ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Abstract and Figures

Prostate cancer is the second most frequent cancer diagnosis made in men and the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. Prostate cancer may be asymptomatic at the early stage and often has an indolent course that may require only active surveillance. Based on GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates, 1,276,106 new cases of prostate cancer were reported worldwide in 2018, with higher prevalence in the developed countries. Differences in the incidence rates worldwide reflect differences in the use of diagnostic testing. Prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates are strongly related to the age with the highest incidence being seen in elderly men (> 65 years of age). African-American men have the highest incidence rates and more aggressive type of prostate cancer compared to White men. There is no evidence yet on how to prevent prostate cancer; however, it is possible to lower the risk by limiting high-fat foods, increasing the intake of vegetables and fruits and performing more exercise. Screening is highly recommended at age 45 for men with familial history and African-American men. Up-to-date statistics on prostate cancer occurrence and outcomes along with a better understanding of the etiology and causative risk factors are essential for the primary prevention of this disease.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits
unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited 63
Review World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer
Prashanth Rawla
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the second most frequent cancer diagnosis made in
men and the fth leading cause of death worldwide. Prostate cancer
may be asymptomatic at the early stage and often has an indolent
course that may require only active surveillance. Based on GLOBO-
CAN 2018 estimates, 1,276,106 new cases of prostate cancer were
reported worldwide in 2018, with higher prevalence in the developed
countries. Dierences in the incidence rates worldwide reect dier-
ences in the use of diagnostic testing. Prostate cancer incidence and
mortality rates are strongly related to the age with the highest inci-
dence being seen in elderly men (> 65 years of age). African-Amer-
ican men have the highest incidence rates and more aggressive type
of prostate cancer compared to White men. There is no evidence yet
on how to prevent prostate cancer; however, it is possible to lower
the risk by limiting high-fat foods, increasing the intake of vegeta-
bles and fruits and performing more exercise. Screening is highly
recommended at age 45 for men with familial history and African-
American men. Up-to-date statistics on prostate cancer occurrence
and outcomes along with a better understanding of the etiology and
causative risk factors are essential for the primary prevention of this
disease.
Keywords: Prostate cancer; Epidemiology; Incidence; Mortality;
Trends; Survival; Etiology; Risk factors; Prevention
Introduction
Prostate cancer is the second most frequent malignancy (after
lung cancer) in men worldwide, counting 1,276,106 new cas-
es and causing 358,989 deaths (3.8% of all deaths caused by
cancer in men) in 2018 [1, 2]. The incidence and mortality of
prostate cancer worldwide correlate with increasing age with
the average age at the time of diagnosis being 66 years. Of
note, for African-American men, the incidence rates are higher
when compared to the White men, with 158.3 new cases diag-
nosed per 100,000 men and their mortality is approximately
twice as White men [3]. Reasons for this disparity have been
hypothesized to dierences in social, environmental and ge-
netic factors. Although 2,293,818 new cases are estimated un-
til 2040, a small variation in mortality will be observed (an
increase of 1.05%) [4].
Prostate cancer may be asymptomatic at the early stage
and often has an indolent course, and may require minimal or
even no treatment. However, the most frequent complaint is
diculty with urination, increased frequency, and nocturia,
all symptoms that may also arise from prostatic hypertrophy.
More advanced stage of the disease may present with urinary
retention and back pain, as axis skeleton is the most common
site of bony metastatic disease.
Many prostate cancers are detected on the basis of ele-
vated plasmatic levels of prostate-specic antigen (PSA > 4
ng/mL), a glycoprotein normally expressed by prostate tissue.
However, because men without cancer have also been found
with elevated PSA, a tissue biopsy is the standard of care to
conrm cancer’s presence.
Diet and physical activity play an important role in pros-
tate cancer development and progression. Dietary factors are
mainly associated with the observed worldwide and ethnic dif-
ferences in the incidence rates of prostate cancer [5-9].
Most studies are devoted not only into identifying genes
involved in the inherited form of prostate cancer but also the
mutations occurring in the acquired form. Therefore, a de-
tailed analysis of prostate cancer epidemiology and evaluation
of risk factors can help to understand the connection between
genetic mutations and the role of the environment in triggering
these mutations and/or favoring tumor progression. Increased
understanding of the etiology and causative risk factors of
prostate cancer will provide ways to identify at-risk males and
support the development of eective screening and prevention
methods.
Epidemiology
Based on GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates, we have evaluated
worldwide prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates, as
well as analyzed incidence and mortality, temporal trends and
survival rates.
Incidence
The incidence rate of prostate cancer varies across the regions
and populations (Fig. 1) [2]. In 2018, 1,276,106 new cases of
prostate cancer were registered worldwide, representing 7.1%
of all cancers in men [1]. Prostate cancer incidence rates are
highly variable worldwide. The age-standardized rate (ASR)
Manuscript submitted February 20, 2019, accepted March 15, 2019
Hospitalist, Department of Internal Medicine, SOVAH Health, Martinsville,
VA 24112, USA. Email: rawlap@gmail.com
doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1191
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
64
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
was highest in Oceania (79.1 per 100,000 people) and North
America (73.7), followed by Europe (62.1). Conversely, Afri-
ca and Asia have incidence rates that are lower than those from
developed countries (26.6 and 11.5, respectively) [2]. Dier-
ences in incidence rates were 190-fold between the popula-
tions at the highest rate (France, Guadeloupe, 189.1), and the
populations with the lowest rate (Bhutan, 1.0).
Prostate cancer incidence increases with age [2]. Although
only 1 in 350 men under the age of 50 years will be diagnosed
with prostate cancer [10], the incidence rate increases up to 1
in every 52 men for ages 50 to 59 years. The incidence rate is
nearly 60% in men over the age of 65 years [11].
The reason for these dierences among the countries is not
entirely clear. The worldwide variations in prostate cancer in-
cidence might be attributed to PSA testing [12]. For example,
in Europe, prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed
cancer among men, accounting for 24% of all new cancers
in 2018, with around 450,000 new prostate cancer cases esti-
mated in 2018 [13]. While in the USA, prostate cancer is the
second most common cancer accounting for 9.5% of all new
cancer cases (164,690 new cases of prostate cancer) registered
in 2018 [14]. According to recently conducted research stud-
ies, around 20-40% of the prostate cancer cases in the USA and
Europe could be due to overdiagnosis through extensive PSA
testing [12, 15, 16].
Research has shown that African-American men have
the highest incidence of prostate cancer worldwide and more
likely to develop disease earlier in life when compared to other
racial and ethnic groups [17]. This is reected in data not only
for African-American men, but also for Caribbeans, and Black
men in Europe, suggesting that they possess a common genetic
background more prone to the development of the cancer. Of
note, Chu et al [18] reported that incidence rates of prostate
cancer were as much as 40 times higher among African-Amer-
ican men than those in Africa. These dierences suggest that
environmental factors also play an important role in the etiol-
ogy of the prostate cancer and variations in incidence may be
due to underdiagnosis, dierences in the screening methods
and disparities in healthcare access.
Mortality
International mortality rates for prostate cancer vary consid-
erably worldwide (Fig. 2) [2]. In 2018, the highest mortal-
ity rates were recorded in Central America (10.7 per 100,000
people), followed by Australia and New Zealand (10.2) and
Western Europe (10.1) [2]. The lowest rate was reported in
the countries of Asia (South-Central, 3.3; Eastern, 4.7 and
South-Eastern, 5.4) and Northern Africa (5.8) (Fig. 3) [2].
One-third of the deaths for prostate cancer occurred in Asia
(33.0%, 118,427 of deaths), followed by Europe (29.9%,
107,315 of deaths). The mortality rate of prostate cancer rises
with age, and almost 55% of all deaths occur after 65 years
of age [2].
US Preventive Task Force (USPSTF, 2018) has reported
that there is a potential benet of decreasing deaths from pros-
tate cancer in men aged 55 - 69 years with PSA screening [19].
However, for men above 70 years of age for all races, the data
are less convincing [20].
African-American men have the highest prostate cancer
incidence and mortality rates. This suggests not only that Af-
rican-American men may possess some specic genes that are
more susceptible to mutations in prostate cancer, but mainly
that these mutations are associated with a more aggressive type
of cancer. However, a study conducted by Oliver in 2007 [21]
reported that African-American men were less likely to iden-
tify early symptoms of prostate cancer correctly than Cauca-
sian men.
Trends
Temporal trends of prostate cancer incidence and mortality
varied signicantly internationally during the past years, and
they seem tightly correlated to the adoption of PSA testing for
Figure 1. Map showing estimated age-standardized incidence rates for prostate cancer worldwide in 2018, in males including all
ages. Created with mapchart.net. Data obtained from Globocan 2018 [2].
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 65
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
early detection of the disease especially in Western countries
[22].
Incidence rates in the USA, Australia, and Canada have
seen an increase between the 1980s and 1990s but now de-
creasing because of rapid dissemination of PSA testing [22,
23], while rates in European countries continue to slightly in-
crease because of increased understanding of PSA screening
and gradual adoption of PSA testing, but also other factors may
be involved, such as exposure to ultraviolet radiation and diet
[24].
Interestingly, a trend towards an increase of prostate can-
cer incidence worldwide with 1,017,712 new cases (+79.7%
overall change) up to 2040 is estimated (Table 1) [4]. The
highest incidence of prostate cancer will be registered in Af-
rica (+120.6%), followed by Latin America and the Caribbean
(+101.1%) and Asia (100.9%). On the contrary, the lowest in-
cidence will be registered in Europe (+30.1%). This increase in
the incidence rates appears to be related to an increased life ex-
pectancy. Increasing incidence rate trends in developing coun-
tries is likely due to improved access to medical care as well
as increased documentation and reporting of cases. Finally, the
fact that incidence rates are increasing in those regions where
PSA testing is not routinely used suggests that this phenom-
enon reects westernization of the lifestyle including obesity,
physical inactivity and dietary factors [25].
Prostate cancer mortality rates in most western countries
including North America as well as in Western and North
Europe have been steadily declining [22, 25]. Although the
Figure 2. Map showing estimated age-standardized mortality rates for prostate cancer worldwide in 2018, in males including all
ages. Created with mapchart.net. Data obtained from Globocan 2018 [2].
Figure 3. Bar chart showing estimated age-standardized incidence and mortality rates (world) in 2018, prostate, males, all ages.
Data obtained from Globocan 2018 [2].
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
66
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
reasons are not clear, it may reect both early detection and
improved treatment [26-28]. However, in the USA, a recent
randomized controlled trial failed to demonstrate benets of
PSA testing in decreasing prostate cancer deaths, although an-
other research study done in Europe showed benets of PSA
testing [29, 30]. When ethnicity-specic trends were analyzed,
it was observed that the decline in mortality in African-Amer-
ican men was greater than that in White men between 2001
and 2015 (Fig. 4) [11, 20]. Negoita et al documented that im-
proved and newer modalities of detection and treatments and
improved treatment of resistant and metastatic prostate cancer
may justify this trend [20].
From 2018 to 2040, it is estimated that mortality will dou-
ble with 379,005 deaths worldwide [4]. The highest mortality
rate is estimated to be in Africa (+124.4%), followed by Asia
(116.7%), while the lowest incidence will be registered in Eu-
rope (+58.3%) (Table 2) [4]. The above nding is not surpris-
ing due to the limited resources for screening and detection of
prostate cancer which increases the odds of it being detected
during the late stages. Furthermore, considering that medi-
cal care and assistance is not widely accessible in developing
countries, this may provide a possible explanation for the high
mortality despite the lower incidence.
Survival
Although prostate cancer incidence rates are high, most pros-
tate cancer cases are detected when the cancer is conned to
within the prostate. The 5-year survival rate in the USA for
men diagnosed with prostate cancer is around 98% [11]. The
data from the Eurocare project (EUROCARE-5) of patients di-
agnosed with prostate cancer from 2003 to 2007 showed that
5-year survival rates were 83% [13]. Survival varied from 76%
in Eastern countries to 88% in Southern and Central European
countries. Moreover, survival has increased over time in all
over Europe with the greatest improvement being observed in
the Eastern European countries [31].
Despite in the last decades, science has made so much
progress to unveil molecular mechanisms and risk factors in-
volved in the prostate cancer, it still is the second leading cause
of cancer mortality among males in the USA [32]. Finally, the
general idea for all types of cancers is that the earlier they are
caught, the earlier they can be successfully treated remaining
Figure 4. Recent trends of prostate cancer mortality rates in USA in 2000 - 2015 by race/ethnicity. Data source: US Mortality
Files, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC [11].
Table 1. Estimated Number of Incident Cases From 2018 to 2040, Prostate Cancer, Males, All Ages
2018 2040
Number Number Demographic change Change in risk Overall change
Africa Males (APC 0%) 80,971 178,634 97,663 (+120.6%) 97,663 (+120.6%) 97,663 (+120.6%)
Latin America and the Caribbean Males (APC 0%) 190,385 382,808 192,423 (+101.1%) 192,423 (+101.1%) 192,423 (+101.1%)
North America Males (APC 0%) 234,278 312,901 78,623 (+33.6%) 78,623 (+33.6%) 78,623 (+33.6%)
Europe Males (APC 0%) 449,761 585,134 135,373 (+30.1%) 135,373 (+30.1%) 135,373 (+30.1%)
Asia Males (APC 0%) 297,215 597,180 299,965 (+100.9%) 299,965 (+100.9%) 299,965 (+100.9%)
Data obtained from Globocan 2018 [4].
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 67
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
the patients disease-free. However, because the majority of
prostate cancer have a slow and often indolent course (dened
as “low-risk” tumor), men can avoid immediate treatment (and
prospective side eects) while safely undergoing active sur-
veillance or watchful waiting.
Etiology and Risk Factors
The etiology of prostate cancer is the subject of numerous
studies and remains largely unknown compared to other com-
mon cancers. The well-established prostate cancer risk factors
are advanced age, ethnicity, genetic factors and family history
[33-35]. Other factors positively associated with prostate can-
cer include diet (increased consumption of saturated animal fat
and red meat, lower intake of fruits, vegetables, vitamins, and
coee), obesity and physical inactivity, inammation, hyper-
glycemia, infections, and environmental exposure to chemi-
cals or ionizing radiation [34, 36-40].
Age
Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy
among elderly males [1]. Indeed, an increasing number of sen-
ior men are diagnosed with prostate cancer due to increasing
life expectancy and the increased use of PSA screening. It was
observed that the risk increases especially after 50 years of
age in White men who have no family history of the prostate
cancer, and after 40 years of age in Black men or men with a
familial history of prostate cancer [14].
Scardino reported that almost 30% of men over 50 years
of age, who died for causes other than prostate cancer, were
found with histological evidence of prostate cancer at the mo-
ment of autopsy [41]. Indeed, due to its indolent course, elder-
ly men who have concurrent severe co-morbid disease during
their lifetimes are more likely to die from other related health
conditions or other diseases rather than from prostate cancer.
Ethnicity
Prevalence of prostate cancer highly varies among dierent
racial groups. In the USA, the lowest incidence is observed
in American Indian/Alaska (46.9) Native and Asian/Pacic Is-
lander (52.4), followed by White (93.9). The highest incidence
rate is seen in African-American men (157.6) [11].
This vast disparity has been associated with both socioec-
onomic conditions and biologic factors [42]. For instance, it is
believed that African Americans receive lower-quality health-
care and consequently, they are also less likely to undergo PSA
screening [43]. Notably, signicantly higher PSA levels were
seen in Black men, with or without prostate cancer when com-
pared to White men [44, 45].
Several studies proposed that genetic predisposition might
play a role. African-American men have the more common
chromosome 8q24 variants, which have been shown to be
associated with increased prostate cancer risk [46-49]. Some
research studies have also demonstrated that African Ameri-
cans have a high rate of variations in genes that suppress tu-
mors such as EphB2 [50] or that regulate cell apoptosis such
as BCL2 [51]. Furthermore, African-American men display a
more aggressive form of the disease, which has also been asso-
ciated with genetic and biologic dierences, although lack of
adequate screening and delayed presentation was not excluded
too [42].
