nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 09.06.2018 | Original Paper

Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer Treatments in Promoting Metabolic Syndrome Development and the Influence of Increased Metabolic Syndrome on Prostate Cancer Therapeutic Outcome

verfasst von: Zongping Chen, Jichun Deng, Yong Yan, Min Li, Chanjuan Chen, Chao Chen, Sicong Zhao, Tao Song, Tong Liu, Xin Wen, Yuhong Yao

Erschienen in: Discover Oncology | Ausgabe 4/2018

Abstract

In clinical practice, few prostate cancer (PCa) patients are associated with metabolic syndrome (MetS), while few others acquire MetS during treatment. Whether the treatment of PCa increases the occurrence of MetS remains to be confirmed. This study reviewed the changes in MetS patients before and after PCa treatment to evaluate the effects of various treatment methods on MetS. We analyzed data of 1162 PCa patients, whether or not diagnosed with MetS, and changes in MetS patients after PCa treatment. Data of lower urinary tract symptoms, C-reactive protein (CRP), platelet distribution width (PDW), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, clinical stage, treatment methods, and progressive incidents were evaluated using logistic regression according to MetS diagnosis. The results showed significant differences in the prevalence of MetS before (17.38%) and after (23.67%) PCa treatment (P < 0.001). Bad diet, living habits, and prostate cancer treatment were considered as risk factors for MetS (OR = 1.731, 95%CI 1.367–2.193, P < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy (RP), androgen deprivation therapy including surgical castration and medical castration, iodine-125 seed brachytherapy (¹²⁵I limited), and chemotherapy were independent risk factors of MetS. The MetS incidence rates after treatment in ADT+¹²⁵I limited+chemotherapy compared to RP+TURP+EBRT were statistically significant at the corresponding risk grade (all P < 0.001). After treatment, the occurrence rates of progressive incidences were higher in MetS-PCa patients compared to non-MetS-PCa patients (all P < 0.001). So, the findings suggested that among PCa patients, multiple factors contribute to the occurrence of MetS, and PCa treatment is one among them. ADT+¹²⁵I limited+chemotherapy may be the most influential treatment for MetS.

Introduction

In clinical practice, few prostate cancer (PCa) patients were generally combined with metabolic syndrome (MetS), while few others acquire MetS during the treatment. Furthermore, the presence of MetS affects the prognosis of PCa and the selection of treatment. Whether the treatment of PCa itself increases MetS remains to be confirmed.

PCa is the second most common cancer among males over 60 years of age, next to lung cancer. With the widespread and increased detection of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and digital rectal examination (DRE), the incidence of PCa has been increased dramatically. Many treatment options have been used clinically for the treatment of PCa, including radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), emasculation, chemotherapy, palliative transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), and active surveillance. Mortality and survival rates in treated population vary due to disparities in the treatments or responses and prognostic factors, such as chronic comorbidities [1].

MetS is described as a complex medical disorder associated with a constellation of metabolic abnormalities. According to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATPIII), the most widely accepted definition of MetS is that patients including at least three of the following factors: abdominal obesity (waist circumference > 90 cm in men or > 85 cm in women), hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides > 150 mg/dl), low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C < 40 mg/dl in men and < 50 mg/dl in women), elevated blood pressure (> 130/85 mmHg), and a high fasting plasma glucose (FPG)level (> 110 mg/dl) [2]. MetS has become a major public health problem in many countries due to its increasing prevalence. In fact, MetS is one of the most common comorbidity observed in a majority of PCa patients during the development of disease course.

Recently, increasing evidence support the hypothesis that different metabolic factors and MetS may be involved in the development and progression of PCa [3]. Even though conflicting results have been shown in several studies [4, 5], many data supported the existence of a possible association between PCa and MetS. MetS subsequently impacted on PCa incidence, aggressiveness, and outcomes [6, 7]. The biological mechanisms explaining these findings remain unknown. MetS is associated with a pro-inflammatory state [8‐10], which in turn is related to the risk of PCa [8, 10]. Despite their beneficial effects on survival, various therapeutic methods, especially ADT, may also induce numerous adverse effects that overlap with MetS and remains poorly understood [11‐16].

Hence, the present study was carried out retrospectively in a multicenter with different cohorts of PCa patients to investigate the association between various treatments and MetS, influence on the outcomes, and their accompanied chronic inflammatory state.

Patients and Methods

Patients

This study was a retrospective cohort study. A consecutive series of data covering 1162 PCa patients during the period of January 2006 to December 2015 were collected from two medical centers (Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, and Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical College in China). Inclusion criteria were as follows: clinical records of all PCa patients’ (hospitalizations during January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015) should be complete and accurate, and the follow-up visits lasted for 1–10 years. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) non-prostate-cancer (non-PCa) patients; (ii) incomplete clinical records; and (iii) PCa patients who are willing to terminate the treatment or refused for follow-up visits. The Institutional Review Board of the Beijing Shijitan Hospital approved the present study in September 2014.

Clinical Data Extraction

Available parameters included C-reactive protein (CRP), platelet distribution width (PDW), PSA, pathological Gleason score, clinical stages of primary tumor, lower urinary tract symptoms (including storage and voiding symptoms), the treatments, dwelling environment, living habits (including smoking, drinking, diets, and sports), education background, the components of MetS including waist circumference ≥ 90 cm, triglycerides ≥ 1.70 mmol/l, HDL-C < 1.04 mmol/l, blood pressure ≥ 130/85 mmHg, and FPG ≥ 6.1 mmol/l or 2-h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG) ≥ 7.8 mmol/l), as well as the progressive incidents of PCa (defined as significant PSA increase, tumor recurrence, distant metastasis, and death in the present context). The subjects were evaluated using different risk grades of PCa (low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk) according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria [17]. The presence of MetS was defined according to the updated guidelines of NCEP-ATP III [2].

