Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Associations Between Body Mass Index, Prostate Cancer, Advanced Prostate Cancer and Prostate Specific Antigen
read more
Citations
Tamizaje de cáncer de próstata: artículo de revisión
Body Mass Index and Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies
References
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.
Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies
Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (7)
Q2. What was used to determine whether the effect estimates from individual studies varied by study-level factors?
Meta‑regressionMeta-regression [33] was used to determine if the effect estimates from individual studies included in the metaanalyses varied by study-level factors.
Q3. What was the risk of bias in the meta-analyses?
PCPT onlyincluded men with a PSA less than 3.0 ng/ml, biasing both the BMI-PSA and BMI-prostate cancer analyses, and as such was excluded from the meta-analyses due to the critical risk of bias from conditioning on a collider or outcome.
Q4. What is the reason for the heterogeneity in the studies?
because the studies may not have used the same definition of advanced prostate cancer, and because advanced prostate cancers could be locally advanced prostate cancer, nodes or metastatic cancer, these studies may be relatively heterogeneous.
Q5. What was the average HR for prostate cancer between overweight and normal weight men?
For the randomeffects meta-analysis, the average HR for prostate cancer between overweight and normal weight men was estimatedto be 1.02 (95% CI 0.98–1.05, p = 0.35) with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.66), and the average OR was estimated to be 0.99 (95% CI 0.91–1.08, p = 0.81, combined across ORs for BMI measured before and at the same time as prostate cancer diagnosis) with little evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 32.6%, p = 0.19).
Q6. What was the average change in PSA between overweight and normal weight men?
For the randomeffects meta-analysis, the average percentage change in PSA between overweight and normal weight men was estimated to be − 3.43% (95% CI − 5.57 to − 1.23,1 3p = 0.002), with strong evidence of heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 80.9%, p < 0.001), and the average percentage change in PSA between obese and normal weight men was estimated to be − 12.9% (95% CI − 15.2 to − 10.7, p < 0.001), with strong evidence of heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 69.5%, p < 0.001).
Q7. What grants were used to support this work?
This work was supported by Cancer Research UK project Grants C11043/ A4286, C18281/A8145, C18281/A11326, and C18281/A15064 and a programme grant (the CRUK Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme, ICEP: C18281/A19169).