Family history and genetic factors
It is estimated that about 20% of patients with prostate cancer
report a family history, which may develop not only because of
shared genes but also for a similar pattern of exposure to cer-
tain environmental carcinogens and common lifestyle habits
[52, 53]. Several studies reported that inherited genetic back-
ground is associated with increased risk for prostate cancer,
contributing to about 5% of disease risks [54, 55]. Particularly,
this risk is increased by several folds when high-penetrance
genetic “risk” alleles are inherited, conversely to more com-
mon low-penetrance loci that increase the risk only modestly.
Gene linkage studies reveal major susceptibility loci for
prostate carcinoma on genes in seven dierent loci. Chromo-
some 1q24-25 that is referred as HPC1 gene encodes the enzyme
ribonuclease L (RNASEL) [56], which is involved in the innate
immune defense mechanisms and the interferon (IFN)-mediated
signaling [57]. It plays an important role in reducing antiviral
activity and the regulation of apoptotic cell death [58]. Of note,
analysis of human prostate cancer samples from patients with
RNASEL mutations showed the presence of retrovirus unveiling
the importance of antiviral defenses to prostate cancer develop-
Table 2. Estimated Number of Deaths From 2018 to 2040, Prostate Cancer, Males, All Ages
2018 2040
Number Number Demographic change Change in risk Overall change
Africa Males (APC 0%) 42,298 94,909 52,611 (+124.4%) 52,611 (+124.4%) 52,611 (+124.4%)
Latin America and the Caribbean Males (APC 0%) 53,798 124,990 71,192 (+132.3%) 71,192 (+132.3%) 71,192 (+132.3%)
North America Males (APC 0%) 32,686 65,766 33,080 (+101.2%) 33,080 (+101.2%) 33,080 (+101.2%)
Europe Males (APC 0%) 107,315 169,865 62,550 (+58.3%) 62,550 (+58.3%) 62,550 (+58.3%)
Asia Males (APC 0%) 4,465 9,179 4,714 (+105.6%) 4,714 (+105.6%) 4,714 (+105.6%)
Data obtained from Globocan 2018 [4].
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
68
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
ment [59]. Moreover, detection of retroviral infections in some
cases of prostate cancer also showed the potential connection
of chronic retroviral infection and consequent tissue inamma-
tion with cancer initiation [60, 61]. Another HPC gene (HPC2/
ELAC2) was identied on chromosome 17p11 and encodes a
protein with poorly understood function [62], ELAC2, which
is involved in prostate cancer development by binding SMAD2
that up-regulate proliferation through activation of TGF-beta
signaling pathway [63]. The third identied HPC gene is mac-
rophage scavenger receptor 1 (MSR1), which resides on chro-
mosome 8p22 [64]. However, considering the low penetrance of
this allele, several studies failed to conrm its association with
HPC [65, 66]. Additionally, a subset of HPC was found to oc-
cur in men with BRCA1 and 2 mutations that showed a clini-
cally aggressive form of prostate cancer [67]. Moreover, BRCA2
mutations were correlated with a higher incidence of prostate
cancer, and PALB2, BRCA2-interacting protein, was involved
in familial prostate cancer [68].
The X chromosome is also believed to have a role in pros-
tate cancer inheritance, because it contains the androgen recep-
tor (AR) and because small deletions in Xq26.3-q27.3 region
were noted in sporadic and hereditary forms of prostate cancer
[69, 70]. More recent studies in 301 hereditary prostate cancer
aected families dened a number of other loci that may con-
tribute to hereditary prostate cancer [71].
Diet
Dietary factors may play an essential role in the development
of prostate cancer as evidenced by several studies on immi-
grants moving from developing countries (low-risk areas) to
industrialized countries (higher risk), that showed how the
change to a “westernized” lifestyle induced a shift towards an
increased prostate cancer incidence. For example, Chu et al
[18] reported that when compared to those in Africa, the inci-
dence rate of prostate cancer among African Americans was as
high as 40 times, while Hsing et al in 2000 [72] showed that
compared to men living in China, the prostate cancer incidence
was 16-fold higher for Chinese men living in the USA, sug-
gesting that environmental factors play an important role.
There are multiple evidences that certain foods are associ-
ated at higher risk, while others are even protective.
Saturated animal fat
Multiple ecological studies have shown a positive correlation
between prostate mortality and per capita intake of meat, fat
and dairy products [73, 74]. A recent case-control study in pa-
tients less than or equal to 60 years found that high intake of
total fat was associated with a statistically signicant increase
in prostate cancer risk [75].
There are several biological mechanisms that are thought
to be involved between saturated animal fat intake and pros-
tate cancer risk: 1) promoting prostate carcinogenesis via an-
drogen; 2) increasing levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS)
and increasing leukotrienes and prostaglandins levels from li-
pid metabolism; and 3) increasing basal metabolism, insulin
growth factor and tumor proliferation.
High-calorie intake of saturated animal fat has shown to
increase the growth of prostate cancer cells by increasing the
circulating levels of androgens [76, 77]. Furthermore, rand-
omized cross-over studies involving low-fat and high-fat diets
showed that the level of androgen is lower post-prandial as
well as in vegetarians [78]. Finally, several studies reported
that alteration of lipid levels undergoing to a low-fat diet re-
duces testosterone levels [79-81].
Excessive fat increases oxidative stress and ROS levels
that attack the cells causing peroxidation and eventually DNA
damage. A role for lipid metabolism and its metabolite have
also been observed in mice and found that dietary fat is an
important modulator of prostate cancer growth. For example,
while some studies did not nd any dierence in terms of tu-
mor growth and survival of mice placed on a Western diet,
other studies showed a delay in cancer cell growth in mice with
low-fat corn-oil diets, suggesting that the amount and type of
fat are critical [82].
Mechanistically, corn-oil may promote cancer growth via
the linoleic acid, the most abundant omega-6 fat in the oil. Ara-
chidonic acid which is a metabolite of linoleic acid gives rise
to the formation of several pro-inammatory prostaglandins
(PG), including PGE2 that promotes cell proliferation, and
5-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid that is produced by the action
of 5-lipoxygenase, which is found to be increasingly expressed
in malignant prostate cancer. Hence, a decrease in omega-6
fatty acid intake can decrease cancer growth. As opposite to
omega-6 fats pro-inammatory eect, omega-3 fats are found
benecial against cancer growth [83].
Red meat
Dietary meat intake has been associated with prostate carcino-
genesis by correlating cancer incidence and mortality with per
capita meat consumption [84]. Rohrmann et al [85] showed
that men consuming ve or more servings of processed meat
per week had a higher risk of prostate cancer when compared
with men who consume one or fewer servings per week. In Af-
rican-American men, there was no association observed with
high consumption of red meats and increased prostate risk.
However, there was a 20% increased risk for non-advanced
prostate cancer in those consuming red meat cooked at high
temperature [86]. Cooking at higher temperatures (125 - 300
°C) causes the formation of aromatic hydrocarbons and muta-
genic heterocyclic amines [87, 88]. Grilled or barbecued meat
can result in the formation of N-nitroso compounds that can
result in lipid peroxidation and DNA damage by the produc-
tion of free radicals [89, 90].
Calcium, milk and dairy products
Dairy foods have generally been associated with an elevated
prostate cancer risk [85, 91-94]. Both calcium from supplements
and dairy put male at high prostate cancer risk. Greater than
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 69
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
2,000 mg per day of calcium was associated with a greater risk
of prostate cancer. The Health Professional Follow-Up Study
examined the diet of 47,885 men and looked closely at partici-
pants’ consumption of animal food, protein and calcium [95].
After a 24-year follow-up, prostate cancer was diagnosed in
5,861 men, which was associated with high calcium intake [96].
Vegetables
Although conicting results have been generated regarding
dietary fat, a strong relationship was found between intake of
Crucifers or Brassica vegetables (broccoli, Brussels sprouts,
cauliower, cabbage, and turnips) and reduced prostate can-
cer risk. Crucifers have anticancer properties mediated by
phenyethyl isothiocyanate, sulforaphane, phytochemicals and
indole-3-carbinol [97]. Some studies in the USA on a diet rich
with broccoli have shown evidence for the protective eect
of Brassica vegetables against prostate cancer [98]. However,
some other studies revealed no anticancer capabilities of Bras-
sica vegetables [99-102].
Dietary soy and green tea
Prostate cancer incidence is signicantly lower in Asia when
compared to North America, which has prompted research
interest in the potential chemo-preventive action of soy and
green tea which are a part of the diet in Asia. Decreased risk
of prostate and several other cancers has been seen with con-
sumption of soy and green tea [103-106]. Catechins found in
green tea and isoavones in soybeans have anticarcinogenic
properties, and they inhibit dierent phases of carcinogenesis
[107, 108] and metastasis [109-111]. Additionally, green tea
polyphenols cause a reduction of IGF-1 levels [112-114].
Tomatoes and lycopene
Tomatoes seem to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. They
contain high levels of lycopene which has potent anti-oxidant
properties as well as cancer-preventive eects [115-119]. Ly-
copene also acts on the androgen receptors and reverses the
eects of dihydrotestosterone and also inhibits insulin growth
factor (IGF-I)-stimulation through Akt and GSK3β and tyros-
ine phosphorylation of GSK3 [120].
Tomato product consumption and lycopene intake were
both associated with a decreased risk of prostate cancer [121].
The Health Professional Follow-Up Study showed a decreased
risk of prostate cancer with 2 - 4 servings of tomato sauce per
week [95]. Venkateswaran and Klotz [122] demonstrated that
in the Lady transgenic mouse model, lycopene is able to re-
duce prostate cancer incidence only in association with sele-
nium and vitamin E.
On the other hand, an open phase II study of lycopene in
advanced prostate cancer could not demonstrate any clinical
benet of this agent [123]. Similar results were seen in two
other small epidemiological studies [124, 125]. Thus, the evi-
dence of a connection between tomatoes assumption and pros-
tate cancer risk requires further investigation.
Vitamin and mineral supplements
Vitamin D
An inverse relationship was observed between sunlight, or
UVB exposure, and incidence of prostate cancer [126, 127],
suggesting that vitamin D deciency might increase prostate
cancer risk development [128]. Similarly, discoveries were
made by Barnett and Beer [129] who found that people living
in “sunny” countries were at lower risk of developing second-
ary solid cancer after melanoma compared to people living in
“less sunny” countries.
The incidence of prostate cancer in African-American
men is twice that of Caucasians, suggesting that race might
play a role. There might be a role for vitamin D deciency in
this as UV radiation is blocked in darkly pigmented skin due
to high melanin levels and this mechanism inhibits the conver-
sion to vitamin D3 [130].
Biochemical evidence supports a role for vitamin D in
prostate growth [131, 132]. Cell proliferation and invasion can
be inhibited by vitamin D and its analogs, and stimulate cellular
dierentiation and apoptosis in prostate cancer cells as well as
in tumor progression in animal models [132-134]. These nd-
ings provide a strong rationale for the use of vitamin D analogs
as therapeutic agents for prostate cancer in a case that androgen
deprivation therapy has failed [135]. Early clinical trials with
1α,25(OH)2D3 revealed serious side eect such as hypercal-
cemia and hypercalciuria associated with its systemic admin-
istration [136, 137]. Screening of several thousand vitamin D
analogs identied a more potent and less calcemic compound
compared to 1α,25(OH)2D3 when was tested in nude mice to
inhibit human prostate cancer cells growth [133, 134]. Further
studies are needed to assess the use of vitamin D analogs as
a chemopreventive or therapeutic approach in prostate cancer.
Vitamin E
Vitamin E is a vitamin which is fat soluble. Vegetable oils, egg
yolks, and nuts are the important dietary sources of vitamin
E. Tocopherols present in vitamin E have both potent cellu-
lar anti-oxidant with anticancer properties [54, 138]. Studies
investigating the relationship between vitamin E and prostate
cancer risk have shown contradicting results. The ATBC trial
showed that in men who smoked supplementing daily vitamin
E was not able to reduce the incidence of prostate cancer [139].
In another large clinical trial (SELECT trial), vitamin E sup-
plementation did not show any benet in 31,000 men with in-
cident prostate cancer [140].
Selenium
Selenium is an essential micronutrient. It is found in the plants
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
70
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
like tubers, cereals and legumes and animal products like meat,
eggs, and seafood in the form of selenomethionine and seleno-
cysteine. It has been inversely associated with several cancers,
including prostate cancer.
Several studies have shown a 50-60% risk reduction of de-
veloping prostate cancer when comparing high selenium con-
sumption to low selenium consumption [141, 142]. The NPC
trial showed a 50% reduction of incidence of prostate cancer
among men that were taking selenium supplementation [143];
however, SELECT trial did not report any benecial eect of
administering selenium alone or combination of selenium with
vitamin E [140]. The dierent outcomes could result from the
utilization of two dierent forms of selenium: selenized yeast
in the NPC, whereas selenomethionine in the SELECT. These
forms dier signicantly in their biological eects, and it was
shown they have dierent mechanisms of action. Selenom-
ethionine acts on prostate cancer cells and induces cell cycle
arrest [144, 145]. It can also act by inducing apoptosis and
inhibiting angiogenesis [145, 146]. Methylseleninic acid acts
via a caspase-mediated pathway and induces apoptosis [147].
Interestingly, Chan et al [148] emphasized the role of gen-
otype with respect to the eectiveness of selenium interven-
tion. This study revealed that high selenium might be protec-
tive against an aggressive form of prostate carcinoma in men
with the AA genotype of superoxide dismutase (SOD)-2 and
increase the chances of having a worse tumor in men with a V
allele. These data unveil the potential risks and benets associ-
ated with selenium intervention in prostate cancer and may, in
part, explain the conicting results from other studies.
Folate and vitamin B12
Low folate and vitamin B12 can lead to altered methylation
and lead to cancer development as these essential vitamins
participate in DNA methylation, synthesis and repair [149]. In
vitro [150], in vivo studies [151] and genetic studies [152, 153]
on prostate cancer showed the role of folate in the develop-
ment of an aggressive form of prostate cancer. Furthermore,
elevated serum concentration of folate was associated with an
increased proliferation of prostate cancer cells in some pros-
tate samples collected from patients who underwent radical
prostatectomy [154].
However, a recent meta-analysis reported that higher
concentrations of vitamin B12 and folate have a modest 12%
increased risk of prostate cancer [155]. In people who have
prostate cancer, available data do not show an eect of con-
sumption of folate on disease progression [156] or survival
[157]. In conclusion, the association of folate and vitamin B12
with prostate cancer is unclear and requires further investiga-
tion.
Alcohol consumption
The relationship between alcohol use and several types of hu-
man cancers, including prostate cancer, has been since long
observed [158]. Heavy alcohol abuse (> 15 g ethanol/day, or
more than three drinks per day between wine, liquors or beer)
may be a possible risk factor for prostate cancer and other can-
cers [159]. However, several cohort studies have suggested a
weak correlation between alcohol intake and prostate cancer
mortality [160-163], while others did not nd any relation with
increased risk [164]. As opposite, Dennis et al reported a sig-
nicant relationship between higher alcohol intake and pros-
tate cancer risk with a relative risk (RR) ranging from 1.05
to 1.21 for one or four alcoholic drinks per day, respectively
[165, 166].
Coee
Coee consumption has been inversely associated with in-
creased prostate cancer risk. Observational studies and some
animal studies have revealed an association between long-term
coee drinking and improved glucose metabolism as well as
insulin secretion [167]. Consistently, a reduced risk of type 2
diabetes was observed in those patients who reported higher
consumption of coee.
A large prospective study demonstrated that coee intake
was weakly inversely associated with overall risk of prostate
cancer, while it signicantly lowered the risk of lethal and ad-
vanced prostate cancer when heavy coee drinkers are com-
pared to the one that drinks less coee [168]. Considering the
eects of coee consumption on insulin, antioxidants and an-
drogens [169-174], the ndings of this study are in agreement
with the strongest associations between insulin, antioxidants
and androgens with a lower incidence of prostate cancer in an
advanced disease rather than for overall disease.
Obesity, insulin and physical activity
Obesity is linked to advanced and aggressive prostate cancer
[175, 176], and high body mass index (BMI) is associated with
more aggressive disease too and a worse outcome [121, 177].