Diagnosis Standards

MetS was diagnosed using the 2005 NCEP-ATP III criteria for Asian Americans [2]. Diagnostic points of PCa patients included during the first visit and treatment. The modified NCEP-ATP III has defined MetS as the simultaneous occurrence of at least three of the following five risk factors: (1) waist circumference ≥ 90 cm, (2) triglycerides ≥ 1.70 mmol/l or drug treatment for elevated triglycerides, (3) HDL-C < 1.04 mmol/l or drug treatment for reduced HDL-C, (4) blood pressure ≥ 130/85 mmHg or antihypertensive drug treatment with a history of hypertension, and (5) FPG ≥ 6.1 mmol/l or 2hPG ≥ 7.8 mmol/l or drug treatments for elevated glucose. We stratified the subjects into six metabolic components according to their met criteria (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). MetS is defined as the inclusion of 3–5 metabolic components of abnormality, and non-MetS included 0–2 metabolic components [18]. PCa was diagnosed using prostate biopsy. Clinical staging of primary tumor of PCa was done according to the 2002 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) clinical Stage of prostate carcinoma. Progression of PCa was diagnosed with at least one of the following factors: presence of progressive PSA increase (PSA > 10 ng/ml), cancer recurrence, metastasis, and death.

Follow-Up

The median follow-up time was 5.5 (range 1–10) years. All the patients were followed up through telephone, regular outpatient visits, and regular in-patient visits. Follow-up items through telephone consultation included health status and death, outpatient and hospitalization included general physical examination, blood routine analysis, blood biochemical examination, chest abdominal computed tomography (CT), and whole-body bone scanning.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) version 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Selected characteristics (including clinical data parameters described above are collected) were compared between MetS cases and non-MetS cases using chi-square test for categorical variables. For non-normally distributed factors on raw or log-transformed scales, rank-sum test was used to evaluate the differences in PSA, storage symptoms, voiding symptoms, CRP, and PDW. Multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusted for potential confounders (age, smoking status, drinking condition, diet information, physical exercise situation, dwelling environment, education background) were performed to assess the association of MetS with different treatments, PSA, Gleason scores, clinical stages, storage symptoms, voiding symptoms, CRP, and PDW. Multivariate-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were simultaneously estimated by logistic regression analyses. Kaplan-Meier curves through log-rank test and Cox regression model were used to assess the risk of survival between MetS cases and non-MetS cases. Differences were considered statistically significant when P values were < 0.05.

Results

Baseline Characteristics of PCa Patients During Their First Visit to a Doctor As Well As the Changes of MetS and Its Components Before and After Treatment

Patient’s age ranged from 43 to 97, with an average age of 76.5. A total of 1162 PCa patients were enrolled on admission including 202 (17.38%) patients with MetS and 960 (82.62%) were without MetS at baseline (Table 1). After undergoing treatment, 155 MetS patients had no MetS. Meanwhile, 228 without MetS patients developed MetS during the follow-up period. These results showed an increased number of patients with MetS [17.38% (202/1162) vs 23.67% (275/1162)]. At the same time, the individuals without MetS showed a downward trend [82.62% (960/1162) vs 76.33% (887/1162)] before treatment vs posttreatment, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The incidence of MetS was higher in patients with unhealthy living habits (smoking, drinking, high-carb high-fat diet, and lack of sports), living in cities, high academic qualifications, and increased age (all P < 0.001). PSA levels, storage symptoms, voiding symptoms, CRP, and PDW were higher in MetS group than in non-MetS group (P = 0.007, < 0.001, = 0.048, = 0.002, = 0.005, respectively). The percentage of PSA levels (< 10, 10–20, > 20 ng/ml), Gleason scores (≤ 6, 7, ≥ 8) and clinical stages (≤ T2a, T2b, ≥ T2c) in MetS group were different compared to non-MetS group (P < 0.001, = 0.045, < 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 1, it was noteworthy that the change of MetS component abnormalities was more obvious after undergoing cancer treatments. The total proportion of patients with one or more component abnormalities of MetS was higher in the treated patients than in patients before treatment (80.08 vs 55.42%, P < 0.001). The increase of one component abnormality of MetS was considered to be significant, followed by those with two and three component abnormalities, while increase to four and five component abnormalities remained to be the lowest. In a word, differences existed in the incidence of MetS before and after cancer treatment, and the general trend was that the incidence of MetS posttreatment was higher than before treatment, which was independently associated with various treatments (OR = 1.731, 95%CI 1.367–2.193, P < 0.001) through multivariate logistic regression analysis (Table 1) after adjusting for age (OR = 1.042, 95%CI 1.028–1.056, P < 0.001), smoking (OR = 0.299, 95%CI 0.197–0.456, P < 0.001), drinking (OR = 2.501, 95%CI 1.767–3.541, P < 0.001), high-fat high-calorie diet (OR = 2.771, 95%CI 2.099–3.657, P < 0.001), lack of physical exercise (OR = 4.827, 95%CI 3.521–6.617, P < 0.001), PSA (OR = 1.000, 95%CI 0.999–1.001, P = 0.046), Gleason scores (OR = 1.658, 95%CI 1.362–2.018, P < 0.001), clinical stages (OR = 1.256, 95%CI 1.025–1.538, P = 0.028), storage symptoms (OR = 1.060, 95%CI 1.000–1.123, P = 0.045), voiding symptoms (OR = 1.227, 95%CI 1.110–1.358, P < 0.001). The dwelling environment (OR = 0.915, 95%CI 0.663–1.263, P = 0.587), and education background (OR = 0.911, 95%CI 0.785–1.057, P = 0.220) showed no association through multivariate logistic regression analysis (Table 1).

