR Cancer and Nutrition Collaboration (Population Health Stream). Cancer survivorship, excess body fatness and weight-loss intervention-where are we in 2020? Br J Cancer. 2020;124 (6 ):1057-1065. doi:10.1038/s41416-020-01155-2.33235316
10 Perez-Cornago A , ApplebyPN, PischonT, et al Tall height and obesity are associated with an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer: results from the EPIC cohort study. BMC Med. 2017;15 (1 ):115.28701188
11 Discacciati A , OrsiniN, WolkA. Body mass index and incidence of localized and advanced prostate cancer—a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Ann Oncol. 2012;23 (7 ):1665-1671.22228452
12 Kazmi N , HaycockP, TsilidisK, et al ; PRACTICAL Consortium, CRUK, BPC3, CAPS, PEGASUS. Appraising causal relationships of dietary, nutritional and physical-activity exposures with overall and aggressive prostate cancer: Two-sample Mendelian-randomization study based on 79 148 prostate-cancer cases and 61 106 controls. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49 (2 ):587-596.31802111
13 Pischon T , BoeingH, WeikertS, et al Body size and risk of prostate cancer in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17 (11 ):3252-3261.18990768
14 Guerrios-Rivera L , HowardL, FrankJ, et al Is body mass index the best adiposity measure for prostate cancer risk? Results from a veterans affairs biopsy cohort. Urology. 2017;105 :129-135.28408337
15 Cao Y , GiovannucciE. Obesity and prostate cancer. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2016;208 :137-153.27909906
16 World Cancer Research Fund International/American Institute for Cancer Research Continuous Update Project Report. Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Prostate Cancer. 2018. https://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/Prostate-cancer-report.pdf. Accessed December 10, 2023.
17 Perez-Cornago A , DunneramY, WattsEL, KeyTJ, TravisRC. Adiposity and risk of prostate cancer death: a prospective analysis in UK Biobank and meta-analysis of published studies. BMC Med. 2022;20 (1 ):143.35509091
18 Troeschel AN , HartmanTJ, JacobsEJ, et al Postdiagnosis body mass index, weight change, and mortality from prostate cancer, cardiovascular disease, and all causes among survivors of nonmetastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38 (18 ):2018-2027.32250715
19 Cariolou M , MarkozannesG, Becerra-TomásN, et al Association between adiposity after diagnosis of prostate cancer and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Med 2023;2 (1 ):e000339.
20 Rock CL , ThomsonCA, SullivanKR, et al American Cancer Society nutrition and physical activity guideline for cancer survivors. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72 (3 ):230-262.35294043
21 World Cancer Research Fund International/American Institute for Cancer Research. Diet, Nutrition, Physical activity and cancer: A Global Perspective. Continuous Update Project Report. 2018. https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer. Accessed December 10, 2023.
22 Cantarutti A , BonnSE, AdamiHO, et al Body mass index and mortality in men with prostate cancer. Prostate. 2015;75 (11 ):1129-1136.25929695
23 Markham MJ , WachterK, AgarwalN, et al Clinical cancer advances 2020: annual report on progress against cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38 (10 ):1081.32013670
24 Riboli E , HuntKJ, SlimaniN, et al European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection. Public Health Nutr. 2002;5 (6b ):1113-1124.12639222
25 International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O-3). World Health Organization. 2013. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/42344. Accessed June 20, 2023.
26 Riboli E , KaaksR. The EPIC Project: Rationale and study design. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26 (suppl 1 ):S6-14.9126529
27 Harrell FE Jr . General aspects of fitting regression models. In: Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression, and Survival Analysis. New York, NY: Springer; 2015:13-44. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7
28 Desquilbet L , MariottiF. Dose-response analyses using restricted cubic spline functions in public health research. Stat Med. 2010;29 (9 ):1037-1057.20087875
29 Harrell FE Jr . Package ‘rms’. 2017;229. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rms/index.html. Accessed May 15, 2023.