The possible explanation is that most of the time obese
men present with alteration of circulating levels of metabolic
and sex steroid hormones, which are known to be involved in
prostate development as well as oncogenesis [178].
Obesity, particularly when combined with physical in-
activity, leads to the development of insulin resistance with
reduced glucose uptake. That, in turn, leads to chronically el-
evated blood levels of insulin. Insulin is a hormone that pro-
motes growth and proliferation, thus is reasonable to add it in
the list of risk factors that promote prostate cancer initiation
and/or progression [179]. Additionally, adipose cells represent
a source of inammation as well as of macrophages in adipose,
which releases inammatory mediators [180]. Three meta-
analyses reported a modest but consistent association between
obesity and prostate cancer incidence independently of BMI
increase [181]. Data from three national surveys in the US
population reported that obesity is associated with more ag-
gressive prostate cancer and higher mortality despite its lower
incidence [182].
One of the diculties in interpreting results for obese men
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 71
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
is that they have greater circulating plasma volume and there-
fore a “hemodilution” of PSA [183]. Consequently, they will
less likely undergo a biopsy, and detect the presence of the
tumor until a more advanced stage [179, 181]. Because obe-
sity is a potential factor leading to lower detection of prostate
cancer, clinicians should consider BMI when interpreting PSA
concentration. Physicians should be aware of these factors to
avoid misdiagnosis among obese men and thus should include
BMI along with other well-established risk factors (race, digi-
tal rectal examination (DRE) and family history) in the exist-
ing prostate cancer risk calculator [182].
Exercise is supposedly one of the easiest modiable risk
factor to manage in a way to obtain many benets and relative-
ly few side eects when it comes to prostate cancer prevention.
Indeed, Keogh and McLeod found that veterans who exercised
had a signicantly lower risk of prostate cancer [184]. Prostate
cancer patients who are committed to exercise display lower
PSA levels and delay in initiating androgen deprivation thera-
py (ADT) by 2 years compared with less active peers and have
a lower risk of high-grade disease, other than having a greater
quality of life and less fatigue [184].
Cigarette smoking
Active and passive exposures to cigarette smoke are consid-
ered carcinogenic for many human cancers [185].
Association of smoking and prostate cancer risk may have
either a hormonal or genetic basis. For instance, male smokers
usually have higher levels of circulating sex hormones, which
may increase prostate cancer risk or contribute to cancer pro-
gression [186, 187]. On the other hand, functional polymor-
phisms in genes involved in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) metabolism, one of the carcinogenic chemical of the
cigarette smoke [185], may aect cancer onset and progres-
sion [188].
Most of the epidemiological studies have not found a
relationship between smoking and incidence of prostate can-
cer, while some cohort studies have documented a 2 - 3 times
higher risk in smokers of more than a pack a day compared
with nonsmokers [189, 190]. However, these studies have not
demonstrated a convincing dose-response relationship, neither
have they evaluated the inuence of possible dietary risk fac-
tors that are confusing [189]. On the other hand, most studies
examining the relationship between smoking and prostate can-
cer mortality demonstrated that smoking patients double the
risk of dying from the disease compared to nonsmokers [189-
191]. Moreover, there is a dose-response relationship between
the numbers of cigarettes per year of the smoker 10 years be-
fore diagnosis and the increased mortality risk [191].
Sex hormones
There is a large body of both historical and modern data sup-
porting a role for androgens in prostate cancer pathogenesis
and progression, also known as the “androgen hypothesis”.
In 1941, Huggins and Hodges proposed that prostate cancer
growth was driven by androgens, after observing the benets
of castration in prostate cancer patients [192]. Several in vitro
data obtained with well-dierentiated prostate cancer cell lines
showed that they respond to androgen stimulation and undergo
apoptosis upon androgen withdrawal [193, 194]. Likewise, in
vivo studies showed that androgens promote tumorigenesis
and xenograft growth in animal models, and tumor regression
is seen upon androgen deprivation [195, 196]. Clinically, ADT
remains a mainstay in prostate cancer treatment, especially in
advanced disease [197]. Even though preclinical studies sup-
ported a role for androgens in prostate cancer pathogenesis,
clinical data are still controversial [198].
Several evidences that the androgen pathway is one of
the most important signaling mechanisms involved in pros-
tate cancer come from gene linkage analysis, which reveals
a signicant association between prostate cancer risk and sin-
gle nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the genes encoding
enzymes involved in the synthesis of testosterone and dihy-
drotestosterone (DHT): hydroxysteroid (17-beta) dehydro-
genase-1, hydroxy-delta-5-steroid dehydrogenase [199-202],
5α-reductase-1 [203] and -2 [204-206], and CYP17, CYP3A4,
CYP19A1 [207]. There is also an association between prostate
cancer and the variants of androgen-responsive genes - kal-
likrein family, hK2 and PSA [208-210], and microseminopro-
tein [211-213], as well as genes involved in estrogen receptor
signaling - estrogen receptors α [214] and β [215, 216]. Further
studies are needed to understand how those gene variations in-
uence prostate cancer incidence.
Although the positive role of androgens on prostate cell
growth has been established, some studies found that in pros-
tate cancer patients, the testosterone and DHT levels were low,
suggesting that non-androgenic hormones, including estro-
gens, insulin and vitamin D may be involved in the prostate
carcinogenesis. Several studies have demonstrated that estro-
gen, including the natural hormone E2, induces multiple forms
of genetic lesions such as chromosomal alterations, DNA dam-
age, gene mutations, and microsatellite instability, strongly in-
dicating that estrogen may serve as a carcinogen in the devel-
opment of prostate cancer [217, 218].
Insulin and insulin-like growth factor
Hyperglycemia has been positively associated with cancers
such as breast, pancreatic and colorectal [219]. However, its
link with prostate carcinogenesis is conicting. Several studies
found evidence of higher risk of more aggressive or advanced
prostate cancer among men with abnormal glucose levels, with
the association being not signicant in two of the studies [220-
223].
Conversely, several other studies reported a protective ef-
fect of hyperglycemia or type II diabetes against high-grade or
more advanced prostate cancer [224-226]. For several decades,
glucose has been documented as an important source of energy
for rapid tumor cell proliferation [227]. Evidence from clinical
and genetic studies has also linked the hyperglycemic environ-
ment to carcinogenic processes such as apoptosis, oxidative
stress, DNA damage and chronic inammation, which may
drive the aggressiveness and progression of cancer [228-231].
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
72
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
Serum glucose is directly controlled by insulin, thus higher
glucose level induces insulin secretion from pancreatic β cells.
Lehrer et al showed that patients with high-risk prostate can-
cer had higher insulin levels [171]. In addition, diet-induced
hyperinsulinemia was associated with increased tumor growth
in a xenograft model [232]. Finally, the high level of circulat-
ing insulin decreases the production of insulin-like growth fac-
tor (IGF-1)-binding proteins, increases the level of IGF-1 and
increases the production of advanced glycation end products,
which promote carcinogenesis [233].
In the past years, several studies have recognized a crucial
role for the components of IGF system in prostate cancer biol-
ogy and its implication in both mitogenic and anti-apoptotic
events in prostate cancer cell lines [234]. The IGF family is
composed of two receptors (insulin receptor (INSR), IGF-1
receptor (IGF-1R) and mannose 6-phosphate receptor (M6P/
IGF-2R)), three ligands (insulin, IGF-1 and IGF-2) and six
known types of circulating IGF-binding proteins (IGFBP1-6)
that modulate the bioavailability and bioactivity of the IGFs
[235]. The IGF system regulates many important cellular pro-
cesses critical for normal prostate growth and development,
such as proliferation, dierentiation and cellular metabolism.
The relevance of the IGF system has been evaluated in several
studies. Increased serum concentration of IGF-1 was correlat-
ed to higher risk of prostate cancer [236-238].
However, preclinical studies [239-241] as well as clini-
cal studies [291, 292] showed conicting results. Therefore,
whether IGF-1 serum levels can be used as a prognostic tool
requires further investigation.
Chronic inammation and prostatitis
There is a strong link between prostate cancer and inamma-
tion, and in 1863, Rudolf Virchow was the rst to identify the
high density of leukocytes in neoplastic samples, suggesting a
positive association between inammation and cancer [242].
After that, both epidemiological and biological studies pro-
vided evidence that inammation is behind the high-grade or
aggressive prostate tumors and ultimately metastatic spread
[174, 243]. The evidence-based knowledge so far supports
the role of inammatory responses in the regulation of tumor
microenvironment through the remodeling of the extracellular
matrix (ECM) and initiation of epithelial-mesenchymal transi-
tion (EMT). Indeed, inammatory cells release growth factors
and cytokines within the tumor microenvironment to promote
angiogenesis and remodeling of the ECM, while further in-
ammatory cytokines released within the reactive stroma in-
duce EMT-mediated responses [244].
Patients with elevated PSA often present with intrapro-
static inammation detected with biopsies [245]. Recently,
an inammatory eector, pentraxin 3, has been identied as
a biomarker for predicting tumor progression due to prostatic
inammation in prostate cancer patients [246].
Chronic inammation causes proliferative inammatory
atrophy (PIA) [174], which may develop prostatic intraepithe-
lial neoplasia (PIN) a well-known precursor of prostate cancer
[247]. Consistently with the tight connection between chronic
inammation and high-grade prostate cancer [243], several
SNPs in genes involved in inammation, such as cyclooxy-
genase (COX-2) [248, 249], interleukin-1 (IL-1) [250], IL-6
[251, 252], IL-8 [250] and IL-10 [250, 253], tumor necrosis
factor-α (TNF-α) [254] and Toll-like receptor-4 (TLR4) [253,
255-257] were associated to prostate cancer risk.
Prostatitis is the inammation of the prostate gland that
is hard to diagnose because it is often asymptomatic [258].
Notably, men with symptoms of prostatitis are more likely to
be diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of the increased
prevalence of biopsy [259].
Lu et al conducted a study including cases and controls
from Minnesota and found that there was a signicant associa-
tion between prostatitis and prostate cancer (odds ratio = 1.7;
95% condence interval: 1.1 - 2.6) [260]. A rst meta-analysis
involving 11 studies between1971 and 1996 provided statisti-
cal evidence that prostatitis is a signicant risk factor in pros-
tate cancer [261]. This observation was conrmed later with
another meta-analysis that included studies between 1990 and
2012 [262].
Development of prostatitis is induced by one or a combi-
nation of factors including infections, chemical and physical
trauma, and diet. Chemical irritation because of urine reux,
or abnormal ow of urine from the bladder back through the
ureters, may cause chronic inammation in the prostate [263].
Non-sexually transmitted pathogens such as E. coli and Pro-
pionibacterium acnes can cause acute and chronic prostatitis
[264, 265]. Also, many sexually transmitted organisms, includ-
ing Neisseria gonorrhea [266] and Chlamydia trachomatis
[267], can induce chronic infection and inammation, that po-
tentially increase the risk of developing prostate cancer [268].
It appears clear that inammation is the ubiquitous factor
associated with increased risk of prostate cancer, independent-
ly of its source (either pathogens or environmental factors).
Finally, the several signaling pathways involved in the in-
ammatory process that modies prostate microenvironment
and the complexity of biological events linking inammation
to prostate cancer progression and metastatic spread provide
a broad range of promising targets for pharmaceutical treat-
ments.
Sexually transmitted disease (STD)
Several epidemiologic studies evidenced that factors related
to sexual behavior and STDs may be associated with prostate
cancer [269].
STDs represent a major public health problem world-
wide. Human papilloma virus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus
(HSV) are common STDs worldwide [270, 271], the former
being also involved in the etiology of cancer of cervix uteri
and other anatomical sites [272, 273]. The rst claims of an
etiological role of STDs in the development of prostate cancer
date back to the 1950s [274] and several mechanisms were
subsequently proposed to explain this association. For gonor-
rhea and other bacterial infections, prostate inammation and
prostate atrophy are the processes that lead to prostate cancer,
whereas for viral infections, the emphasis was placed on the
transforming properties of viruses, in particular, HSV [275].
A large population-based case-control study among Af-
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 73
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
rican-American and white men, revealed an elevated risk of
prostate cancer among men with a history of gonorrhea or
syphilis [268]. HPV, which occurs in human prostate cancer
and benign prostatic tissue [276], has been shown to transform
human prostate cells in vitro. Furthermore, seropositivity for
HPV-18 and HPV-16 has been associated with subsequent
prostate cancer in a Finnish cohort study [277, 278], but a
small case-control study of HPV-16 and HPV-11 [279], and a
large population-based case-control study [268] showed little
evidence of risk. Finally, a recently published meta-analysis
showed a weak association between HPV-16 and prostate can-
cer and no association for HPV-18 [280].
To our knowledge, only three studies have been published
so far investigating the association between Trichomonas vagi-
nalis infection, a common cause of vaginitis in women, and
prostate cancer risk. Trichomonas vaginalis can also infect
men, where it may cause asymptomatic urethritis and pros-
tatitis. In particular, its frequent asymptomatic presentation
may make it possible to persist untreated and ascend to the
prostate, where it can establish foci of chronic inammation
that may eventually lead to prostate cancer [275]. Mechanis-
tically, Trichomonas vaginalis infection causes adherence of
the protozoan to epithelial cells by decreasing the expression
of anti-apoptotic genes; it also alters the production of IL-6
and monocyte chemotaxis proteins. Whereas an association
between Trichomonas vaginalis serostatus and increased risk
of prostate cancer was found, the same connection between
seropositivity for this pathogen and progression to death from
prostate cancer was not demonstrated [281].
Medications
Despite the knowledge gained over the years about the eti-
opathogenesis of prostate cancer and the known high risk for
men to be diagnosed with the disease during their lifetime, ef-
fective chemo-preventive agent that can safely be administered
to impact the lives of men is still missing positively. The role
of testosterone and pro-inammatory pathways in the patho-
genesis of prostate cancer provided some clues about the pos-
sibility to use inhibitors of testosterone endogenous production
and inammation.
5-α reductase (5-AR) inhibitors
By far the most promising and well-studied chemo-preventive
agents are nasteride and dutasteride, which are inhibitors of
5-AR enzyme that converts testosterone into dihydrotestoster-
one, the most prevalent and potent androgen in prostate tissue,
which is responsible for embryologic development [282] and
growth of the prostate as well as promotion of prostate cancer
[283].
Finasteride and dutasteride are eectively used for the
treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia [284-286] and were
studied in clinical trials as potential chemopreventive agents.
Finasteride was studied in the prostate cancer prevention
trial (PCPT) and its use was associated with a 25% reduction
in prostate cancer incidence after 7 years [287]. Dutasteride
was studied in the REduction by DUtasteride of Prostate Can-
cer Events (REDUCE) trial, and the results showed that men
treated with dutasteride had a 23% reduction in prostate cancer
incidence after 4 years [288]. However, the results of these
two trials were largely criticized for many aspects, including
results from biopsies performed towards the end of the study
as opposed to biopsies that are done when patients have el-
evated PSA or DRE abnormalities, the capability to prevent
only low-grade cancers that will unlikely lead to death. Most
importantly, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology
Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) re-analyzed the data
from PCPT and REDUCE trials and conrmed that the results
do not strongly support any preventive eect on high-grade
prostate cancer and therefore their use in therapy as chemo-
preventive agents is not recognized yet.
The Reduction by Dutasteride of Clinical Progression
Events in Expectant Management of Prostate Cancer (RE-
DEEM) study reported that dutasteride may provide a useful
adjunct to “active surveillance” for management of prostate
cancer, because it delayed the time to prostate cancer progres-
sion, increased the percent of men with no detectable tumor
and improved cancer-related anxiety [289].
However, whether the eectiveness of 5-AR inhibitor
therapy is inuenced by certain patients’ features, like specic
clinical conditions or genetic variations, was not evaluated yet.
Therefore, identication of these subgroup of patients who
may then undergo clinical trials with 5-AR inhibitors would
address this intriguing question.
Nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin
(ASA)
There is rapidly growing evidence for the impact of NSAIDs
on cancer [290]. At the cellular level, NSAIDs target cy-
clooxygenase (COX), particularly, the isoform 2 (COX-2) is
expressed in inammatory cells of the prostate and in PIA, a
precursor of prostate cancer [174, 243]. A recent meta-analysis
that included 20 observation studies with a total of 25,768 indi-
viduals evaluated the ecacy of NSAIDs in reducing prostate
cancer risk [291]. The clinical data indicated that there was a
statistically signicant protective eect as revealed by the risk
reduction at 5% for ASA and 8% for other NSAIDs. In addi-
tion, another study revealed that they were only eective for
patients > 60 years of age [292].
Several experimental studies have documented that COX-
2 overexpression in prostate cancer can be eectively targeted
by COX-2 selective inhibitors such as celecoxib [291].
Several epidemiological and experimental evidence has
demonstrated an inverse relationship between ASA use and
prostate cancer, particularly after 5 or more years of use in
men with metastatic disease [293]. A population-based case-
control study of 1,900 men reported that the RR of prostate
cancer was signicantly reduced of 18%, 21% and 24% in men
who reported the use of ASA, or currently used ASA, or are
long-term users of ASA, respectively [294]. Surprisingly, low
dose of ASA was associated with the highest risk [294]. Fi-
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
74
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
nally, a multicenter study of over 90,000 documented a direct
protective eect in patients ingesting six ASAs daily [295].
Altogether, the results of these studies have shown that the use
of NSAID and ASA have a benecial eect on the prevention
of prostate cancer.
Statin
Statin medications are inhibitors of the synthesis of lipids, par-
ticularly cholesterol and recently they showed to reduce PSA
levels [296, 297], and the risk of advanced or aggressive pros-
tate cancer [298]. They are also associated with improved out-
comes after radiation therapy [299] and radical prostatectomy
[300], although data for the latter are conicting [301].
The use of statins as a preventive agent may oer the ad-
vantage to reduce cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiac
disease other than being safe. Statins eect as a secondary pre-
ventive agent was recently tested in two studies. One trial en-
rolled patients and randomly assigned them to simvastatin or
placebo treatment before radical prostatectomy and examined
changes in benign and malignant tissue in the prostate speci-
men [302]. From this study, no signicative benecial action
of simvastatin was observed and its use was associated to seri-
ous adverse events (+55% vs. 18.75% of placebo group). The
second trial is a phase II study evaluating the eect of atorvas-
tatin and celecoxib on the levels of prostate cancer biomarkers,
including PSA, in those patients with rising PSA levels after
denitive local therapy [303].
In conclusion, more clinical evidence is called to prove the
eective advantage of using statins for prostate cancer preven-
tion.
Environmental carcinogens
The slow process of prostate carcinogenesis is also inuenced
by exposure to certain environmental factors that increase the
risk of developing cancer. These include insecticides, herbi-
cides and other organic compounds.
Agent orange (AO)
Herbicides are active chemical compounds that are used to
ght plant pests. Agent orange (AO) is a mixture of two her-
bicides that were used as a defoliant between 1962 and 1971
in the Vietnam War and was contaminated with the toxin
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), a putative car-
cinogen. Dioxins remain an area of important interest as these
environmental toxins continue to be produced through chemi-
cal processing and municipal waste incineration. These chemi-
cals can then enter the food chain through soil contamination
[304].
In 1998, the National Academy of Science of the US rec-
ognized a positive association between herbicide exposure
and many human cancers. In a review published in 2008, the
authors found twice as many cases of prostate cancer among
the exposed veterans of the Vietnam War compared with no-
exposed veterans [305]. They presented with earlier diagnostic
ages, high-grade tumor, independently of other modiable risk
factors. It suggests that AO is the most predictive factor not
only of developing prostate cancer but also of a higher histo-
logical grade and a greater probability of metastatic disease
at diagnosis. These data were later conrmed by the study of
Ansbaugh et al that demonstrated a high correlation between
AO exposure and risk of high-grade prostate cancer among Vi-
etnam War veterans [304].
Chlordecone
Chlordecone (also known as Kepone) is an organochlorine
insecticide with well-dened estrogenic properties [306, 307]
extensively used for decades in the French West Indies, to con-
trol the banana root borer. It is a carcinogenic agent with a
long biologic half-life, and among its long-term eects, cancer
is not excluded. Indeed, it was shown that chlordecone causes
hepatic tumors in laboratory mice and rats [308] and it has
been associated with increased risk of prostate cancer too.
The prostate cancer risk associated with chlordecone ex-
posure was higher in those men with a family history of pros-
tate cancer, and similar ndings were reported for pesticide
exposure in the Agricultural Health Study [309-312]. There
are two possible explanation: 1) Study subjects and their
rst-degree relatives may have similar patterns of exposure,
which consequently lead to a statistical interaction between
chlordecone exposure and family history of prostate cancer; 2)
Genetic variations, such as inheritance of polymorphism in a
metabolic enzyme that alters the balance between chlordecone
bioactivation and detoxication in the body. In line with the
latter hypothesis, previous studies have shown dierences in
the inter-individual liver activity of chlordecone reductase be-
tween White and Japanese men [313, 314].
Bisphenol A (BPA)
Another harmful compound associated with a high risk of
prostate cancer is BPA.
BPA has been used to harden plastic since the 1950s in the
manufacture of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins that ap-
pear in thousands of consumer products since then [315]. BPA
is also used as a cross-linking compound in many food prod-
uct containers [316]. BPA leaching from these containers may
contaminate food and beverage, which constitutes the main
source of exposure of humans via a route of ingestion [317].
Approximately 90% of BPA exposure in humans is from
the intake of BPA contaminated food and beverage during pro-
cessing and storage [318]. In addition to ingestion, intake of
BPA from the routes of inhalation or absorption via direct con-
tact cannot be ignored [317, 319].
The rst evidence on the direct link between BPA expo-
sure and human prostate cancer was reported in 2014 by two
US research teams based on in vitro and in vivo experimental
studies [320, 321]. Abnormalities of centrosome (a hallmark of
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 75
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
malignant transformation) induced by a low level of BPA and
its analogs were underlined as the potential mechanism in pro-
moting the formation of prostate cancer [320, 322]. Tse et al
published epidemiological evidence that cumulative exposure
to BPA was associated with an excess risk of prostate cancer in
the Chinese population [323]. The authors found a positive as-
sociation of prostate cancer with intake of deep-fried food and
pickled vegetable that were independent of other risk factors
[324-326]. Deep fried foods (e.g. meats and potato) at high-
heat cooking process generate a high amount of heterocyclic
amines and other mutagens and carcinogens (e.g. acrylamide
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) that may be carcino-
genic to prostate cells [325].
Vasectomy
Vasectomy is the most frequent male contraception in the
USA, with approximately 500,000 procedures performed an-
nually. Its association with prostate cancer risk was explored in
case-control and cohort studies with conicting results. Some
authors found an increased risk of up to 70% with a vasectomy,
while others found a lesser risk [189, 327, 328]. However, stud-
ies showing small RRs are not convincing as they have some
potential bias and methodological shortcoming [329]. On the
other hand, in a very well-designed study in New Zealand, the
country with the highest global prevalence of vasectomy, the
authors found no relationship with these subgroups [327].
Biological studies that show underlying mechanism/s that
might explain an association between vasectomy and prostate
cancer are still lacking.
Ejaculatory frequency
Over the years, there has been growing evidence of a link be-
tween ejaculation and lower chances of prostate cancer.
In 2004, the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study
(HPFS) cohort reported a signicant positive relation between
monthly ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer risk based
on 8 years of follow-up [330].
A major study of 2016 that involved almost 32,000 men
revealed that men who ejaculated ≥ 21 times per month (EPM)
had about a 20% lower chance of low-grade prostate cancer,
compared with those who had ≤ 4 - 7 EPM based on 18 years
follow-up [331]. A year later, a case-control study sampling
a smaller group of men (2,141) from age 20 to 50 found only
weak evidence of an inverse association between ejaculatory
frequency in the fourth decade of life and advanced prostate
cancer, which was not signicantly modied by a number of
new sexual partners [332]. In the same study, no relationship
was found for ejaculatory frequency in the third and fth dec-
ades of life.
The ejaculatory frequency may inuence prostate cancer
development through several mechanisms. One biological
mechanism is described as “prostate stagnation hypothesis”,
which involves the prostatic accumulation of potentially car-
cinogenic secretions that may create a favorable environment
for prostate cancer development [330, 333]. More frequent
ejaculation may alter the function of peripheral-zone epithelial
cells, which start to oxidate citrate rather than secrete it. This
metabolic switch is known to occur early in prostate tumori-
genesis [334]. Finally, the higher ejaculatory frequency may
reduce the development of prostatic intraluminal crystalloids,
which have been associated with a higher risk of prostate can-
cer [335, 336]. More frequent ejaculation is thought to help
to lower psychological tension and favors central sympathetic
nervous system suppression, which could dampen the stimula-
tion of prostate epithelial cell division [337].
Diagnostic radiologic procedure and ultraviolet light expo-
sure
The radiation generated from X-ray, CT and nuclear imag-
ing is ionizing radiation that penetrates the tissue to reveal
the body’s internal organs. However, ionizing radiation can
damage DNA, and although cells repair most of the damage,
sometimes small area may remain altered (“misrepair” area)
consequently leading to DNA mutations that may contribute to
cancer development years down the road. The rst study inves-
tigating the connection between low-dose ionization radiation
from diagnostic X-ray procedures and risk for prostate cancer
reported that exposure to a hip/pelvic X-ray signicantly in-
creased prostate cancer risk independently of other known risk
factors such as family history of cancer [338]. However, unless
men were exposed to high doses of radiation during cancer
treatment in youth, any increase in the risk for cancer due to
medical radiation appears to be slight. Considering that the in-
crease in high-dose imaging has occurred only since 1980 and
the eects of radiation damage typically take many years to
appear, this may explain the weak association between ioniz-
ing radiation and prostate cancer risk observed thus far.
Finally, exposure to solar UV radiation is inversely associ-
ated with both the incidence and mortality of prostate cancer
[128]. The biological explanation of this fact is based on the syn-
thesis and physiological actions of vitamin D [126, 127, 129].
Prevention
An eective prevention strategy for prostate cancer would pro-
vide many benets to men with a substantial positive impact
on public health, including the potential to reduce the high
lifetime risks of prostate cancer development, the morbidities
associated with cancer treatment, especially in those newly
diagnosed patients with biological indolent prostate cancer
that still undergo curative-intent therapy rather than active sur-
veillance and nally the inability to eradicate life-threatening
metastatic prostate cancer.
Epidemiological data indicate a dominant role for lifestyle
factors in prostate cancer development. Considering that pros-
tatic carcinogenesis takes many decades, lifestyle modication
may represent a feasible and cost-eective approach to retard
prostate cancer development.
Although the data about the role of specic lifestyle fac-
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
76
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
tors fostering prostate cancer development have often been
conicting, most of the studies clearly evidence a diet rich in
fruits, vegetables and anti-oxidant micronutrients, and poor in
saturated fats and “well-done” red meats, may signicantly re-
duce risks of prostate cancer development, as well as the risk
of diseases typical of the industrialized world.
The better understanding of prostate cancer etiology rep-
resents the key to open to new opportunities for prostate can-
cer prevention. Several nutrients and pharmaceutical agents
have been studied as potential chemoprevention candidates.
Vitamin E and selenium showed promise [138, 141]. How-
ever, these were denitively evaluated in the SELECT, and
neither agent reduced prostate cancer risk [140]. Vitamin D
analogs, NSAIDs and toremifene (a selective estrogen receptor
modulator) have all been evaluated in laboratory and/or ob-
servational studies [134, 339, 340]. However, vitamin D has
not been formally tested in primary prevention trials, while the
NSAID rofecoxib, a COX-2 selective inhibitor, could not be
successfully tested because the trial was closed when the drug
was withdrawn from the market after an interim safety analysis
indicated that the drug was associated with increased risk of
cardiovascular events within the Adenomatous Polyp Preven-
tion on Vioxx (APPROVe) trial [341]. Toremifene showed a
modest risk reduction in a phase II trial [342], but no signi-
cant risk reduction in a phase III trial [343].
Besides identication of molecular targets, other prin-
ciples of prevention include personalized risk assessment,
identication of sensitive and accurate surrogate molecular
markers to serve as intermediate endpoints and identication
of biomarkers that predict sensitivity to preventive agents. Fur-
thermore, it should also emphasize personalized molecularly
targeted approaches for the selection and treatment of patients
with prostate cancer that result in a positive outcome and ef-
fective therapy.
Future Directions
The high global incidence of prostate cancer makes a call to
strengthen the current tools available to identify trends and
prevention strategies to reduce the public health impact of this
disease in the future.
First, prostate cancer registries play an important role in
the advancement of prostate cancer research and care. Indeed,
they represent an essential source to collect information about
incidence and mortality, disease characteristics at presentation,
trends and risk factors, quality of care, disparities in access
to treatment, long-term data related to oncologic and health-
related quality of life outcomes and costs associated with man-
agement of the disease. Therefore, improvements in the quality
of data, collection of tissue samples and the availability of data
feedback to health care providers will increase the relevance of
epidemiological studies especially when it comes to the evalu-
ation of data collected from undeveloped countries.
Chemo-preventive strategies have been explored in sev-
eral preclinical and small clinical studies to mitigate the global
burden of prostate cancer and the overtreatment of indolent
disease that has been associated with the broad utilization of
PSA testing. However, a challenge for the future will be the
translation of preclinical data into clinically useful strategies,
which will require very large trials with thousands of partici-
pants, like those of the SELECT studies [180].
Furthermore, studies that can ll the knowledge gap re-
garding the higher prostate cancer incidence and mortality
in African-American men compared to White men are also
needed. Recently, the “Research on Prostate Cancer in Men
of African Ancestry: Dening the Roles of Genetics, Tumor
Markers, and Social Stress” (RESPOND) study which was
funded by the National Institute of Health and Prostate Cancer
Foundation was carried out. The primary goals of this study
were to understand how social and genetic variants contrib-
ute to the development of aggressive prostate cancer, and how
those factors interact with each other. Hopefully, the increased
knowledge gained within this study will provide new insights
to develop positive screening and chemo-preventive strategies.
Finally, classical prognostic factors such as PSA testing,
Gleason score and clinical cancer staging have demonstrated
not to be always sucient to lead to a clinically relevant can-
cer diagnosis. Considering that various genomic aberrations
contribute to the variety in prostate cancer risk and outcome as
well as drug responses and progression between patients, the
identication of novel genetic biomarkers is highly required.
This will undoubtedly improve cancer diagnosis, subtype
identication and risk stratication. Most importantly, as we
are moving toward personalized medicine, oncogenetic test-
ing and biomarker proling will facilitate the optimal thera-
peutic intervention based on the alterations observed in single
patients [344, 345]. Clinical trials have already shown high
success rate for drugs that are developed using biomarkers in
patients with non-small cell lung cancer, therefore it is desir-
able that same results may also be achieved for the treatment
of prostate cancer.
Conclusion
Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in men, rank-
ing second after lung cancer [1]. The identication of biomark-
ers such as PSA that are positively correlated with the diag-
nosis of prostate cancer revolutionized the epidemiology of
this disease. Indeed, since the introduction of PSA testing and
subsequent biopsies, USA registered double of prostate cancer
incidence starting from the late 1980s [23]. A similar increase
was also reported in other countries, particularly in the western
type. Unfortunately, although it turned eective in reducing
prostate cancer-specic mortality, the relevant overdiagnosis
and the severe side eects of treatments advised against the
introduction of PSA as a screening program.
Perhaps, the most dramatic statistic when it comes to pros-
tate cancer incidence and mortality is the way that prevalence
varies among dierent racial groups, with the highest preva-
lence in African-American men [14]. Both biologic and so-
cioeconomic factors may explain this discrepancy, but which
genes may be involved and how they may interact with the en-
vironment is still unknown and is a subject of studies. In 2018,
a study called “Research on Prostate Cancer in Men of Afri-
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 77
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
can Ancestry: Dening the Roles of Genetics, Tumor Markers,
and Social Stress” (RESPOND) was nanced by the National
Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Minority Health and
Health Disparities and the Prostate Cancer Foundation with
the purpose of addressing those questions.