Table 1

The association of clinical characteristics of prostate cancer patients according to the status combined with and without metabolic syndrome

Variables	Overall (n = 1162)	MetS	Non-MetS	P value^a	OR	P value^b	95%CI
Undergoing treatment (%)				< 0.001*	1.731	< 0.001	1.367–2.193
Prior	1162 (100)	202/1162 (17.38)	960/1162 (82.62)
Post	1162 (100)	275/1162 (23.67)	887/1162 (76.33)
Age (years, %)				< 0.001*	1.042	< 0.001	1.028–1.056
< 60	102 (8.8)	29 (2.5)	93 (6.3)
60–70	146 (12.6)	46 (4.0)	100 (8.6)
> 70	914 (78.6)	127 (10.9)	767 (67.8)
Smoking status (%)				< 0.001*	0.299	< 0.001	0.197–0.456
Smoking	340 (29.3)	191 (16.4)	149 (12.9)
No smoking	822 (70.7)	15 (1.3)	807 (69.4)
Drinking condition (%)				< 0.001*	2.501	< 0.001	1.767–3.541
Drinking	343 (29.5)	195 (16.8)	148 (12.7)
No drinking	819 (70.5)	7 (0.6)	812 (69.9)
Diet information (%)				< 0.001*	2.771	< 0.001	2.099–3.657
High-fat high-calorie	379 (32.6)	202 (17.4)	177 (15.2)
Regular	783 (67.4)	0 (0.0)	783 (67.4)
Physical exercise situation (%)				< 0.001*	4.827	< 0.001	3.521–6.617
Keep exercising	863 (74.3)	8 (0.7)	855 (73.6)
Lack of exercise	299 (25.7)	194 (16.7)	105 (9.0)
Dwelling environment (%)				< 0.001*	0.915	0.587	0.663–1.263
Living in city	662 (57.0)	148 (12.7)	514 (44.3)
Living in the country	500 (43.0)	55 (4.7)	445 (38.3)
Education background (%)				< 0.001*	0.911	0.220	0.785–1.057
≤ 6 years	501 (43.12)	58 (5.00)	443 (38.12)
7–12 years	386 (33.22)	64 (5.51)	322 (27.71)
≥ 13 years	275 (23.67)	80 (6.88)	195 (16.78)
PSA (ng/ml) total	99 (4~1145)	133 (4.6~1145)	91 (4~1087)	0.007†	1.000	0.046	0.999–1.001
%				< 0.001*	0.997	< 0.001	0.995–0.999
< 10 ng/ml	29 (2.5)	3 (0.3)	26 (2.2)
10–20 ng/ml	80 (6.9)	53 (4.6)	27 (2.3)
> 20 ng/ml	1053 (90.6)	144 (12.4)	909 (78.2)
Gleason scores (%)				0.045*	1.658	< 0.001	1.362–2.018
≤ 6	150 (12.9)	17 (1.5)	133 (11.4)
7	209 (18.0)	41 (3.5)	168 (14.6)
≥ 8	803 (69.1)	145 (12.4)	658 (56.6)
Clinical stages (%)				< 0.001*	1.256	0.028	1.025–1.538
≤ T2a	99 (8.5)	4 (0.3)	95 (8.2)
T2b	283 (24.4)	9 (0.8)	274 (23.6)
≥ T2c	780 (67.1)	189 (16.3)	591 (50.8)
Storage symptom (median)	5 (2~9)	6 (3~9)	4 (2~7)	< 0.001†	1.060	0.045	1.000–1.123
Voiding symptom (median)	6 (2–15)	8 (3~15)	5 (2~10)	0.048†	1.227	< 0.001	1.110–1.358
CRP (median, mg/l)	7.3 (3.9~12.4)	8.6 (6.6~12.4)	5.7 (3.9~8.2)	0.002†	1.077	0.022	1.011–1.148
PDW (median, %)	14.8 (11.4~21.6)	17.2 (12.6~21.6)	13.6 (11.4~16.8)	0.005†	1.202	< 0.001	1.112–1.298

The italic represents statistical significance. MetS included 3–5 components to abnormality, and non-MetS included 0–2 components

MetS metabolic Syndrome, PSA prostate-specific antigen, PDW platelet distribution width, CRP C-reactive protein, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval

^aP values were calculated using *chi-square, †rank-sum test

^bP values were calculated using multivariate logistic regression analysis

Association of Risk Grades, Progressive Incidents of PCa with MetS As Well As the Change of Incidence of MetS Before and After Treatment by Different Treatment Strategies for PCa

As shown in Table 2, after adjusting for age, smoking status, drinking condition, diet information, physical exercise situation, dwelling environment, and education background, MetS was independently associated with increased advanced PSA (OR = 1.491, 95%CI 1.087–2.047, P = 0.013), recurrence (OR = 1.426, 95%CI 1.041–1.953, P = 0.027), and metastasis (OR = 1.703, 95%CI 1.222–2.375, P = 0.002). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no association of MetS with death (OR = 1.079, 95%CI 0.976–1.193, P = 0.137) and risk grades to low-risk (OR = 1.277, 95%CI 0.923–1.768, P = 0.140), intermediate-risk (OR = 0.867, 95%CI 0.695–1.081, P = 0.205), and high-risk (OR = 0.935, 95%CI 0.320–2.732, P = 0.902).

