Article

A Prospective Study of Physical Activity and Incident and Fatal Prostate Cancer

Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass, USA.
Archives of Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 06/2005; 165(9):1005-10. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.9.1005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Whether physical activity has benefits against prostate cancer incidence or progression is unclear. Therefore, we assessed physical activity in relation to prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and Gleason histologic grade.
We used data from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, a prospective cohort study, to determine the number of cases of incident, advanced (seminal vesicle invasion, metastasis, or fatal), fatal, and high-grade prostate cancer in a cohort of 47,620 US male health professionals, followed up from February 1, 1986, to January 31, 2000.
During 14 years of follow-up, we documented 2892 new cases of prostate cancer, including 482 advanced cases (280 of which were fatal). For total prostate cancer, no association was observed for total, vigorous, and nonvigorous physical activity. In men 65 years or older, we observed a lower risk in the highest category of vigorous activity for advanced (multivariable relative risk, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.62, for more than 29 vs 0 metabolic equivalent hours) and for fatal (relative risk, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.66) prostate cancer. No associations were observed in younger men. Differential screening by prostate-specific antigen or a reduction in physical activity due to undiagnosed prostate cancer did not appear to account for the results. Among cases, men with high levels of physical activity were less likely to be diagnosed with poorly differentiated cancers (Gleason grade > or = 7).
Although the mechanisms are not yet understood, these findings suggest that regular vigorous activity could slow the progression of prostate cancer and might be recommended to reduce mortality from prostate cancer, particularly given the many other documented benefits of exercise.

0 Followers
 · 
55 Views
  • Source
    • "Established risk factors for PCa are increasing age, race, and family history of the disease [2] [3] [4]. Obesity (which affects 35% of all US adults [12] and is more prevalent in African American population [13]) is linked to a plethora of diseases including cardiovascular problems, type II diabetes, gallbladder disease, and osteoarthritis [14], and an array of human cancers such as breast, uterine, and pancreas [15] [16]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Prostate cancer (PCa) racial disparity is multifactorial, involving biological, sociocultural, and lifestyle determinants. We investigated the association between selected potentially functional polymorphisms (SNPs) and prostate cancer (PCa) risk in Black (AAM) and White (EAM) men. We further explored if these associations varied by the body mass index (BMI) and height. Methods. Age-matched DNA samples from 259 AAM and 269 EAM were genotyped for 10 candidate SNPs in 7 genes using the TaqMan allelic differentiation analysis. The dominant, recessive, and additive age-adjusted unconditional logistic regression models were fitted. Results. Three SNPs showed statistically significant associations with PCa risk: in AAM, HNF1B rs7501939 (OR = 2.42, P = 0.0046) and rs4430796 (OR = 0.57, P = 0.0383); in EAM, CTBP2 rs4962416 (OR = 1.52, P = 0.0384). In addition, high BMI in AAM (OR = 1.06, P = 0.022) and height in EAM (OR = 0.92, P = 0.0434) showed significant associations. Interestingly, HNF1B rs7501939 was associated with PCa exclusively in obese AAM (OR = 2.14, P = 0.0103). Conclusion. Our results suggest that variation in the HNF1B may influence PCa risk in obese AAM.
    12/2013; 2013:384594. DOI:10.1155/2013/384594
  • Source
    • "In addition, the studies found that increased level of physical activity indicates on lower risk for benign prostatic hyperplasia (Lagiou et al., 2008). It is important mention of some studies that have reported reduced risk for advanced prostate cancer and for fatal prostate cancer among individuals engaged in regular vigorous activity (Giovannucci et al., 2005; Nilsen et al., 2006). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Scientific evidence for the primary prevention of cancer caused by physical activity of regular moderate-intensity or greater is rapidly accumulating in this field. About 300 epidemiologic studies on the association between physical activity and cancer risk have been conducted worldwide. The objectives of this paper were three-fold: (i) to describe briefly the components of physical activity and its quantification; (ii) to summarize the most important conclusions available from comprehensive reports, and reviews of the epidemiologic individual and intervention studies on a role physical activity in cancer prevention; (iii) to present proposed biological mechanisms accounting for effects of activity on cancer risk. The evidence of causal linked physical activity and cancer risk is found to be strong for colon cancer - convincing; weaker for postmenopausal breast and endometrium cancers - probable; and limited suggestive for premenopausal breast, lung, prostate, ovary, gastric and pancreatic cancers. The average risk reductions were reported to be 20-30%. The protective effects of physical activity on cancer risk are hypothesized to be through multiple interrelated pathways: decrease in adiposity, decrease in sexual and metabolic hormones, changes in biomarkers and insulin resistance, improvement of immune function, and reduction of inflammation. As there are several gaps in the literature for associations between activity and cancer risk, additional studies are needed. Future research should include studies dealing with limitations in precise estimates of physical activity and of a lack of consensus on what defines sedentary behavior of individuals and those linked with the proposed biomarkers to cancer risk and controlled exercise intervention trials.
    Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 07/2013; 14(7):3993-4003. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.7.3993 · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In the Health Professional follow-up study, a strong inverse association (around 70% risk reduction) between recent-past vigorous PA and metastatic prostate cancer was observed only in men aged 65 years or older, with an evidence of effect modification by age (Giovannucci et al, 2005). In our analysis, we found no evidence of heterogeneity in the relationship across subgroups defined by age, educational level and waist – hip ratio. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The possible benefit of lifetime physical activity (PA) in reducing prostate cancer incidence and mortality is unclear. A prospective cohort of 45,887 men aged 45-79 years was followed up from January 1998 to December 2007 for prostate cancer incidence (n=2735) and to December 2006 for its subtypes and for fatal (n=190) prostate cancer. We observed an inverse association between lifetime (average of age 30 and 50 years, and baseline age) total PA levels and prostate cancer risk. Multivariate-adjusted incidence in the top quartile of lifetime total PA decreased by 16% (95% confidence interval (CI)=2-27%) compared with that in the bottom quartile. We also observed an inverse association between average lifetime work or occupational activity and walking or bicycling duration and prostate cancer risk. Compared with men who mostly sit during their main work or occupation, men who sit half of the time experienced a 20% lower risk (95% CI=7-31%). The rate ratio linearly decreased by 7% (95% CI=1-12%) for total, 8% (95% CI=0-16%) for localised and 12% (95% CI=2-20%) for advanced prostate cancer for every 30 min per day increment of lifetime walking or bicycling in the range of 30 to 120 min per day. Our results suggest that not sitting for most of the time during work or occupational activity and walking or bicycling more than 30 min per day during adult life is associated with reduced incidence of prostate cancer.
    British Journal of Cancer 10/2009; 101(11):1932-8. DOI:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605404 · 4.82 Impact Factor
Show more