In recent years, the development of novel genetic tech-
nologies allowed for the rst time a comprehensive analysis
of genetic and epigenetic changes in human prostate cancer.
This information, combined with targeted functional studies,
helped to identify critical signaling pathways that are casually
involved in prostate cancer initiation and progression. This in-
formation will provide an opportunity for the development of
novel targeted approaches for therapeutic interventions. More
research to identify genes associated with an increased risk of
prostate cancer is ongoing, and researchers are collecting more
insights about the impact that specic genetic changes have on
prostate cancer development.
Although there are no studies that can suciently demon-
strate the direct correlation between diet and nutrition with risk
or prevention of prostate cancer development, many preclini-
cal studies that look at links between certain eating behaviors
and cancer suggest there may be a connection. Moreover, these
studies allowed identifying the underlying biological mecha-
nisms that may explain this link. Therefore, well-designed tri-
als that replicate preclinical ndings are warranted to validate
the impact of dietary agents in prostate cancer. Finally, future
chemoprevention studies should include not only early inter-
vention but should also emphasize personalized molecularly
targeted approaches for the selection and treatment of patients
with prostate cancer that result in a positive outcome and ef-
fective therapy.
Acknowledgments
None.
Conict of Interest
None of the authors have conict of interest.
Ethics Approval
No ethics approval needed.
Funding
No funding to disclose.
Author Contributions
Conception and design: PR. Analysis and interpretation, draft-
ing and critical revision of the article: PR. Final approval of
the article: PR.
References
1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA,
Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN es-
timates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 can-
cers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-
424.
2. Ferlay J EM, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Pineros M,
Znaor A, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer observa-
tory: cancer today. Lyon, France: International Agency
for Research on Cancer. Available from: https://gco.iarc.
fr/today, Accessed 02 February 2019. [Internet].
3. Panigrahi GK, Praharaj PP, Kittaka H, Mridha AR, Black
OM, Singh R, Mercer R, et al. Exosome proteomic analy-
ses identify inammatory phenotype and novel biomark-
ers in African American prostate cancer patients. Cancer
Med. 2019.
4. Ferlay J EM, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Pineros M,
Znaor A, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer observato-
ry: cancer tomorrow. Lyon, France: International Agency
for Research on Cancer. Available from: https://gco.iarc.
fr/tomorrow, Accessed 02 February 2019. [Internet].
5. Chan JM, Gann PH, Giovannucci EL. Role of diet in
prostate cancer development and progression. J Clin On-
col. 2005;23(32):8152-8160.
6. Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ,
Ascherio A, Chute CG, Willett WC. A prospective study
of dietary fat and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer
Inst. 1993;85(19):1571-1579.
7. Kolonel LN, Nomura AM, Cooney RV. Dietary fat
and prostate cancer: current status. J Natl Cancer Inst.
1999;91(5):414-428.
8. Platz EA, Leitzmann MF, Michaud DS, Willett WC, Gio-
vannucci E. Interrelation of energy intake, body size, and
physical activity with prostate cancer in a large prospec-
tive cohort study. Cancer Res. 2003;63(23):8542-8548.
9. Willis MS, Wians FH. The role of nutrition in prevent-
ing prostate cancer: a review of the proposed mechanism
of action of various dietary substances. Clin Chim Acta.
2003;330(1-2):57-83.
10. Perdana NR, Mochtar CA, Umbas R, Hamid AR. The
Risk Factors of Prostate Cancer and Its Prevention: A Lit-
erature Review. Acta Med Indones. 2016;48(3):228-238.
11. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2013 [Internet].
National Cancer Institue, Bethesda, MD. 2016. Available
from: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/. Accessed
04 February 2019. [Internet]. SEER, 2018. Available
from: https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/application.php.
12. Quinn M, Babb P. Patterns and trends in prostate cancer
incidence, survival, prevalence and mortality. Part I: in-
ternational comparisons. BJU Int. 2002;90(2):162-173.
13. Epidemiology of prostate cancer in Europe [Internet].
European Commission, 2015. Available from: https://
ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/epidemiology-prostate-
cancer-europe.
14. Cancer Stat Facts: Prostate Cancer [Internet]. SEER,
2018. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/
html/prost.html.
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
78
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
15. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Wever E,
Gulati R, Feuer E, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in
prostate-specic antigen screening: importance of meth-
ods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(6):374-
383.
16. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, di Tommaso D, Boer R,
Gann PH, Feuer EJ. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-spe-
cic antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer
incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(13):981-
990.
17. Kheirandish P, Chinegwundoh F. Ethnic dierences in
prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(4):481-485.
18. Chu LW, Ritchey J, Devesa SS, Quraishi SM, Zhang
H, Hsing AW. Prostate cancer incidence rates in Africa.
Prostate Cancer. 2011;2011:947870.
19. Force USPST, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK,
Bibbins-Domingo K, Caughey AB, Davidson KW, et
al. Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive ser-
vices task force recommendation statement. JAMA.
2018;319(18):1901-1913.
20. Negoita S, Feuer EJ, Mariotto A, Cronin KA, Petkov VI,
Hussey SK, Benard V, et al. Annual Report to the Na-
tion on the Status of Cancer, part II: Recent changes in
prostate cancer trends and disease characteristics. Cancer.
2018;124(13):2801-2814.
21. Oliver JS. Attitudes and beliefs about prostate cancer and
screening among rural African American men. J Cult Di-
vers. 2007;14(2):74-80.
22. Taitt HE. Global Trends and Prostate Cancer: A review of
incidence, detection, and mortality as inuenced by race,
ethnicity, and geographic location. Am J Mens Health.
2018;12(6):1807-1823.
23. Jemal A, Fedewa SA, Ma J, Siegel R, Lin CC, Brawley O,
Ward EM. Prostate cancer incidence and PSA testing pat-
terns in relation to USPSTF screening recommendations.
JAMA. 2015;314(19):2054-2061.
24. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch
MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG
Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Di-
agnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur
Urol. 2017;71(4):618-629.
25. Baade PD, Youlden DR, Krnjacki LJ. International epide-
miology of prostate cancer: geographical distribution and
secular trends. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2009;53(2):171-184.
26. Collin SM, Martin RM, Metcalfe C, Gunnell D, Albertsen
PC, Neal D, Hamdy F, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality in
the USA and UK in 1975-2004: an ecological study. Lan-
cet Oncol. 2008;9(5):445-452.
27. Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Szabo A, Falcon S,
Wegelin J, DiTommaso D, et al. Quantifying the role of
PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality de-
cline. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(2):175-181.
28. Lim LS, Sherin K, Committee APP. Screening for pros-
tate cancer in U.S. men ACPM position statement on pre-
ventive practice. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(2):164-170.
29. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, 3rd, Buys SS,
Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, et al. Mortality re-
sults from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.
N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310-1319.
30. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL,
Ciatto S, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, et al. Screening and
prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European
study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320-1328.
31. De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili
P, Pierannunzio D, Trama A, et al. Cancer survival in
Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EU-
ROCARE—5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol.
2014;15(1):23-34.
32. Prostate Cancer Survival Rates [Internet]. 2018. Avail-
able from: https://www.pcf.org/about-prostate-cancer/
what-is-prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-survival-rates/.
33. Bostwick DG, Burke HB, Djakiew D, Euling S, Ho SM,
Landolph J, Morrison H, et al. Human prostate cancer
risk factors. Cancer. 2004;101(10 Suppl):2371-2490.
34. Dagnelie PC, Schuurman AG, Goldbohm RA, Van den
Brandt PA. Diet, anthropometric measures and prostate
cancer risk: a review of prospective cohort and interven-
tion studies. BJU Int. 2004;93(8):1139-1150.
35. Pienta KJ, Esper PS. Risk factors for prostate cancer. Ann
Intern Med. 1993;118(10):793-803.
36. Kolonel LN, Altshuler D, Henderson BE. The multiethnic
cohort study: exploring genes, lifestyle and cancer risk.
Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(7):519-527.
37. Kolonel LN. Fat, meat, and prostate cancer. Epidemiol
Rev. 2001;23(1):72-81.
38. Wolk A. Diet, lifestyle and risk of prostate cancer. Acta
Oncol. 2005;44(3):277-281.
39. Wilson KM, Giovannucci EL, Mucci LA. Lifestyle and
dietary factors in the prevention of lethal prostate cancer.
Asian J Androl. 2012;14(3):365-374.
40. Markozannes G, Tzoulaki I, Karli D, Evangelou E, Ntza-
ni E, Gunter MJ, Norat T, et al. Diet, body size, physical
activity and risk of prostate cancer: An umbrella review
of the evidence. Eur J Cancer. 2016;69:61-69.
41. Scardino PT. Early detection of prostate cancer. Urol Clin
North Am. 1989;16(4):635-655.
42. Wu I, Modlin CS. Disparities in prostate cancer in Afri-
can American men: what primary care physicians can do.
Cleve Clin J Med. 2012;79(5):313-320.
43. Hosain GM, Sanderson M, Du XL, Chan W, Strom SS.
Racial/ethnic dierences in predictors of PSA screen-
ing in a tri-ethnic population. Cent Eur J Public Health.
2011;19(1):30-34.
44. Kyle C, Ewing T, Wu XC, Mercante D, Lifsey D, Meunier
C, Jeerson L, et al. Statewide analysis of serum prostate
specic antigen levels in Louisiana men without prostate
cancer. J La State Med Soc. 2004;156(6):319-323.
45. Vijayakumar S, Winter K, Sause W, Gallagher MJ, Michal-
ski J, Roach M, Porter A, et al. Prostate-specic antigen
levels are higher in African-American than in white pa-
tients in a multicenter registration study: results of RTOG
94-12. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;40(1):17-25.
46. Okobia MN, Zmuda JM, Ferrell RE, Patrick AL, Bun-
ker CH. Chromosome 8q24 variants are associated with
prostate cancer risk in a high risk population of African
ancestry. Prostate. 2011;71(10):1054-1063.
47. Haiman CA, Chen GK, Blot WJ, Strom SS, Berndt SI,
Kittles RA, Rybicki BA, et al. Characterizing genetic risk
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 79
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
at known prostate cancer susceptibility loci in African
Americans. PLoS Genet. 2011;7(5):e1001387.
48. Freedman ML, Haiman CA, Patterson N, McDonald GJ,
Tandon A, Waliszewska A, Penney K, et al. Admixture
mapping identies 8q24 as a prostate cancer risk locus
in African-American men. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2006;103(38):14068-14073.
49. Chang BL, Isaacs SD, Wiley KE, Gillanders EM, Zheng
SL, Meyers DA, Walsh PC, et al. Genome-wide screen
for prostate cancer susceptibility genes in men with clini-
cally signicant disease. Prostate. 2005;64(4):356-361.
50. Robbins CM, Hooker S, Kittles RA, Carpten JD. EphB2
SNPs and sporadic prostate cancer risk in African Ameri-
can men. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19494.
51. Hatcher D, Daniels G, Osman I, Lee P. Molecular
mechanisms involving prostate cancer racial disparity.
Am J Transl Res. 2009;1(3):235-248.
52. Gallagher RP, Fleshner N. Prostate cancer: 3. Individual
risk factors. CMAJ. 1998;159(7):807-813.
53. Carroll PR, Grossfeld GD, editors. Prostate cancer. Ham-
ilton, London: Decker Inc.; 2002.
54. Ferris-i-Tortajada J, Garcia-i-Castell J, Berbel-Tornero O,
Ortega-Garcia JA. [Constitutional risk factors in prostate
cancer]. Actas Urol Esp. 2011;35(5):282-288.
55. Sridhar G, Masho SW, Adera T, Ramakrishnan V, Roberts
JD. Association between family history of prostate can-
cer. JMH. 2010;7:45-54.
56. Chen H, Grin AR, Wu YQ, Tomsho LP, Zuhlke KA,
Lange EM, Gruber SB, et al. RNASEL mutations in he-
reditary prostate cancer. J Med Genet. 2003;40(3):e21.
57. Malathi K, Dong B, Gale M, Jr., Silverman RH. Small
self-RNA generated by RNase L amplies antiviral innate
immunity. Nature. 2007;448(7155):816-819.
58. Zhou A, Paranjape J, Brown TL, Nie H, Naik S, Dong
B, Chang A, et al. Interferon action and apoptosis are de-
fective in mice devoid of 2',5'-oligoadenylate-dependent
RNase L. EMBO J. 1997;16(21):6355-6363.
59. Urisman A, Molinaro RJ, Fischer N, Plummer SJ, Casey
G, Klein EA, Malathi K, et al. Identication of a novel
Gammaretrovirus in prostate tumors of patients ho-
mozygous for R462Q RNASEL variant. PLoS Pathog.
2006;2(3):e25.
60. Eeles RA, Kote-Jarai Z, Giles GG, Olama AA, Guy M,
Jugurnauth SK, Mulholland S, et al. Multiple newly iden-
tied loci associated with prostate cancer susceptibility.
Nat Genet. 2008;40(3):316-321.
61. Schlaberg R, Choe DJ, Brown KR, Thaker HM, Singh IR.
XMRV is present in malignant prostatic epithelium and
is associated with prostate cancer, especially high-grade
tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(38):16351-
16356.
62. Camp NJ, Tavtigian SV. Meta-analysis of associations of
the Ser217Leu and Ala541Thr variants in ELAC2 (HPC2)
and prostate cancer. Am J Hum Genet. 2002;71(6):1475-
1478.
63. Noda D, Itoh S, Watanabe Y, Inamitsu M, Dennler S,
Itoh F, Koike S, et al. ELAC2, a putative prostate can-
cer susceptibility gene product, potentiates TGF-beta/
Smad-induced growth arrest of prostate cells. Oncogene.
2006;25(41):5591-5600.
64. Xu J, Zheng SL, Komiya A, Mychaleckyj JC, Isaacs
SD, Hu JJ, Sterling D, et al. Germline mutations and se-
quence variants of the macrophage scavenger receptor 1
gene are associated with prostate cancer risk. Nat Genet.
2002;32(2):321-325.
65. Maier C, Vesovic Z, Bachmann N, Herkommer K, Braun
AK, Surowy HM, Assum G, et al. Germline mutations
of the MSR1 gene in prostate cancer families from Ger-
many. Hum Mutat. 2006;27(1):98-102.
66. Wang L, McDonnell SK, Cunningham JM, Hebbring S,
Jacobsen SJ, Cerhan JR, Slager SL, et al. No association
of germline alteration of MSR1 with prostate cancer risk.
Nat Genet. 2003;35(2):128-129.
67. Erkko H, Xia B, Nikkila J, Schleutker J, Syrjakoski K,
Mannermaa A, Kallioniemi A, et al. A recurrent mu-
tation in PALB2 in Finnish cancer families. Nature.
2007;446(7133):316-319.
68. Gallagher DJ, Gaudet MM, Pal P, Kirchho T, Balistreri
L, Vora K, Bhatia J, et al. Germline BRCA mutations de-
note a clinicopathologic subset of prostate cancer. Clin
Cancer Res. 2010;16(7):2115-2121.
69. Xu J, Meyers D, Freije D, Isaacs S, Wiley K, Nusskern
D, Ewing C, et al. Evidence for a prostate cancer sus-
ceptibility locus on the X chromosome. Nat Genet.
1998;20(2):175-179.
70. Bergthorsson JT, Johannesdottir G, Arason A, Benedikts-
dottir KR, Agnarsson BA, Bailey-Wilson JE, Gillanders
E, et al. Analysis of HPC1, HPCX, and PCaP in Icelandic
hereditary prostate cancer. Hum Genet. 2000;107(4):372-
375.
71. Stanford JL, FitzGerald LM, McDonnell SK, Carlson EE,
McIntosh LM, Deutsch K, Hood L, et al. Dense genome-
wide SNP linkage scan in 301 hereditary prostate cancer
families identies multiple regions with suggestive evi-
dence for linkage. Hum Mol Genet. 2009;18(10):1839-
1848.
72. Hsing AW, Tsao L, Devesa SS. International trends
and patterns of prostate cancer incidence and mortality.