Table 2

The association of risk grades, progressive incidents of prostate cancer with metabolic syndrome

Variables	%	P value^c	OR	P value^d	95%CI
Low risk
(+)^a	13.64 (15/110)	< 0.001	1.277	0.140	0.923–1.768
(−)^b	86.36 (95/110)
Intermediate risk
(+)^a	19.53 (42/215)	< 0.001	0.867	0.205	0.695–1.081
(−)^b	80.47 (173/215)
High risk
(+)^a	17.32 (145/837)	< 0.001	0.935	0.902	0.320–2.732
(−)^b	82.68 (692/837)
Advanced PSA increased
(+)^a	20.53 (131/638)	< 0.001	1.491	0.013	1.087–2.047
(−)^b	79.47 (507/638)
Recurrence
(+)^a	21.27 (137/644)	< 0.001	1.426	0.027	1.041–1.953
(−)^b	78.73 (507/644)
Metastasis
(+)^a	18.45 (100/542)	< 0.001	1.703	0.002	1.222–2.375
(−)^b	81.55 (442/542)
Death
(+)^a	27.81 (84/302)	< 0.001	1.079	0.137	0.976–1.193
(−)^b	72.19 (218/302)

The italic represents statistical significance. Low risk: PSA < 10 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤ 6, clinical stage ≤ T2a; intermediate risk: PSA = 10–20 ng/ml, Gleason score = 7, clinical stage = T2b; high risk: PSA > 20, Gleason score ≥ 8, clinical stage ≥ T2c

OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, PSA prostate-specific antigen

^aMetS, included 3–5 components to abnormality

^bNon-MetS, included 0–2 components

^cChi-square test

^dMultivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, smoking status, drinking condition, diet information, physical exercise situation, and dwelling environment

As shown in Table 3, the incidence of MetS after various treatments for PCa showed different changes. The increased incidence of MetS was found after applying iodine-125 seed brachytherapy (¹²⁵I limited), medical castration (MC), and chemotherapy, and the incidence rate was increased from 56/337(16.6%) vs 119/337(35.3%), 41/233(17.6%) vs 68/233(29.2%), and 12/102(11.8%) vs 24/102(23.5%). The difference in MetS incidence rates were statistically significant (P < 0.001, P = 0.003, and P = 0.026, respectively). However, the decreased MetS incidence was found after RP and surgical castration (SC), which included 20/93(21.5%) vs 9/93(9.7%) and 55/314(17.5%) vs 37/314(11.8%). The difference in the decreased MetS incidence rate was statistically significant (P = 0.025 and P = 0.042, respectively). The rates of MetS incidence remained unchanged after undergoing external beam radiation therapy [EBRT, 13/45(28.9%)] and TURP [5/38(13.2%)], and the differences showed no statistical significance (P = 0.092 and 0.086). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that MetS was significantly associated with ¹²⁵I limited (OR = 2.147, 95%CI 1.484–3.108, P < 0.001), MC (OR = 1.930, 95%CI 1.243–2.996, P = 0.003), chemotherapy (OR = 2.308, 95%CI 1.083–4.917, P = 0.030), RP (OR = 0.391, 95%CI 0.168–0.912, P = 0.030), and SC (OR = 0.629, 95%CI 0.401–0.986, P = 0.043).

Table 3

Change in the incidence of metabolic syndrome before and after treatments by different options for prostate cancer

Variables	Number (prior/posttreatment)	% (prior/posttreatment)	P value^c	OR	P value^d	95%CI
RP
(+)^a	20/9	21.5/9.7	0.025	0.391	0.030	0.168–0.912
(−)^b	73/84	78.5/90.3
SC
(+)^a	55/37	17.5/11.8	0.042	0.629	0.043	0.401–0.986
(−)^b	259/277	82.5/88.2
MC
(+)^a	41/68	17.6/29.2	0.003	1.930	0.003	1.243–2.996
(−)^b	192/165	82.4/70.8
¹²⁵I limited
(+)^a	56/119	16.6/35.3	< 0.001	2.147	< 0.001	1.484–3.108
(−)^b	281/218	83.4/64.7
EBRT
(+)^a	13/13	28.9/28.9	0.092	1.294	0.866	0.365–3.313
(−)^b	32/32	71.1/71.1
Chemotherapy
(+)^a	12/24	11.8/23.5	0.026	2.308	0.030	1.083–4.917
(−)^b	90/78	88.2/76.5
TURP
(+)^a	5/5	13.2/13.2	0.086	0.638	0.457	0.195–2.085
(−)^b	33/33	86.8/86.8

The boldface represents statistical significance

RP radical prostatectomy, SC surgical castration, MC medical castration, EBRT radiation therapy of prostate cancer, TURP transurethral resection of the prostate, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval

^aMetS, included 3–5 components to abnormality

^bNon-MetS, included 0–2 components

^cChi-square test

^dMultivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, smoking status, drinking condition, diet information, physical exercise situation, dwelling environment, PSA, Gleason scores, and clinical stages

The Differences of Newly Developed MetS Patients After Treatments with RP+TURP+EBRT Group and ADT+¹²⁵I Limited+Chemotherapy Group According to the Risk Grades of PCa and Compared the Incidence of PCa Progression in Low-/Intermediate-/High-Risk Grades Between MetS and Non-MetS Patients After Treatment

We subjectively divided all the treatment methods into two groups, namely, ADT+¹²⁵I limited+chemotherapy and RP+TURP+EBRT according to their effects on systemic metabolism that differed to analyze the MetS incidence rates. As shown in Fig. 2, the MetS incidence rates after treatment with ADT+¹²⁵I limited+chemotherapy was 14.6% for low-risk group, 20.8% for intermediate-risk, and 41.6% for high-risk and with RP+ TURP+EBRT were 7.6% for low-risk, 7.8% for intermediate-risk, and 7.6% for high-risk. The differences of newly detected MetS (n = 228) incidence between the two treatment groups in the same risk group were very obvious and statistically significant (all P < 0.001).

