PC & metabolic syndrome

[Henry Campbell]

Some time ago (A symposium on the aging male) there was a presentation on "Metabolic Syndrome".  The conclusion then was that it is caused by LOW serum testosterone.  Other studies have shown that low serum testosterone resulted in higher Gleason scores. A major reason for out of balance hormones including low testosterone are varied but most put the blame on  xenobiotics or xenoestrogens.  So this isn't a surprise -- really. It's what we eat.

This prostate cancer thing is getting to be like a math problem...  A=B   or A+ (2x/x)-x=B   thus A=B.  Knowing the answer and how to fix it is lost from one generation  to another with studies, trials and meta analysis between the original answer and the final answer which is the same.

Henry

///////////////////////////

1.	Urol Oncol. 2012 Sep 25. pii: S1078-1439(11)00472-8. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.12.012. [Epub ahead of print] Effect of metabolic syndrome on pathologic features of prostate cancer. Kheterpal E, Sammon JD, Diaz M, Bhandari A, Trinh QD, Pokala N, Sharma P, Menon M, Agarwal PK. Source Henry Ford Hospital, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Hillsdale, NJ 07642, USA. Electronic address: ekhete...@gmail.com. Abstract OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome has been increasing worldwide, however its association with prostate cancer (CaP) is unclear. We reviewed patients undergoing robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to evaluate if those with metabolic syndrome had more aggressive disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective database of patients undergoing RARP between January 2005 and December 2008 (n = 2756) was queried for components of metabolic syndrome (BMI ≥30 and ≥2 of the following: hypertension, diabetes or elevated blood glucose, and dyslipidemia; n = 357). Patients with no components of metabolic syndrome were used as controls (n = 694). Biopsy and final pathology were compared between the 2 groups using all controls, and using best-matched controls (n = 357) based on greedy matching by propensity score. RESULTS: Compared with unmatched controls, metabolic syndrome patients had higher pathology Gleason grade (≥7: 78% vs. 64%, P < 0.001) and higher pathologic stage (≥T3 disease: 43% vs. 31%, P < 0.001). After controlling for confounders, those with metabolic syndrome when compared with best-matched controls had maintained the greater pathology Gleason grade (≥7: 78% vs. 64%, P < 0.001) and pathologic stage (≥T3 disease: 43% vs. 32%, P < 0.001). They also had significantly greater pathologic upgrading of Gleason grade 6 adenocarcinoma found on biopsy compared with best-matched controls (63% vs. 45%, P < 0.001). On pathology, a 2-fold increase in Gleason 8 and greater was noted between patients with metabolic syndrome and best-matched controls (15% vs. 8%). CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for confounders, patients with metabolic syndrome were found to have higher Gleason grade and tumor stage on final pathology and were more likely to have upgrading. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
	PMID: 23020926 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

[Henry Campbell]

Here is another connection that falls in line with the post I did yestester day. The same symposium concluded that diabetes was also the result of low serum testosterone.

Henry

////////

 2012 Sep;30(5):735-43. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.07.008.

Why are diabetics at reduced risk for prostate cancer? A review of the epidemiologic evidence.

Pierce BL.

Source

Department of Health Studies and Comprehensive Cancer Center, the University of Chicago, IL 60637, USA. Electronic address: bpi...@health.bsd.uchicago.edu.

Abstract

A large body of epidemiologic evidence provides strong support for the notion that type-2 diabetics are at decreased risk for prostate cancer. In this review article, we summarize the epidemiologic literature that explores the role of diabetes mellitus and related biomarkers in prostate cancer risk and detection, in order to create a better understanding of the potential mechanisms that underlie this inverse association. The bulk of the data supporting this association comes from the USA, as evidence for this association is less consistent in many other regions of the world. The relationship between diabetes and prostate cancer is suspected to be causal due to evidence of decreasing prostate cancer risk with increasing diabetes duration and lack of evidence for any confounding of this association. Hypothesized mechanisms for decreased prostate cancer risk among diabetics include (1) decreased levels of hormones and other cancer-related growth factors among diabetics, (2) the impact of diabetes on detection-related factors, such as prostate size, circulating prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and health-care seeking behaviors, (3) protective effects of diabetes medications, and (4) a protective effect of diabetes-induced vascular damage in the prostate. The evidence for screening-related factors is compelling, as diabetics appear to have reduced PSA and lower levels of health-care seeking behavior compared with nondiabetics. Furthermore, the inverse association between diabetes and prostate cancer is much less apparent in populations that do not perform biopsies based on PSA levels and in studies restricted to biopsied individuals. The inverse association appears to be stronger for low-grade disease, as compared with high-grade (Gleason >7), which is consistent with the observation that among patients receiving biopsy or prostate cancer treatment, 

Epidemiological research has reveals a great deal regarding the relationship between diabetes and prostate cancer risk, but additional research is needed to further clarify the mechanisms underlying this inverse association.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID:

 

23021557

 

[PubMed - in process]

[Sam]

Thanks Henry. All the more reason to try IHT to find something that works for the body instead of against it. Sam.

--
--
Prostate cancer is an exceptionally heterogenous disease. What is good for one man may not be so kind on the next. Be sure to research and test any new supplement or treatment before adopting it - and in any case run it past a medically qualified person for a second opinion.
 
 
 

[Sam]

good point Henry. I have suspected it for a long time.

BTW That experience your wife had is what is called "A close shave" isn't it ? Hope she is OK.