Int J Cancer. 2000;85(1):60-67.
73. Howell MA. Factor analysis of international cancer mor-
tality data and per capita food consumption. Br J Cancer.
1974;29(4):328-336.
74. Armstrong B, Doll R. Environmental factors and can-
cer incidence and mortality in dierent countries, with
special reference to dietary practices. Int J Cancer.
1975;15(4):617-631.
75. Aronson WJ, Barnard RJ, Freedland SJ, Henning S,
Elasho D, Jardack PM, Cohen P, et al. Growth inhibi-
tory eect of low fat diet on prostate cancer cells: results
of a prospective, randomized dietary intervention trial in
men with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2010;183(1):345-350.
76. Venkateswaran V, Klotz LH. Diet and prostate cancer:
mechanisms of action and implications for chemopreven-
tion. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7(8):442-453.
77. Pauwels EK. The protective eect of the Mediterranean
diet: focus on cancer and cardiovascular risk. Med Princ
Pract. 2011;20(2):103-111.
78. Fleshner N, Zlotta AR. Prostate cancer prevention: past,
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
80
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
present, and future. Cancer. 2007;110(9):1889-1899.
79. Hamalainen E, Adlercreutz H, Puska P, Pietinen P. Diet
and serum sex hormones in healthy men. J Steroid Bio-
chem. 1984;20(1):459-464.
80. Hamalainen EK, Adlercreutz H, Puska P, Pietinen P. De-
crease of serum total and free testosterone during a low-
fat high-bre diet. J Steroid Biochem. 1983;18(3):369-
370.
81. Rosenthal MB, Barnard RJ, Rose DP, Inkeles S, Hall J,
Pritikin N. Eects of a high-complex-carbohydrate, low-
fat, low-cholesterol diet on levels of serum lipids and es-
tradiol. Am J Med. 1985;78(1):23-27.
82. Lloyd JC, Masko EM, Wu C, Keenan MM, Pilla DM,
Aronson WJ, Chi JT, et al. Fish oil slows prostate can-
cer xenograft growth relative to other dietary fats and
is associated with decreased mitochondrial and insulin
pathway gene expression. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis.
2013;16(4):285-291.
83. Berquin IM, Min Y, Wu R, Wu J, Perry D, Cline JM,
Thomas MJ, et al. Modulation of prostate cancer genetic
risk by omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. J Clin Invest.
2007;117(7):1866-1875.
84. Gibson TM, Ferrucci LM, Tangrea JA, Schatzkin A. Epi-
demiological and clinical studies of nutrition. Semin On-
col. 2010;37(3):282-296.
85. Rohrmann S, Platz EA, Kavanaugh CJ, Thuita L, Ho-
man SC, Helzlsouer KJ. Meat and dairy consumption and
subsequent risk of prostate cancer in a US cohort study.
Cancer Causes Control. 2007;18(1):41-50.
86. Major JM, Cross AJ, Watters JL, Hollenbeck AR, Graubard
BI, Sinha R. Patterns of meat intake and risk of prostate
cancer among African-Americans in a large prospective
study. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22(12):1691-1698.
87. Sinha R, Knize MG, Salmon CP, Brown ED, Rhodes D,
Felton JS, Levander OA, et al. Heterocyclic amine con-
tent of pork products cooked by dierent methods and
to varying degrees of doneness. Food Chem Toxicol.
1998;36(4):289-297.
88. Kazerouni N, Sinha R, Hsu CH, Greenberg A, Rothman
N. Analysis of 200 food items for benzo[a]pyrene and
estimation of its intake in an epidemiologic study. Food
Chem Toxicol. 2001;39(5):423-436.
89. Sinha R, Park Y, Graubard BI, Leitzmann MF, Hollen-
beck A, Schatzkin A, Cross AJ. Meat and meat-related
compounds and risk of prostate cancer in a large prospec-
tive cohort study in the United States. Am J Epidemiol.
2009;170(9):1165-1177.
90. Tappel A. Heme of consumed red meat can act as a cata-
lyst of oxidative damage and could initiate colon, breast
and prostate cancers, heart disease and other diseases.
Med Hypotheses. 2007;68(3):562-564.
91. Gao X, LaValley MP, Tucker KL. Prospective studies of
dairy product and calcium intakes and prostate cancer risk:
a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(23):1768-
1777.
92. Allen NE, Key TJ, Appleby PN, Travis RC, Roddam AW,
Tjonneland A, Johnsen NF, et al. Animal foods, protein,
calcium and prostate cancer risk: the European Prospec-
tive Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Br J Cancer.
2008;98(9):1574-1581.
93. Park Y, Mitrou PN, Kipnis V, Hollenbeck A, Schatzkin A,
Leitzmann MF. Calcium, dairy foods, and risk of incident
and fatal prostate cancer: the NIH-AARP Diet and Health
Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(11):1270-1279.
94. Koh KA, Sesso HD, Paenbarger RS, Jr., Lee IM. Dairy
products, calcium and prostate cancer risk. Br J Cancer.
2006;95(11):1582-1585.
95. Gupta S. Prostate cancer chemoprevention: current
status and future prospects. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol.
2007;224(3):369-376.
96. Wilson KM, Shui IM, Mucci LA, Giovannucci E. Calci-
um and phosphorus intake and prostate cancer risk: a 24-y
follow-up study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(1):173-183.
97. Singh SV, Srivastava SK, Choi S, Lew KL, Antosiewicz
J, Xiao D, Zeng Y, et al. Sulforaphane-induced cell death
in human prostate cancer cells is initiated by reactive oxy-
gen species. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(20):19911-19924.
98. Joseph MA, Moysich KB, Freudenheim JL, Shields PG,
Bowman ED, Zhang Y, Marshall JR, et al. Cruciferous
vegetables, genetic polymorphisms in glutathione S-
transferases M1 and T1, and prostate cancer risk. Nutr
Cancer. 2004;50(2):206-213.
99. Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Liu Y, Stampfer MJ, Willett
WC. A prospective study of cruciferous vegetables and
prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.
2003;12(12):1403-1409.
100. Hsing AW, Comstock GW, Abbey H, Polk BF. Sero-
logic precursors of cancer. Retinol, carotenoids, and to-
copherol and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst.
1990;82(11):941-946.
101. Key TJ, Allen N, Appleby P, Overvad K, Tjonneland
A, Miller A, Boeing H, et al. Fruits and vegetables and
prostate cancer: no association among 1104 cases in a
prospective study of 130544 men in the European Pro-
spective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).
Int J Cancer. 2004;109(1):119-124.
102. Stram DO, Hankin JH, Wilkens LR, Park S, Henderson
BE, Nomura AM, Pike MC, et al. Prostate cancer inci-
dence and intake of fruits, vegetables and related micro-
nutrients: the multiethnic cohort study* (United States).
Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17(9):1193-1207.
103. Fujiki H, Suganuma M, Okabe S, Sueoka N, Komori A,
Sueoka E, Kozu T, et al. Cancer inhibition by green tea.
Mutat Res. 1998;402(1-2):307-310.
104. Inoue M, Tajima K, Hirose K, Hamajima N, Takezaki T,
Kuroishi T, Tominaga S. Tea and coee consumption and
the risk of digestive tract cancers: data from a compara-
tive case-referent study in Japan. Cancer Causes Control.
1998;9(2):209-216.
105. Ji BT, Chow WH, Hsing AW, McLaughlin JK, Dai Q,
Gao YT, Blot WJ, et al. Green tea consumption and the
risk of pancreatic and colorectal cancers. Int J Cancer.
1997;70(3):255-258.
106. Nakachi K, Suemasu K, Suga K, Takeo T, Imai K, Hi-
gashi Y. Inuence of drinking green tea on breast cancer
malignancy among Japanese patients. Jpn J Cancer Res.
1998;89(3):254-261.
107. Beltz LA, Bayer DK, Moss AL, Simet IM. Mechanisms
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 81
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
of cancer prevention by green and black tea polyphenols.
Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 2006;6(5):389-406.
108. Handayani R, Rice L, Cui Y, Medrano TA, Samedi VG,
Baker HV, Szabo NJ, et al. Soy isoavones alter expres-
sion of genes associated with cancer progression, includ-
ing interleukin-8, in androgen-independent PC-3 human
prostate cancer cells. J Nutr. 2006;136(1):75-82.
109. Fotsis T, Pepper M, Adlercreutz H, Hase T, Montesano
R, Schweigerer L. Genistein, a dietary ingested isoavo-
noid, inhibits cell proliferation and in vitro angiogenesis.
J Nutr. 1995;125(3 Suppl):790S-797S.
110. Zhang L, Li L, Jiao M, Wu D, Wu K, Li X, Zhu G, et
al. Genistein inhibits the stemness properties of prostate
cancer cells through targeting Hedgehog-Gli1 pathway.
Cancer Lett. 2012;323(1):48-57.
111. Zhu BH, Zhan WH, Li ZR, Wang Z, He YL, Peng JS, Cai
SR, et al. -)-Epigallocatechin-3-gallate inhibits growth of
gastric cancer by reducing VEGF production and angio-
genesis. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(8):1162-1169.
112. Hastak K, Agarwal MK, Mukhtar H, Agarwal ML. Abla-
tion of either p21 or Bax prevents p53-dependent apop-
tosis induced by green tea polyphenol epigallocatechin-
3-gallate. FASEB J. 2005;19(7):789-791.
113. Sartor L, Pezzato E, Dona M, Dell'Aica I, Calabrese F,
Morini M, Albini A, et al. Prostate carcinoma and green
tea: (-)epigallocatechin-3-gallate inhibits inammation-
triggered MMP-2 activation and invasion in murine
TRAMP model. Int J Cancer. 2004;112(5):823-829.
114. Adhami VM, Siddiqui IA, Ahmad N, Gupta S, Mukhtar
H. Oral consumption of green tea polyphenols inhibits
insulin-like growth factor-I-induced signaling in an au-
tochthonous mouse model of prostate cancer. Cancer Res.
2004;64(23):8715-8722.
115. van Breemen RB, Pajkovic N. Multitargeted therapy of
cancer by lycopene. Cancer Lett. 2008;269(2):339-351.
116. Guns ES, Cowell SP. Drug Insight: lycopene in the pre-
vention and treatment of prostate cancer. Nat Clin Pract
Urol. 2005;2(1):38-43.
117. Muzandu K, El Bohi K, Shaban Z, Ishizuka M, Kazu-
saka A, Fujita S. Lycopene and beta-carotene ameliorate
catechol estrogen-mediated DNA damage. Jpn J Vet Res.
2005;52(4):173-184.
118. Park YO, Hwang ES, Moon TW. The eect of lycopene
on cell growth and oxidative DNA damage of Hep3B hu-
man hepatoma cells. Biofactors. 2005;23(3):129-139.
119. Erdman JW, Jr., Ford NA, Lindshield BL. Are the health
attributes of lycopene related to its antioxidant function?
Arch Biochem Biophys. 2009;483(2):229-235.
120. Liu X, Allen JD, Arnold JT, Blackman MR. Lycopene
inhibits IGF-I signal transduction and growth in normal
prostate epithelial cells by decreasing DHT-modulated
IGF-I production in co-cultured reactive stromal cells.
Carcinogenesis. 2008;29(4):816-823.
121. Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Platz EA, Stampfer MJ, Wil-
lett WC. Risk factors for prostate cancer incidence and
progression in the health professionals follow-up study.
Int J Cancer. 2007;121(7):1571-1578.
122. Venkateswaran V, Klotz LH, Ramani M, Sugar LM, Ja-
cob LE, Nam RK, Fleshner NE. A combination of micro-
nutrients is benecial in reducing the incidence of pros-
tate cancer and increasing survival in the Lady transgenic
model. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2009;2(5):473-483.
123. Schwenke C, Ubrig B, Thurmann P, Eggersmann C, Roth
S. Lycopene for advanced hormone refractory prostate
cancer: a prospective, open phase II pilot study. J Urol.
2009;181(3):1098-1103.
124. Kirsh VA, Mayne ST, Peters U, Chatterjee N, Leitz-
mann MF, Dixon LB, Urban DA, et al. A prospective
study of lycopene and tomato product intake and risk
of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.
2006;15(1):92-98.
125. Peters U, Leitzmann MF, Chatterjee N, Wang Y, Albanes
D, Gelmann EP, Friesen MD, et al. Serum lycopene, oth-
er carotenoids, and prostate cancer risk: a nested case-
control study in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovar-
ian cancer screening trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
Prev. 2007;16(5):962-968.
126. Mullins JK, Loeb S. Environmental exposures and pros-
tate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2012;30(2):216-219.
127. Grant WB, Peiris AN. Dierences in vitamin D status
may account for unexplained disparities in cancer sur-
vival rates between African and white Americans. Der-
matoendocrinol. 2012;4(2):85-94.
128. Schwartz GG, Hulka BS. Is vitamin D deciency a risk
factor for prostate cancer? (Hypothesis). Anticancer Res.
1990;10(5A):1307-1311.
129. Barnett CM, Beer TM. Prostate cancer and vitamin D:
what does the evidence really suggest? Urol Clin North
Am. 2011;38(3):333-342.
130. Racial geographic, genetic and body habitus eects on
vitamin D metabolism [press release]. San Diego: Aca-
demic Press. 1997.
131. Chen TC, Holick MF. Vitamin D and prostate cancer
prevention and treatment. Trends Endocrinol Metab.
2003;14(9):423-430.
132. Miller GJ. Vitamin D and prostate cancer: biologic inter-
actions and clinical potentials. Cancer Metastasis Rev.
1998;17(4):353-360.
133. Blutt SE, Polek TC, Stewart LV, Kattan MW, Weigel NL.
A calcitriol analogue, EB1089, inhibits the growth of LN-
CaP tumors in nude mice. Cancer Res. 2000;60(4):779-
782.
134. Bhatia V, Saini MK, Shen X, Bi LX, Qiu S, Weigel NL,
Falzon M. EB1089 inhibits the parathyroid hormone-
related protein-enhanced bone metastasis and xenograft
growth of human prostate cancer cells. Mol Cancer Ther.
2009;8(7):1787-1798.
135. Datta M, Schwartz GG. Calcium and vitamin D sup-
plementation during androgen deprivation therapy
for prostate cancer: a critical review. Oncologist.
2012;17(9):1171-1179.
136. Gross C, Stamey T, Hancock S, Feldman D. Treatment
of early recurrent prostate cancer with 1,25-dihydroxy-
vitamin D3 (calcitriol). J Urol. 1998;159(6):2035-2039;
discussion 2039-2040.
137. Osborn JL, Schwartz GG, Smith DC, Bahnson R, Day R,
Trump DL. Phase II trial of oral 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin
D (calcitriol) in hormone refractory prostate cancer. Urol
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
82
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
Oncol. 1995;1(5):195-198.
138. el Attar TM, Lin HS. Eect of vitamin C and vitamin E on
prostaglandin synthesis by broblasts and squamous car-
cinoma cells. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids.
1992;47(4):253-257.
139. Alpha-Tocopherol BCCPSG. The eect of vitamin
E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer
and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med.
1994;330(15):1029-1035.
140. Lippman SM, Klein EA, Goodman PJ, Lucia MS, Thomp-
son IM, Ford LG, Parnes HL, et al. Eect of selenium and
vitamin E on risk of prostate cancer and other cancers:
the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SE-
LECT). JAMA. 2009;301(1):39-51.
141. Helzlsouer KJ, Huang HY, Alberg AJ, Homan S, Burke
A, Norkus EP, Morris JS, et al. Association between alpha-
tocopherol, gamma-tocopherol, selenium, and subsequent
prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(24):2018-
2023.
142. Yoshizawa K, Willett WC, Morris SJ, Stampfer MJ,
Spiegelman D, Rimm EB, Giovannucci E. Study of predi-
agnostic selenium level in toenails and the risk of advanced
prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(16):1219-
1224.
143. Dueld-Lillico AJ, Dalkin BL, Reid ME, Turnbull BW,
Slate EH, Jacobs ET, Marshall JR, et al. Selenium supple-
mentation, baseline plasma selenium status and incidence
of prostate cancer: an analysis of the complete treatment
period of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial. BJU
Int. 2003;91(7):608-612.