The influence of MetS on tumor progression and risk development after treatment were analyzed between the two groups of patients with or without MetS. As shown in Fig. 3, after treatment, the risk of PCa progression was more remarkably developed in patients with MetS than in patients without MetS. The occurrence of risk progression was 1.76 vs 1.52% in low-risk, 16.48 vs 10.87% in intermediate-risk, and 26.25 vs 20.16% in high-risk for MetS vs without MetS patients (all P < 0.001).

Comparison of Survival Rate Between PCa Patients with MetS and Without MetS

Figure 4 shows survival rate of MetS-PCa and non-MetS-PCa patients, and the survival curve was drawn using Kaplan-Meier method. The median survival time of MetS-PCa was 64 months, and the non-MetS-PCa was 82 months. Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test was used for comparison, and the difference was statistically significant [chi-square value(χ²) = 82.586, P < 0.001].

The survival curve was crossed, indicating that the confounding factors affected the survival time; we considered age as the main confounding factor affecting the survival time (Fig. 4). It was not appropriate to use the log-rank test for analysis, and analysis should be carried out using Cox regression model. We found that both age (RR = 1.065, 95%CI 1.054–1.076, P < 0.001) and MetS (RR = 3.473, 95%CI 3.382–3.585, P < 0.001) were the risk factors associated with the survival time of PCa after performing the Cox regression model. After adjustment for age, the survival curves of MetS were redrawn (Fig. 5). The results revealed that the survival rate of MetS-PCa was lower than non-MetS-PCa, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

The Differences of CRP and PDW in MetS-PCa Patients with Non-MetS-PCa Patients

The two indicators CPR and PDW were accompanied with chronic inflammatory state and were higher in patients with MetS than without MetS. The median level of CRP and PDW was 8.6(6.6~12.4) vs 5.7(3.9~8.2) mg/l (P = 0.002) and 17.2% (12.6~21.6%) vs 13.6% (11.4~16.8%) (P = 0.005) in the MetS vs without MetS patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed independent association of CRP (OR = 1.077, 95%CI 1.011–1.148, P = 0.022) and PDW (OR = 1.202, 95%CI 1.112–1.298, P < 0.001) with treatment.

Discussion

In this study, we analyzed the relationship between PCa and MetS and the effect of PCa on MetS patients after undergoing various treatments. Our present study results showed that the occurrence of MetS was influenced by many factors, such as age, poor diet and lack of exercise, progression of PCa itself, as well as a variety of treatments in prostate cancer patients. We focused on a variety of PCa treatment effects on MetS and according to the effect of each kind of treatment on the body metabolism, we subjectively classified the treatment groups and found that PCa treatment with ADT+¹²⁵I limited+chemotherapy led to MetS. However, the effect of RP+TURP+EBRT treatment on MetS was relatively small. These findings help us choose a more appropriate treatment for PCa, and avoid MetS side effects as much as possible.

MetS is one of the most common comorbidity seen in a majority of patients with PCa during the course of development process. Many treatment options have been used clinically for the treatment of PCa. Despite their beneficial effects on survival, various therapeutic methods, especially ADT, may also induce numerous adverse effects that overlap with MetS and remains poorly understood [3, 6, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20]. This study using retrospective data in multicenter PCa patients found that different treatment options for PCa may have an impact on MetS. As shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1, a difference in the incidence of MetS in PCa patients existed before and after treatments, and treatment options were regarded as independent risk factors for MetS development (OR = 1.731, 95%CI 1.367–2.193, P < 0.001) by ruling out the influence of mixed factors including age, unhealthy living habits (like smoking, drinking, high-carb high-fat diet, and lack of enough sports), dwelling environment, education background, PSA, Gleason score, and clinical stage. Further analysis of the effects on MetS by various treatment methods for PCa (Table 3) demonstrated that the incidence of MetS after various treatments for PCa were different. The increased MetS incidence was found after ¹²⁵I limited, MC, and chemotherapy; decreased MetS incidence was found after RP and SC; and the rates of MetS incidence remained unchanged after EBRT and TURP treatments. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that ¹²⁵I limited, MC, and chemotherapy were independent risk factors for MetS, but RP and SC were protective factors for MetS. Furthermore, the change of MetS component abnormalities was more obvious after PCa treatments (Fig. 1). The total proportion of subjects with one or more component abnormality of MetS was higher after treatment than before treatment. Thus, analysis of our data showed that different treatment strategies for PCa may determine the occurrence, development, and transition of MetS clinically. What is more, the possible reason for this may be that the various treatment strategies for PCa differ in timing and intensity of the body’s metabolic interference.

Previous literature reported that the prevalence of MetS was 16–18.36% in Chinese older men (65 to 80 years) in non-PCa patients [21, 22], and the incidence of PCa with MetS (MetS-PCa) was 11% and PCa without MetS (non-MetS-PCa) was 13% in the age range of 70–80 years [23]. In this study, the prevalence of MetS before (17.38%) and after (23.67%) PCa treatment showed significant differences (P < 0.001; see Table 1), and the total proportion of subjects with one or more component abnormality of MetS was higher in the treated patients than in patients before treatment (80.08 vs 55.42%, P < 0.001; see Fig. 1). We found that the increasing age as an independent risk factor for the onset of MetS, and this was consistent with the previous literature reports [21‐23]. In a word, in this study, differences existed in the incidence of MetS before and after treatments, and the general trend was that the incidence of MetS posttreatment was higher than before treatment, which was independently associated with various treatments (OR = 1.731, 95%CI 1.367–2.193, P < 0.001) through multivariate logistic regression analysis (see Table 1) after adjusting for confounding factors such as age (OR = 1.042, 95%CI 1.028–1.056, P < 0.001).