30 Heinzl H , KaiderA. Gaining more flexibility in Cox proportional hazards regression models with cubic spline functions. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1997;54 (3 ):201-208.9421665
31 Ferrari P , DayNE, BoshuizenHC, et al The evaluation of the diet/disease relation in the EPIC study: considerations for the calibration and the disease models. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37 (2 ):368-378.18180242
32 Hughes RA , HeronJ, SterneJAC, TillingK. Accounting for missing data in statistical analyses: multiple imputation is not always the answer. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48 (4 ):1294-1304.30879056
33 Vach W. Some issues in estimating the effect of prognostic factors from incomplete covariate data. Statist Med 1997;16 (1 ):57-72.
34 Schoenfeld D. Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika. 1982;69 (1 ):239-241.
35 Grambsch PM , TherneauTM. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. J Biometrika. 1994;81 (3 ):515-526.
36 Hess KR. Graphical methods for assessing violations of the proportional hazards assumption in Cox regression. Stat Med. 1995;14 (15 ):1707-1723.7481205
37 Wang LS , MurphyCT, RuthK, et al Impact of obesity on outcomes after definitive dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2015;121 (17 ):3010-3017.26033633
38 Xu MC , HuelsterHL, HatcherJB, et al Obesity is associated with longer survival independent of sarcopenia and myosteatosis in metastatic and/or castrate-resistant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020;205 (3 ):800-805. doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000001428.33080148
39 Vidal AC , HowardLE, de HoedtA, et al Obese patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer may be at a lower risk of all-cause mortality: Results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. BJU Int. 2018;122 (1 ):76-82.29521009
40 Halabi S , OuSS, VogelzangNJ, SmallEJ. Inverse correlation between body mass index and clinical outcomes in men with advanced castration-recurrent prostate cancer. Cancer. 2007;110 (7 ):1478-1484.17665494
41 Martini A , ShahQN, WaingankarN, et al The obesity paradox in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;25 (3 ):472-478. doi:10.1038/s41391-021-00418-0.34226662
42 Cao Y , MaJ. Body mass index, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and biochemical recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4 (4 ):486-501.21233290
43 Zhong S , YanX, WuY, et al Body mass index and mortality in prostate cancer patients: a dose-response meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19 (2 ):122-131.26754262
44 Rivera-Izquierdo M , Pérez de RojasJ, Martínez-RuizV, et al Obesity as a risk factor for prostate cancer mortality: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of 280,199 patients. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13 (16 ):4169.
45 Lavalette C , Cordina DuvergerE, ArtaudF, et al Body mass index trajectories and prostate cancer risk: results from the EPICAP study. Cancer Med. 2020;9 (17 ):6421-6429.32639678
46 Kelly SP , LennonH, SperrinM, et al Body mass index trajectories across adulthood and smoking in relation to prostate cancer risks: the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48 (2 ):464-473.30376043
47 Dickerman BA , AhearnTU, GiovannucciE, et al Weight change, obesity and risk of prostate cancer progression among men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Cancer. 2017;141 (5 ):933-944.28543830
48 Song M , WillettWC, HuFB, et al Trajectory of body shape across the lifespan and cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 2016;138 (10 ):2383-2395.26704725
49 Jackson MD , Tulloch-ReidMK, McCaw-BinnsAM, et al Central adiposity at diagnosis may reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality in African-Caribbean men with prostate cancer: 10-year follow-up of participants in a case-control study. Cancer Causes Control. 2020;31 (7 ):651-662.32358695
50 Farris MS , CourneyaKS, KopciukKA, McGregorSE, FriedenreichCM. Anthropometric measurements and survival after a prostate cancer diagnosis. Br J Cancer. 2018;118 (4 ):607-610.29235565
51 Polesel J , GiniA, Dal MasoL, et al The impact of diabetes and other metabolic disorders on prostate cancer prognosis. J Diabetes Complications. 2016;30 (4 ):591-596.26936307
52 Wilson RL , TaaffeDR, NewtonRU, et al Obesity and prostate cancer: A narrative review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2022;169 :103543.34808374
53 Chau CH , TillC, PriceDK, et al Serum markers, obesity and prostate cancer risk: Results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2022;29 (2 ):99-109.34889205
54 Pham DV , NguyenTK, ParkPH. Adipokines at the crossroads of obesity and mesenchymal stem cell therapy. Exp Mol Med. 2023;55 (2 ):313-324.36750692
55 Di Francesco S , RobuffoI, CarusoM, et al Metabolic alterations, aggressive hormone-naïve prostate cancer and cardiovascular disease: a complex relationship. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019;55 (3 ):62.