144. Morris JD, Pramanik R, Zhang X, Carey AM, Ragavan
N, Martin FL, Muir GH. Selenium- or quercetin-induced
retardation of DNA synthesis in primary prostate cells oc-
curs in the presence of a concomitant reduction in andro-
gen-receptor activity. Cancer Lett. 2006;239(1):111-122.
145. Venkateswaran V, Klotz LH, Fleshner NE. Selenium
modulation of cell proliferation and cell cycle biomark-
ers in human prostate carcinoma cell lines. Cancer Res.
2002;62(9):2540-2545.
146. Venkateswaran V. Selenium and prostate cancer: bio-
logical pathways and biochemical nuances. Cancer Ther.
2006;4:73-80.
147. Hu H, Jiang C, Ip C, Rustum YM, Lu J. Methylseleninic
acid potentiates apoptosis induced by chemotherapeutic
drugs in androgen-independent prostate cancer cells. Clin
Cancer Res. 2005;11(6):2379-2388.
148. Chan JM, Oh WK, Xie W, Regan MM, Stampfer MJ,
King IB, Abe M, et al. Plasma selenium, manganese su-
peroxide dismutase, and intermediate- or high-risk pros-
tate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(22):3577-3583.
149. Blount BC, Mack MM, Wehr CM, MacGregor JT, Hi-
att RA, Wang G, Wickramasinghe SN, et al. Folate de-
ciency causes uracil misincorporation into human
DNA and chromosome breakage: implications for can-
cer and neuronal damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1997;94(7):3290-3295.
150. Petersen LF, Brockton NT, Bakkar A, Liu S, Wen J,
Weljie AM, Bismar TA. Elevated physiological levels of
folic acid can increase in vitro growth and invasiveness of
prostate cancer cells. BJU Int. 2012;109(5):788-795.
151. Bistul G, Foster BA, Karasik E, Gillard B, Miecznikows-
ki J, Dhiman VK, Smiraglia DJ. Dietary folate deciency
blocks prostate cancer progression in the TRAMP model.
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(11):1825-1834.
152. de Vogel S, Meyer K, Fredriksen A, Ulvik A, Ueland PM,
Nygard O, Vollset SE, et al. Serum folate and vitamin
B12 concentrations in relation to prostate cancer risk—a
Norwegian population-based nested case-control study of
3000 cases and 3000 controls within the JANUS cohort.
Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):201-210.
153. Guo S, Jiang X, Chen X, Chen L, Li X, Jia Y. The protec-
tive eect of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T
polymorphism against prostate cancer risk: Evidence
from 23 case-control studies. Gene. 2015;565(1):90-95.
154. Tomaszewski JJ, Cummings JL, Parwani AV, Dhir R, Ma-
son JB, Nelson JB, Bacich DJ, et al. Increased cancer cell
proliferation in prostate cancer patients with high levels
of serum folate. Prostate. 2011;71(12):1287-1293.
155. Collin SM, Metcalfe C, Refsum H, Lewis SJ, Zuccolo L,
Smith GD, Chen L, et al. Circulating folate, vitamin B12,
homocysteine, vitamin B12 transport proteins, and risk of
prostate cancer: a case-control study, systematic review,
and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.
2010;19(6):1632-1642.
156. Tomaszewski JJ, Richman EL, Sadetsky N, O'Keefe DS,
Carroll PR, Davies BJ, Chan JM. Impact of folate intake
on prostate cancer recurrence following denitive thera-
py: data from CaPSURE. J Urol. 2014;191(4):971-976.
157. Kasperzyk JL, Fall K, Mucci LA, Hakansson N, Wolk
A, Johansson JE, Andersson SO, et al. One-carbon me-
tabolism-related nutrients and prostate cancer survival.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90(3):561-569.
158. Hiatt RA, Armstrong MA, Klatsky AL, Sidney S. Alcohol
consumption, smoking, and other risk factors and prostate
cancer in a large health plan cohort in California (United
States). Cancer Causes Control. 1994;5(1):66-72.
159. Rizos C, Papassava M, Golias C, Charalabopoulos K. Al-
cohol consumption and prostate cancer: a mini review.
Exp Oncol. 2010;32(2):66-70.
160. Schmidt W, De Lint J. Causes of death of alcoholics.
Q J Stud Alcohol. 1972;33(1):171-185.
161. Pell S, D'Alonzo CA. A ve-year mortality study of alco-
holics. J Occup Med. 1973;15(2):120-125.
162. Hirayama T. Life-style and cancer: from epidemiological
evidence to public behavior change to mortality reduction
of target cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1992;12:65-
74.
163. Hsing AW, McLaughlin JK, Schuman LM, Bjelke E, Grid-
ley G, Wacholder S, Chien HT, et al. Diet, tobacco use, and
fatal prostate cancer: results from the Lutheran Brother-
hood Cohort Study. Cancer Res. 1990;50(21):6836-6840.
164. Adami HO, McLaughlin JK, Hsing AW, Wolk A, Ekbom
A, Holmberg L, Persson I. Alcoholism and cancer risk:
a population-based cohort study. Cancer Causes Control.
1992;3(5):419-425.
165. Middleton Fillmore K, Chikritzhs T, Stockwell T, Bos-
trom A, Pascal R. Alcohol use and prostate cancer: a me-
ta-analysis. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2009;53(2):240-255.
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 83
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
166. Rota M, Scotti L, Turati F, Tramacere I, Islami F, Bel-
locco R, Negri E, et al. Alcohol consumption and pros-
tate cancer risk: a meta-analysis of the dose-risk relation.
Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012;21(4):350-359.
167. Tunniclie JM, Shearer J. Coee, glucose homeostasis,
and insulin resistance: physiological mechanisms and
mediators. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008;33(6):1290-
1300.
168. Wilson KM, Kasperzyk JL, Rider JR, Keneld S, van
Dam RM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, et al. Coee con-
sumption and prostate cancer risk and progression in the
Health Professionals Follow-up Study. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2011;103(11):876-884.
169. Ma J, Li H, Giovannucci E, Mucci L, Qiu W, Nguyen
PL, Gaziano JM, et al. Prediagnostic body-mass index,
plasma C-peptide concentration, and prostate cancer-spe-
cic mortality in men with prostate cancer: a long-term
survival analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(11):1039-1047.
170. Hammarsten J, Hogstedt B. Hyperinsulinaemia: a pro-
spective risk factor for lethal clinical prostate cancer.
Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(18):2887-2895.
171. Lehrer S, Diamond EJ, Stagger S, Stone NN, Stock RG.
Serum insulin level, disease stage, prostate specic anti-
gen (PSA) and Gleason score in prostate cancer. Br J Can-
cer. 2002;87(7):726-728.
172. Stattin P, Bylund A, Rinaldi S, Biessy C, Dechaud H,
Stenman UH, Egevad L, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth
factor-I, insulin-like growth factor-binding proteins, and
prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. J Natl Cancer
Inst. 2000;92(23):1910-1917.
173. Stocks T, Lukanova A, Rinaldi S, Biessy C, Dossus L,
Lindahl B, Hallmans G, et al. Insulin resistance is in-
versely related to prostate cancer: a prospective study
in Northern Sweden. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(12):2678-
2686.
174. De Marzo AM, Platz EA, Sutclie S, Xu J, Gronberg H,
Drake CG, Nakai Y, et al. Inammation in prostate car-
cinogenesis. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7(4):256-269.
175. Demark-Wahnefried W, Moyad MA. Dietary intervention
in the management of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol.
2007;17(3):168-174.
176. Greenwald P. Clinical trials in cancer prevention: current
results and perspectives for the future. J Nutr. 2004;134(12
Suppl):3507S-3512S.
177. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ. Obesity and prostate cancer.
Urology. 2005;65(3):433-439.
178. Mcbride RB. Obesity and aggressive prostate cancer bias
and biomarkers. Columbia University, 2012.
179. Kaaks R, Stattin P. Obesity, endogenous hormone metab-
olism, and prostate cancer risk: a conundrum of "highs"
and "lows". Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010;3(3):259-262.
180. Fuentes E, Fuentes F, Vilahur G, Badimon L, Palomo
I. Mechanisms of chronic state of inammation as me-
diators that link obese adipose tissue and metabolic syn-
drome. Mediators Inamm. 2013;2013:136584.
181. Allott EH, Masko EM, Freedland SJ. Obesity and prostate
cancer: weighing the evidence. Eur Urol. 2013;63(5):800-
809.
182. Parekh N, Lin Y, Dipaola RS, Marcella S, Lu-Yao G.
Obesity and prostate cancer detection: insights from three
national surveys. Am J Med. 2010;123(9):829-835.
183. Banez LL, Hamilton RJ, Partin AW, Vollmer RT, Sun
L, Rodriguez C, Wang Y, et al. Obesity-related plasma
hemodilution and PSA concentration among men with
prostate cancer. JAMA. 2007;298(19):2275-2280.
184. Keogh JW, MacLeod RD. Body composition, physical t-
ness, functional performance, quality of life, and fatigue
benets of exercise for prostate cancer patients: a sys-
tematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;43(1):96-
110.
185. (IARC) IAfRoC. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smok-
ing. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic
risks in human 83. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2004.
186. Huncharek M, Haddock KS, Reid R, Kupelnick B. Smok-
ing as a risk factor for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis
of 24 prospective cohort studies. Am J Public Health.
2010;100(4):693-701.
187. Nock NL, Liu X, Cicek MS, Li L, Macarie F, Rybicki BA,
Plummer SJ, et al. Polymorphisms in polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon metabolism and conjugation genes, interac-
tions with smoking and prostate cancer risk. Cancer Epi-
demiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(4):756-761.
188. Li J, Thompson T, Joseph DA, Master VA. Association
between smoking status, and free, total and percent free
prostate specic antigen. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1228-1233.
189. Platz EA, Giovannucci E. Prostate Cancer. In: Schotten-
feld D, Fraumeni JF, Jr., editors. Cancer epidemiology
and prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
p. 1128-1150.
190. Cerhan JR, Torner JC, Lynch CF, Rubenstein LM, Lemke
JH, Cohen MB, Lubaro DM, et al. Association of smok-
ing, body mass, and physical activity with risk of pros-
tate cancer in the Iowa 65+ Rural Health Study (United
States). Cancer Causes Control. 1997;8(2):229-238.
191. Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Ascherio A, Colditz GA,
Spiegelman D, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Smoking and
risk of total and fatal prostate cancer in United States
health professionals. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.
1999;8(4 Pt 1):277-282.
192. Huggins C, Hodges CV. Studies on prostatic cancer. I.
The eect of castration, of estrogen and of androgen in-
jection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma
of the prostate. 1941. J Urol. 2002;167(2 Pt 2):948-951;
discussion 952.
193. Kyprianou N, English HF, Isaacs JT. Programmed
cell death during regression of PC-82 human pros-
tate cancer following androgen ablation. Cancer Res.
1990;50(12):3748-3753.
194. Webber MM, Bello D, Quader S. Immortalized and tu-
morigenic adult human prostatic epithelial cell lines:
characteristics and applications. Part I. Cell markers
and immortalized nontumorigenic cell lines. Prostate.
1996;29(6):386-394.
195. Bladou F, Vessella RL, Buhler KR, Ellis WJ, True LD,
Lange PH. Cell proliferation and apoptosis during pros-
tatic tumor xenograft involution and regrowth after cas-
tration. Int J Cancer. 1996;67(6):785-790.
196. Ahmad I, Sansom OJ, Leung HY. Advances in mouse
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
84
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
models of prostate cancer. Expert Rev Mol Med.
2008;10:e16.
197. Rove KO, Crawford ED. Traditional androgen ablation
approaches to advanced prostate cancer: new insights.
Can J Urol. 2014;21(2 Supp 1):14-21.
198. Michaud JE, Billups KL, Partin AW. Testosterone and
prostate cancer: an evidence-based review of pathogen-
esis and oncologic risk. Ther Adv Urol. 2015;7(6):378-
387.
199. Chang BL, Zheng SL, Hawkins GA, Isaacs SD, Wiley
KE, Turner A, Carpten JD, et al. Joint eect of HSD3B1
and HSD3B2 genes is associated with hereditary and
sporadic prostate cancer susceptibility. Cancer Res.
2002;62(6):1784-1789.
200. Kraft P, Pharoah P, Chanock SJ, Albanes D, Kolonel LN,
Hayes RB, Altshuler D, et al. Genetic variation in the
HSD17B1 gene and risk of prostate cancer. PLoS Genet.
2005;1(5):e68.
201. Margiotti K, Kim E, Pearce CL, Spera E, Novelli G, Re-
ichardt JK. Association of the G289S single nucleotide
polymorphism in the HSD17B3 gene with prostate cancer
in Italian men. Prostate. 2002;53(1):65-68.
202. Suzuki M, Muto S, Hara K, Ozeki T, Yamada Y, Kadowa-
ki T, Tomita K, et al. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms
in the 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase genes
might predict the risk of side-eects of estramustine
phosphate sodium in prostate cancer patients. Int J Urol.
2005;12(2):166-172.
203. Setlur SR, Chen CX, Hossain RR, Ha JS, Van Doren VE,
Stenzel B, Steiner E, et al. Genetic variation of genes in-
volved in dihydrotestosterone metabolism and the risk
of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.
2010;19(1):229-239.
204. Lindstrom S, Wiklund F, Adami HO, Balter KA, Adolf-
sson J, Gronberg H. Germ-line genetic variation in the
key androgen-regulating genes androgen receptor, cy-
tochrome P450, and steroid-5-alpha-reductase type 2 is
important for prostate cancer development. Cancer Res.
2006;66(22):11077-11083.
205. Chang BL, Zheng SL, Isaacs SD, Turner AR, Bleecker
ER, Walsh PC, Meyers DA, et al. Evaluation of SRD5A2
sequence variants in susceptibility to hereditary and spo-
radic prostate cancer. Prostate. 2003;56(1):37-44.
206. Loukola A, Chadha M, Penn SG, Rank D, Conti DV,
Thompson D, Cicek M, et al. Comprehensive evalua-
tion of the association between prostate cancer and geno-
types/haplotypes in CYP17A1, CYP3A4, and SRD5A2.
Eur J Hum Genet. 2004;12(4):321-332.
207. Sarma AV, Dunn RL, Lange LA, Ray A, Wang Y, Lange
EM, Cooney KA. Genetic polymorphisms in CYP17,
CYP3A4, CYP19A1, SRD5A2, IGF-1, and IGFBP-3 and
prostate cancer risk in African-American men: the Flint
Men's Health Study. Prostate. 2008;68(3):296-305.
208. Cramer SD, Sun J, Zheng SL, Xu J, Peehl DM. Associa-
tion of prostate-specic antigen promoter genotype with
clinical and histopathologic features of prostate cancer.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(9):2451-
2457.
209. Nam RK, Zhang WW, Klotz LH, Trachtenberg J, Jewett
MA, Sweet J, Toi A, et al. Variants of the hK2 protein
gene (KLK2) are associated with serum hK2 levels and
predict the presence of prostate cancer at biopsy. Clin
Cancer Res. 2006;12(21):6452-6458.
210. Klein RJ, Hallden C, Cronin AM, Ploner A, Wiklund F,
Bjartell AS, Stattin P, et al. Blood biomarker levels to aid
discovery of cancer-related single-nucleotide polymor-
phisms: kallikreins and prostate cancer. Cancer Prev Res
(Phila). 2010;3(5):611-619.
211. Beuten J, Gelfond JA, Franke JL, Weldon KS, Crandall
AC, Johnson-Pais TL, Thompson IM, et al. Single and
multigenic analysis of the association between vari-
ants in 12 steroid hormone metabolism genes and risk
of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.
2009;18(6):1869-1880.
212. Chang BL, Cramer SD, Wiklund F, Isaacs SD, Stevens
VL, Sun J, Smith S, et al. Fine mapping association study
and functional analysis implicate a SNP in MSMB at
10q11 as a causal variant for prostate cancer risk. Hum
Mol Genet. 2009;18(7):1368-1375.