Considering different effects on the systematic metabolism by various treatment methods, we further divided the treatments into two categories subjectively to understand their influence on MetS: RP+TURP+EBRT and ADT (including surgical or medical castration)+¹²⁵I limited+chemotherapy. Meanwhile, to minimize the impact of tumor staging and grading on the development of MetS, the subjects were evaluated by different risk grades of PCa (low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk) according to the NCCN criteria [17]. This helps us for the better management of the disease [24]. As shown in Fig. 2, the newly developed MetS patients were different between the two treatment groups in all the risk grades of PCa. In total, 228 PCa patients had newly developed MetS, and MetS incidence was higher in ADT+¹²⁵I limited+chemotherapy group than in RP+TURP+EBRT group of any risk grades. Through multivariate logistic regression analysis, MetS was associated with advanced PSA increase, recurrence, and metastasis, except for death (see Table 2). Meanwhile, as shown in Fig. 3, clinical progression of PCa after treatments showed higher proportion in patients with MetS than without MetS in the corresponding risk factor group. The above discussed results showed that MetS was an independent risk factor for the clinical progression of PCa. These results implied that the influence of ADT, ¹²⁵I limited, and chemotherapy on MetS may be more pronounced, with the increased incidence of MetS during the course of the treatment process and may have an impact on the PCa progression. Such discrepancy may explain the differences between our results and those of the previous research studies. Nevertheless, results from this study might have supplementary values for previous studies [6].

In addition, our data showed that the median scores of storage symptoms and voiding symptoms were higher in the MetS group than the non-MetS group, and the development of voiding symptoms demonstrated urinary obstruction as more serious than that of storage symptoms under the impact of MetS. Multivariate logistic regression analysis further showed that high lower urinary tract symptom score was an independent risk factor for MetS (see Table 1). These study findings supported the results of previous research studies [25, 26].

Our data also showed that the therapeutic outcome had an impact on PCa patients combined with MetS. Survival analysis showed that the median survival time of MetS-PCa was 64 months, and the non-MetS-PCa was 82 months (see Fig. 4). Cox regression model revealed that both age and MetS were the risk factors for the survival time of PCa, and the relative risk (RR) was 1.065 for age and 3.473 for MetS. After adjustment for age, the survival curves of MetS were redrawn (see Fig. 5) and found that the survival rate of MetS-PCa was lower than non-MetS-PCa, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). So, the prognosis of MetS-PCa patients was worse than those of non-MetS-PCa patients. Results of this study are different from the previous studies, and moreover, it was a useful complement for the previous research findings [9, 27]. Interestingly, the mortality (see Table 2) of PCa patients does not correlate with MetS. The reason for this might be that the patients ultimately died due to cardiovascular complications or multiple organ failure [9, 27].

MetS is normally associated with a chronic inflammatory state, playing an important role in the development of MetS and advancement of malignant tumors [8, 9, 25, 28]. In this study, total subjects of PCa were divided into patients with MetS and without MetS to analyze the differences of PDW and CRP. The two inflammatory markers were significantly higher in MetS group than without MetS group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that PDW and CRP were positively and independently correlated with MetS after adjusting for various mixed factors. These results are similar to the previous study findings, where chronic inflammation and inflammatory markers may have a role in PCa patients with MetS [8, 9, 25, 28]. So, it may be necessary to consider the inflammatory markers, such as CRP and PDW, when exploring for the possible treatments in PCa patients [9, 29‐32] and eliminating or inhibiting chronic inflammation may be one of the supplementary methods for the treatment of PCa combined with MetS.

However, the present study has some limitations. This study was conducted only in Chinese population, which included majority of Han Chinese, and also contained a small proportion of Hui, Miao, Uighur, and Tibetan inhabitants who have different eating habits, but our study did not subdivide the participants. Our study was based on only two clinical medical centers and with relatively few cases, especially in the partial treatment groups, such as EBRT and TURP. These limitations may influence our judgment of the actual results and conclusions. Hence, more centralized and large case studies are needed.

In summary, we have to admit that multiple factors among PCa patients contribute to the occurrence of MetS. The treatment group of ADT+¹²⁵I limited+chemotherapy may be the most influential factor with MetS, but the effect of RP+TURP+EBRT treatment on MetS was relatively small. These findings can help us choose a more appropriate treatment strategy for PCa, and avoid side effects of MetS as much as possible. MetS-PCa patients generally facilitate to cancer progression, and chronic inflammation may have a role in MetS-PCa patients.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the efforts of the participants and investigators of the study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Institutional Review Board of the Beijing Shijitan Hospital approved the present study.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Med Innere Medizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ²

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67:7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21387 CrossRefPubMed

Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR, Donato KA, Eckel RH, Franklin BA, Gordon DJ, Krauss RM, Savage PJ, Smith SC Jr, Spertus JA, Costa F (2005) Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: an American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement. Circulation 112:2735–2752. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.105.169404 CrossRefPubMed

