Obesity and biochemical recurrence in clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 86,490 patients

• Published in: Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases Vol. 25; no. 3; pp. 411 - 421
• Main Authors: Rivera-Izquierdo, Mario, Pérez de Rojas, Javier, Martínez-Ruiz, Virginia, Arrabal-Polo, Miguel Ángel, Pérez-Gómez, Beatriz, Jiménez-Moleón, José Juan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 01.09.2022; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 692/699/67/2195; 692/699/67/2324; 692/699/67/589/466; Biochemistry; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Body mass; Body mass index; Body size; Cancer Research; Cohort analysis; Control programs; Evaluation; Heterogeneity; Meta-analysis; Obesity; Patients; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Quality assessment; Reproductive Medicine; Review Article; Subgroups; Systematic review; Weight; Weight control
• ISSN: 1365-7852; 1476-5608
• DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00481-7

Background The association of obesity with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PC) shows inconsistent results. Our aim was to systematically review all evidence evaluating obesity as a prognostic factor for BCR. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, from inception to June 1, 2021. Cohort studies reporting BCR among PC patients stratified by body mass index (BMI) were included. To assess the quality of the selected studies, we used the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS). Risk of BCR among obese patients (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ) was compared with normal weight (BMI < 25), pooling individual hazard ratios (HR) in random-effect meta-analysis. Associations for continuous BMI per 5 kg/m 2 were also calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess reasons for heterogeneity and causal criteria were formally evaluated. Results We identified 46 cohort studies including 86,490 PC patients. A total of 14,719 (17.1%) patients developed BCR. There was no consistent definition of BCR. Obesity was associated with BCR (HR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.11–1.39, I 2 : 70.3%), and there was a 10% increase (95% CI: 4–15%, I 2 : 66.3%) in BCR per 5 kg/m 2 increase in BMI. The heterogeneity was high but decreased in the subgroup of highest-quality NOS score and when the BMI was measured by the researchers (I 2 : 0.0%). The association was consistent in patients receiving radical prostatectomy but not in patients receiving other therapies. Conclusions Obesity showed a moderate, consistent relationship with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Measurement of BMI and BCR was variable, highlighting the need for standardised clinical guidelines. Preventive weight control programs may have a role in reducing BCR for clinically localised PC patients.