56 Arcidiacono B , IiritanoS, NoceraA, et al Insulin resistance and cancer risk: an overview of the pathogenetic mechanisms. Exp Diabetes Res. 2012;2012 :789174.22701472
57 Cho HJ , KwonGT, ParkH, et al A high-fat diet containing lard accelerates prostate cancer progression and reduces survival rate in mice: possible contribution of adipose tissue-derived cytokines. Nutrients. 2015;7 (4 ):2539-2561.25912035
58 Stark T , LivasL, KyprianouN. Inflammation in prostate cancer progression and therapeutic targeting. Transl Androl Urol. 2015;4 (4 ):455-463.26816843
59 Archer M , DograN, KyprianouN. Inflammation as a driver of prostate cancer metastasis and therapeutic resistance. Cancers. 2020;12 (10 ):2984.33076397
60 Kaaks R , StattinP. Obesity, endogenous hormone metabolism, and prostate cancer risk: a conundrum of "highs" and "lows". Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010;3 (3 ):259-262.20179295
61 Ormazabal V , NairS, ElfekyO, et al Association between insulin resistance and the development of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17 (1 ):122.30170598
62 Rodríguez-Rodríguez E , López-SobalerAM, OrtegaRM, et al Association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio with abdominal obesity and healthy eating index in a representative older Spanish population. Nutrients. 2020;12 (3 ):855.
63 Uribe-Querol E , RosalesC. Neutrophils actively contribute to obesity-associated inflammation and pathological complications. Cells. 2022;11 (12 ):1883.
64 Cupp MA , CariolouM, TzoulakiI, et al Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and cancer prognosis: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. BMC Med. 2020;18 (1 ):360.33213430
65 Champ CE , FrancisL, KlementRJ, DickermanR, SmithRP. Fortifying the Treatment of Prostate Cancer with Physical Activity. Prostate Cancer. 2016;2016 :9462975.26977321
66 Schmidt DR , PatelR, KirschDG, et al Metabolomics in cancer research and emerging applications in clinical oncology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71 (4 ):333-358.33982817
67 Allott EH , HurstingSD. Obesity and cancer: mechanistic insights from transdisciplinary studies. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2015;22 (6 ):R365-86.26373570
68 Vidal AC , HowardLE, SunSX, et al Obesity and prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20 (1 ):72-78.27698439
69 Keto CJ , AronsonWJ, TerrisMK, et al Obesity is associated with castration-resistant disease and metastasis in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. BJU Int. 2012;110 (4 ):492-498.22094083
70 Mangiola S , StuchberyR, McCoyP, et al Androgen deprivation therapy promotes an obesity-like microenvironment in periprostatic fat. Endocr Connect. 2019;8 (5 ):547-558.30959474
71 Tonorezos ES , JonesLW. Energy balance and metabolism after cancer treatment. Semin Oncol. 2013;40 (6 ):745-756.24331194
72 Manthri S , GeraciSA, ChakrabortyK. Overview of cancer survivorship care for primary care providers. Cureus. 2020;12 (9 ):e10210.33033685
73 Bonet C , Crous-BouM, TsilidisKK, et al The association between body fatness and mortality among breast cancer survivors: Results from a prospective cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2023;38 (5 ):545-557. doi:10.1007/s10654-023-00979-5.36988840
74 Bonn SE , WiklundF, SjölanderA, et al Body mass index and weight change in men with prostate cancer: progression and mortality. Cancer Causes Control. 2014;25 (8 ):933-943.24810654
75 Parker C , CastroE, FizaziK, et al ; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: Clinicalguidelines@esmo.org. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2020;31 (9 ):1119-1134.32593798
76 Ruiz de Porras V , FontA, AytesA. Chemotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Current scenario and future perspectives. Cancer Lett. 2021;523 :162-169.34517086
77 Kim MM , HoffmanKE, LevyLB, et al Improvement in prostate cancer survival over time: A 20-year analysis. Cancer J. 2012;18 (1 ):1-8.22290249
78 Nevedomskaya E , BaumgartSJ, HaendlerB. Recent advances in prostate cancer treatment and drug discovery. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19 (5 ):
79 Jones MP. Indicator and stratification methods for missing explanatory variables in multiple linear regression. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91 (433 ):222-230.