Sanchis-Bonet A, Ortiz-Vico F, Morales-Palacios N, Sanchez-Chapado M (2015) The association between metabolic syndrome and prostate cancer: effect on its aggressiveness and progression. Actas Urol Esp 39:154–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2014.09.009 CrossRefPubMed

Telli O, Sarici H, Ekici M, Ozgur BC, Doluoglu OG, Eroglu M, Telli TA (2015) Does metabolic syndrome or its components associate with prostate cancer when diagnosed on biopsy? Ther Adv Med Oncol 7:63–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758834014560158 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

McGrowder DA, Jackson LA, Crawford TV (2012) Prostate cancer and metabolic syndrome: is there a link? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 13:1–13CrossRefPubMed

Zhang JQ, Geng H, Ma M, Nan XY, Sheng BW (2015) Metabolic syndrome components are associated with increased prostate cancer risk. Med Sci Monit 21:2387–2396. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.893442 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

De Nunzio C, Truscelli G, Trucchi A, Petta S, Tubaro M, Gacci M, Gaudio C, Presicce F, Tubaro A (2016) Metabolic abnormalities linked to an increased cardiovascular risk are associated with high-grade prostate cancer: a single biopsy cohort analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 19:35–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2015.45 CrossRefPubMed

Lehrer S, Diamond EJ, Mamkine B, Droller MJ, Stone NN, Stock RG (2005) C-reactive protein is significantly associated with prostate-specific antigen and metastatic disease in prostate cancer. BJU Int 95:961–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05447.x CrossRefPubMed

McArdle PA, Qayyum T, McMillan DC (2010) Systemic inflammatory response and survival in patients with localised prostate cancer: 10-year follow-up. Urol Int 84:430–435. https://doi.org/10.1159/000313364 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Zaccardi F, Rocca B, Pitocco D, Tanese L, Rizzi A, Ghirlanda G (2015) Platelet mean volume, distribution width, and count in type 2 diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and metabolic syndrome: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 31:402–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.2625 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Conteduca V, Caffo O, Derosa L, Veccia A, Petracci E, Chiuri VE, Santoni M, Santini D, Fratino L, Maines F, Testoni S, De Giorgi U (2015) Metabolic syndrome in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone. Prostate 75:1329–1338. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23014

12.

Vanneste BG, Van Limbergen EJ, van Lin EN, van Roermund JG, Lambin P (2016) Prostate cancer radiation therapy: what do clinicians have to know? Biomed Res Int 2016:6829875. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6829875 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Macleod LC, Chery LJ, Hu EY, Zeliadt SB, Holt SK, Lin DW, Porter MP, Gore JL, Wright JL (2015) Metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia and prostate cancer recurrence after primary surgery or radiation in a veterans cohort. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18:190–195. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2015.12 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Asmar R, Beebe-Dimmer JL, Korgavkar K, Keele GR, Cooney KA (2013) Hypertension, obesity and prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 16:62–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2012.32 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Bosco C, Crawley D, Adolfsson J, Rudman S, Van Hemelrijck M (2015) Quantifying the evidence for the risk of metabolic syndrome and its components following androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 10:e0117344. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117344 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Rhee H, Vela I, Chung E (2016) Metabolic syndrome and prostate cancer: a review of complex interplay amongst various endocrine factors in the pathophysiology and progression of prostate Cancer. Horm Cancer 7:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-015-0238-x CrossRefPubMed

17.

Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, D'Amico AV, Davis BJ, Eastham JA, Enke CA, Farrington TA, Higano CS, Horwitz EM, Hurwitz M, Kane CJ, Kawachi MH, Kuettel M, Lee RJ, Meeks JJ, Penson DF, Plimack ER, Pow-Sang JM, Raben D, Richey S, Roach M 3rd, Rosenfeld S, Schaeffer E, Skolarus TA, Small EJ, Sonpavde G, Srinivas S, Strope SA, Tward J, Shead DA, Freedman-Cass DA (2016) Prostate cancer, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 14:19–30CrossRef

18.

Zhao S, Chen C, Chen Z, Xia M, Tang J, Shao S, Yan Y (2016) Relationship between metabolic syndrome and predictors for clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia progression and international prostate symptom score in patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms. Urol J 13:2717–2726PubMed

19.

Quagliariello V, Rossetti S, Cavaliere C, Di Palo R, Lamantia E, Castaldo L, Nocerino F, Ametrano G, Cappuccio F, Malzone G, Montanari M, Vanacore D, Romano FJ, Piscitelli R, Iovane G, Pepe MF, Berretta M, D'Aniello C, Perdona S, Muto P, Botti G, Ciliberto G, Veneziani BM, De Falco F, Maiolino P, Caraglia M, Montella M, Iaffaioli RV, Facchini G (2017) Metabolic syndrome, endocrine disruptors and prostate cancer associations: biochemical and pathophysiological evidences. Oncotarget 8:30606–30616. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.16725 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Zhang GM, Zhu Y, Dong DH, Han CT, Gu CY, Gu WJ, Qin XJ, Sun LJ, Ye DW (2015) The association between metabolic syndrome and advanced prostate cancer in Chinese patients receiving radical prostatectomy. Asian J Androl 17:839–844. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682x.148138 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

21.

Villegas R, Xiang YB, Yang G, Cai Q, Fazio S, Linton MF, Elasy T, Xu WH, Li H, Cai H, Gao YT, Zheng W, Shu XO (2009) Prevalence and determinants of metabolic syndrome according to three definitions in middle-aged Chinese men. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 7(1):37–45. https://doi.org/10.1089/met.2008.0042 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Zhao Y, Yan H, Yang R, Li Q, Dang S, Wang Y (2014) Prevalence and determinants of metabolic syndrome among adults in a rural area of NorthwestChina. PLoS One 9(3):e91578. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091578. eCollection 2014

23.

Häggström C, Stocks T, Nagel G, Manjer J, Bjørge T, Hallmans G, Engeland A, Ulmer H, Lindkvist B, Selmer R, Concin H, Tretli S, Jonsson H, Stattin P (2014) Prostate cancer, prostate cancer death, and death from other causes, among men with metabolic aberrations. Epidemiology 25(6):823–828. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000174 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Conteduca V, Di Lorenzo G, Bozza G, Ardito R, Aieta M (2013) Metabolic syndrome as a peculiar target for management of prostate cancer patients. Clin Genitourin Cancer 11:211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2013.04.009 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Gacci M, Vignozzi L, Sebastianelli A, Salvi M, Giannessi C, De Nunzio C, Tubaro A, Corona G, Rastrelli G, Santi R, Nesi G, Serni S, Carini M, Maggi M (2013) Metabolic syndrome and lower urinary tract symptoms: the role of inflammation. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 16:101–106. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2012.44 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Saenz Medina J, Carballido Rodriguez J (2016) Review of the pathophysiological aspects involved in urological disease associated with metabolic syndrome. Actas Urol Esp 40:279–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2015.10.001 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Ma J, Li H, Giovannucci E, Mucci L, Qiu W, Nguyen PL, Gaziano JM, Pollak M, Stampfer MJ (2008) Prediagnostic body-mass index, plasma C-peptide concentration, and prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with prostate cancer: a long-term survival analysis. Lancet Oncol 9:1039–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70235-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Saito K, Kihara K (2013) Role of C-reactive protein in urological cancers: a useful biomarker for predicting outcomes. Int J Urol 20:161–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03121.x CrossRefPubMed

29.

Haggstrom C, Stocks T, Nagel G, Manjer J, Bjorge T, Hallmans G, Engeland A, Ulmer H, Lindkvist B, Selmer R, Concin H, Tretli S, Jonsson H, Stattin P (2014) Prostate cancer, prostate cancer death, and death from other causes, among men with metabolic aberrations. Epidemiology 25:823–828. https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0000000000000174 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Pinthus JH (2015) Uncovering the metabolic complications of androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer—where do we take it next? J Urol 193:1882–1883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.070 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Polesel J, Gini A, Dal Maso L, Stocco C, Birri S, Taborelli M, Serraino D, Zucchetto A (2016) The impact of diabetes and other metabolic disorders on prostate cancer prognosis. J Diabetes Complicat 30:591–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2016.02.008 CrossRef

32.

Hankinson SJ, Fam M, Patel NN (2017) A review for clinicians: prostate cancer and the antineoplastic properties of metformin. Urol Oncol 35:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.10.009 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer Treatments in Promoting Metabolic Syndrome Development and the Influence of Increased Metabolic Syndrome on Prostate Cancer Therapeutic Outcome
verfasst von: Zongping Chen
Jichun Deng
Yong Yan
Min Li
Chanjuan Chen
Chao Chen
Sicong Zhao
Tao Song
Tong Liu
Xin Wen
Yuhong Yao
Publikationsdatum: 09.06.2018
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Discover Oncology / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1868-8497
Elektronische ISSN: 2730-6011
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-018-0335-8

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer Treatments in Promoting Metabolic Syndrome Development and the Influence of Increased Metabolic Syndrome on Prostate Cancer Therapeutic Outcome

Abstract

Introduction

Patients and Methods

Patients

Clinical Data Extraction

Diagnosis Standards

Follow-Up

Statistical Analyses

Results

Baseline Characteristics of PCa Patients During Their First Visit to a Doctor As Well As the Changes of MetS and Its Components Before and After Treatment

Association of Risk Grades, Progressive Incidents of PCa with MetS As Well As the Change of Incidence of MetS Before and After Treatment by Different Treatment Strategies for PCa

Comparison of Survival Rate Between PCa Patients with MetS and Without MetS

The Differences of CRP and PDW in MetS-PCa Patients with Non-MetS-PCa Patients

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ethical Approval

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Prostatakarzinom: EU initiiert neues Screeningkonzept

Blasenkarzinom – Biomarker statt Zytologie?

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

Update Onkologie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Patients and Methods

Patients

Clinical Data Extraction

Diagnosis Standards

Follow-Up

Statistical Analyses

Results

Baseline Characteristics of PCa Patients During Their First Visit to a Doctor As Well As the Changes of MetS and Its Components Before and After Treatment

Association of Risk Grades, Progressive Incidents of PCa with MetS As Well As the Change of Incidence of MetS Before and After Treatment by Different Treatment Strategies for PCa

Comparison of Survival Rate Between PCa Patients with MetS and Without MetS

The Differences of CRP and PDW in MetS-PCa Patients with Non-MetS-PCa Patients

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ethical Approval

Informed Consent

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Innere Medizin

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

Adiposity Results in Metabolic and Inflammation Differences in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women Consistent with the Difference in Breast Cancer Risk

Androgen Receptor and Ki67 Expression and Survival Outcomes in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

The Impact of Hormonal Contraceptives on Breast Cancer Pathology

The Flavonoid Apigenin Is a Progesterone Receptor Modulator with In Vivo Activity in the Uterus

The Impact of ESR1 Mutations on the Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer

The Influence of Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Potential Lifestyle Interactions in Female Cancer Development—a Population-Based Prospective Study

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Prostatakarzinom: EU initiiert neues Screeningkonzept

Blasenkarzinom – Biomarker statt Zytologie?

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

Update Onkologie