213. Lou H, Yeager M, Li H, Bosquet JG, Hayes RB, Orr N,
Yu K, et al. Fine mapping and functional analysis of a
common variant in MSMB on chromosome 10q11.2 as-
sociated with prostate cancer susceptibility. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(19):7933-7938.
214. Hernandez J, Balic I, Johnson-Pais TL, Higgins BA, Tork-
ko KC, Thompson IM, Leach RJ. Association between an
estrogen receptor alpha gene polymorphism and the risk
of prostate cancer in black men. J Urol. 2006;175(2):523-
527.
215. Chen YC, Kraft P, Bretsky P, Ketkar S, Hunter DJ, Albanes
D, Altshuler D, et al. Sequence variants of estrogen recep-
tor beta and risk of prostate cancer in the National Cancer
Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(10):1973-
1981.
216. Thellenberg-Karlsson C, Lindstrom S, Malmer B,
Wiklund F, Augustsson-Balter K, Adami HO, Stat-
tin P, et al. Estrogen receptor beta polymorphism is as-
sociated with prostate cancer risk. Clin Cancer Res.
2006;12(6):1936-1941.
217. Rajah TT, Pento JT. The mutagenic potential of antiestro-
gens at the HPRT locus in V79 cells. Res Commun Mol
Pathol Pharmacol. 1995;89(1):85-92.
218. Akanni A, Abul-Hajj YJ. Estrogen-nucleic acid adducts:
reaction of 3,4-estrone-o-quinone radical anion with de-
oxyribonucleosides. Chem Res Toxicol. 1997;10(7):760-
766.
219. Lambe M, Wigertz A, Garmo H, Walldius G, Jungner I,
Hammar N. Impaired glucose metabolism and diabetes
and the risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer.
Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22(8):1163-1171.
220. Bhindi B, Locke J, Alibhai SMH, Kulkarni GS, Margel
DS, Hamilton RJ, Finelli A, et al. Dissecting the asso-
ciation between metabolic syndrome and prostate can-
cer risk: analysis of a large clinical cohort. Eur Urol.
2015;67(1):64-70.
221. Arthur R, Moller H, Garmo H, Holmberg L, Stattin P,
Malmstrom H, Lambe M, et al. Association between
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 85
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
baseline serum glucose, triglycerides and total choles-
terol, and prostate cancer risk categories. Cancer Med.
2016;5(6):1307-1318.
222. Sharma N, Sood S, Kaushik GG, Ali Z. Risk of pros-
tate cancer and its correlation with dierent biochemi-
cal parameters in nondiabetic men. Int J Res Med Sci.
2013;1:476-481.
223. Kang J, Chen MH, Zhang Y, Moran BJ, Dosoretz DE,
Katin MJ, Braccioforte MH, et al. Type of diabetes melli-
tus and the odds of Gleason score 8 to 10 prostate cancer.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(3):e463-467.
224. Tsilidis KK, Allen NE, Appleby PN, Rohrmann S, Noth-
lings U, Arriola L, Gunter MJ, et al. Diabetes mellitus
and risk of prostate cancer in the European prospective
investigation into cancer and nutrition. Int J Cancer.
2015;136(2):372-381.
225. Calton BA, Chang SC, Wright ME, Kipnis V, Lawson
K, Thompson FE, Subar AF, et al. History of diabetes
mellitus and subsequent prostate cancer risk in the NIH-
AARP Diet and Health Study. Cancer Causes Control.
2007;18(5):493-503.
226. Fall K, Garmo H, Gudbjornsdottir S, Stattin P, Zethelius
B. Diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer risk; a nation-
wide case-control study within PCBaSe Sweden. Cancer
Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(6):1102-1109.
227. Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science.
1956;123(3191):309-314.
228. Wang L, Xiong H, Wu F, Zhang Y, Wang J, Zhao L,
Guo X, et al. Hexokinase 2-mediated Warburg eect is
required for PTEN- and p53-deciency-driven prostate
cancer growth. Cell Rep. 2014;8(5):1461-1474.
229. Chandler JD, Williams ED, Slavin JL, Best JD, Rogers S.
Expression and localization of GLUT1 and GLUT12 in
prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;97(8):2035-2042.
230. Giovannucci E, Michaud D. The role of obesity and re-
lated metabolic disturbances in cancers of the colon, pros-
tate, and pancreas. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(6):2208-
2225.
231. Mangal P, Mittal S, Kachhawa K, Agrawal D, Rath B,
Kumar S. Analysis of the clinical prole in patients with
plasmodium falciparum malaria and its association with
parasite density. J Glob Infect Dis. 2017;9(2):60-65.
232. Venkateswaran V, Haddad AQ, Fleshner NE, Fan R,
Sugar LM, Nam R, Klotz LH, et al. Association of di-
et-induced hyperinsulinemia with accelerated growth of
prostate cancer (LNCaP) xenografts. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2007;99(23):1793-1800.
233. Abe R, Yamagishi S. AGE-RAGE system and carcino-
genesis. Curr Pharm Des. 2008;14(10):940-945.
234. Gennigens C, Menetrier-Caux C, Droz JP. Insulin-Like
Growth Factor (IGF) family and prostate cancer. Crit Rev
Oncol Hematol. 2006;58(2):124-145.
235. Pollak M. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signal-
ling in neoplasia. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(12):915-928.
236. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, Gann PH, Ma
J, Wilkinson P, Hennekens CH, et al. Plasma insulin-like
growth factor-I and prostate cancer risk: a prospective
study. Science. 1998;279(5350):563-566.
237. Ryan CJ, Haqq CM, Simko J, Nonaka DF, Chan JM,
Weinberg V, Small EJ, et al. Expression of insulin-like
growth factor-1 receptor in local and metastatic prostate
cancer. Urol Oncol. 2007;25(2):134-140.
238. Price AJ, Allen NE, Appleby PN, Crowe FL, Travis RC,
Tipper SJ, Overvad K, et al. Insulin-like growth fac-
tor-I concentration and risk of prostate cancer: results
from the European Prospective Investigation into Can-
cer and Nutrition. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.
2012;21(9):1531-1541.
239. Liao Y, Abel U, Grobholz R, Hermani A, Trojan L, Angel
P, Mayer D. Up-regulation of insulin-like growth factor
axis components in human primary prostate cancer cor-
relates with tumor grade. Hum Pathol. 2005;36(11):1186-
1196.
240. Chott A, Sun Z, Morganstern D, Pan J, Li T, Susani M,
Mosberger I, et al. Tyrosine kinases expressed in vivo
by human prostate cancer bone marrow metastases and
loss of the type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor.
Am J Pathol. 1999;155(4):1271-1279.
241. Cox ME, Gleave ME, Zakikhani M, Bell RH, Piura E,
Vickers E, Cunningham M, et al. Insulin receptor expres-
sion by human prostate cancers. Prostate. 2009;69(1):33-
40.
242. Sutclie S, Pontari MA. Inammation and infection in
the etiology of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer. 2 ed:
Academic Press; 2016. p. 13-20.
243. Gurel B, Lucia MS, Thompson IM, Jr., Goodman PJ, Tan-
gen CM, Kristal AR, Parnes HL, et al. Chronic inam-
mation in benign prostate tissue is associated with high-
grade prostate cancer in the placebo arm of the prostate
cancer prevention trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
Prev. 2014;23(5):847-856.
244. Galdiero MR, Bonavita E, Barajon I, Garlanda C,
Mantovani A, Jaillon S. Tumor associated mac-
rophages and neutrophils in cancer. Immunobiology.
2013;218(11):1402-1410.
245. Schatteman PH, Hoekx L, Wyndaele JJ, Jeuris W, Van
Marck E. Inammation in prostate biopsies of men with-
out prostatic malignancy or clinical prostatitis: correla-
tion with total serum PSA and PSA density. Eur Urol.
2000;37(4):404-412.
246. Stallone G, Cormio L, Netti GS, Infante B, Selvaggio O,
Fino GD, Ranieri E, et al. Pentraxin 3: a novel biomarker
for predicting progression from prostatic inammation to
prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2014;74(16):4230-4238.
247. De Marzo AM, Meeker AK, Zha S, Luo J, Nakayama
M, Platz EA, Isaacs WB, et al. Human prostate cancer
precursors and pathobiology. Urology. 2003;62(5 Suppl
1):55-62.
248. Danforth KN, Hayes RB, Rodriguez C, Yu K, Sako-
da LC, Huang WY, Chen BE, et al. Polymorphic vari-
ants in PTGS2 and prostate cancer risk: results from
two large nested case-control studies. Carcinogenesis.
2008;29(3):568-572.
249. Fernandez P, de Beer PM, van der Merwe L, Heyns CF.
COX-2 promoter polymorphisms and the association
with prostate cancer risk in South African men. Carcino-
genesis. 2008;29(12):2347-2350.
250. Zabaleta J, Su LJ, Lin HY, Sierra RA, Hall MC, Sartor
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
86
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
AO, Clark PE, et al. Cytokine genetic polymorphisms
and prostate cancer aggressiveness. Carcinogenesis.
2009;30(8):1358-1362.
251. Bao S, Yang W, Zhou S, Ye Z. Relationship between
single nucleotide polymorphisms in -174G/C and
-634C/G promoter region of interleukin-6 and pros-
tate cancer. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci.
2008;28(6):693-696.
252. Pierce BL, Biggs ML, DeCambre M, Reiner AP, Li C,
Fitzpatrick A, Carlson CS, et al. C-reactive protein, inter-
leukin-6, and prostate cancer risk in men aged 65 years
and older. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20(7):1193-
1203.
253. Wang MH, Helzlsouer KJ, Smith MW, Homan-Bolton
JA, Clipp SL, Grinberg V, De Marzo AM, et al. Asso-
ciation of IL10 and other immune response- and obesity-
related genes with prostate cancer in CLUE II. Prostate.
2009;69(8):874-885.
254. Danforth KN, Rodriguez C, Hayes RB, Sakoda LC,
Huang WY, Yu K, Calle EE, et al. TNF polymorphisms
and prostate cancer risk. Prostate. 2008;68(4):400-407.
255. Chen YC, Giovannucci E, Lazarus R, Kraft P, Ketkar
S, Hunter DJ. Sequence variants of Toll-like recep-
tor 4 and susceptibility to prostate cancer. Cancer Res.
2005;65(24):11771-11778.
256. Song J, Kim DY, Kim CS, Kim HJ, Lee DH, Lee HM,
Ko W, et al. The association between Toll-like receptor 4
(TLR4) polymorphisms and the risk of prostate cancer in
Korean men. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2009;190(2):88-
92.
257. Stark JR, Wiklund F, Gronberg H, Schumacher F, Sin-
nott JA, Stampfer MJ, Mucci LA, et al. Toll-like receptor
signaling pathway variants and prostate cancer mortality.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(6):1859-
1863.
258. Roberts RO, Lieber MM, Rhodes T, Girman CJ, Bostwick
DG, Jacobsen SJ. Prevalence of a physician-assigned di-
agnosis of prostatitis: the Olmsted County Study of Uri-
nary Symptoms and Health Status Among Men. Urology.
1998;51(4):578-584.
259. Krieger JN, Riley DE, Cheah PY, Liong ML, Yuen KH.
Epidemiology of prostatitis: new evidence for a world-
wide problem. World J Urol. 2003;21(2):70-74.
260. Lu H, Ouyang W, Huang C. Inammation, a key event
in cancer development. Mol Cancer Res. 2006;4(4):221-
233.
261. Dennis LK, Lynch CF, Torner JC. Epidemiologic asso-
ciation between prostatitis and prostate cancer. Urology.
2002;60(1):78-83.
262. Jiang J, Li J, Yunxia Z, Zhu H, Liu J, Pumill C. The role
of prostatitis in prostate cancer: meta-analysis. PLoS
One. 2013;8(12):e85179.
263. Kirby RS, Lowe D, Bultitude MI, Shuttleworth KE. Intra-
prostatic urinary reux: an aetiological factor in abacte-
rial prostatitis. Br J Urol. 1982;54(6):729-731.
264. Shinohara DB, Vaghasia AM, Yu SH, Mak TN, Brugge-
mann H, Nelson WG, De Marzo AM, et al. A mouse
model of chronic prostatic inammation using a human
prostate cancer-derived isolate of Propionibacterium ac-
nes. Prostate. 2013;73(9):1007-1015.
265. Elkahwaji JE, Zhong W, Hopkins WJ, Bushman W.
Chronic bacterial infection and inammation incite reac-
tive hyperplasia in a mouse model of chronic prostatitis.
Prostate. 2007;67(1):14-21.
266. Pelouze PS. Gonorrhea in the male and female: a book
for practitioners. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company;
1935.
267. Poletti F, Medici MC, Alinovi A, Menozzi MG, Sacchini
P, Stagni G, Toni M, et al. Isolation of Chlamydia tra-
chomatis from the prostatic cells in patients aected by
nonacute abacterial prostatitis. J Urol. 1985;134(4):691-
693.
268. Hayes RB, Pottern LM, Strickler H, Rabkin C, Pope
V, Swanson GM, Greenberg RS, et al. Sexual behav-
iour, STDs and risks for prostate cancer. Br J Cancer.
2000;82(3):718-725.
269. Taylor ML, Mainous AG, 3rd, Wells BJ. Prostate cancer
and sexually transmitted diseases: a meta-analysis. Fam
Med. 2005;37(7):506-512.
270. Dunne EF, Nielson CM, Stone KM, Markowitz LE, Gi-
uliano AR. Prevalence of HPV infection among men:
A systematic review of the literature. J Infect Dis.
2006;194(8):1044-1057.
271. Looker KJ, Garnett GP, Schmid GP. An estimate of the
global prevalence and incidence of herpes simplex virus
type 2 infection. Bull W H O. 2008;86(10):805-812.
272. Bosch FX, Burchell AN, Schiman M, Giuliano AR, de
Sanjose S, Bruni L, Tortolero-Luna G, et al. Epidemiol-
ogy and natural history of human papillomavirus infec-
tions and type-specic implications in cervical neoplasia.
Vaccine. 2008;26(Suppl 10):K1-16.
273. Chaturvedi AK. Beyond cervical cancer: burden of other
HPV-related cancers among men and women. J Adolesc
Health. 2010;46(4 Suppl):S20-26.
274. Ravich A, Ravich RA. Prophylaxis of cancer of the pros-
tate, penis, and cervix by circumcision. N Y State J Med.
1951;51(12):1519-1520.
275. Sutclie S. Sexually transmitted infections and risk of
prostate cancer: review of historical and emerging hy-
potheses. Future Oncol. 2010;6(8):1289-1311.
276. Cuzick J. Human papillomavirus infection of the prostate.
Cancer Surv. 1995;23:91-95.
277. Dillner J, Knekt P, Boman J, Lehtinen M, Af Geijersstam
V, Sapp M, Schiller J, et al. Sero-epidemiological associa-
tion between human-papillomavirus infection and risk of
prostate cancer. Int J Cancer. 1998;75(4):564-567.
278. Al Moustafa AE. Involvement of human papillomavirus
infections in prostate cancer progression. Med Hypoth-
eses. 2008;71(2):209-211.
279. Strickler HD, Burk R, Shah K, Viscidi R, Jackson A,
Pizza G, Bertoni F, et al. A multifaceted study of hu-
man papillomavirus and prostate carcinoma. Cancer.
1998;82(6):1118-1125.
280. Lin Y, Mao Q, Zheng X, Yang K, Chen H, Zhou C, Xie L.
Human papillomavirus 16 or 18 infection and prostate can-
cer risk: a meta-analysis. Ir J Med Sci. 2011;180(2):497-
503.
281. Tsang SH, Peisch SF, Rowan B, Markt SC, Gonzalez-
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 87
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
Feliciano AG, Sutclie S, Platz EA, et al. Association
between Trichomonas vaginalis and prostate cancer mor-
tality. Int J Cancer. 2019;144(10):2377-2380.
282. Walsh PC, Madden JD, Harrod MJ, Goldstein JL, Mac-
Donald PC, Wilson JD. Familial incomplete male pseudo-
hermaphroditism, type 2. Decreased dihydrotestosterone
formation in pseudovaginal perineoscrotal hypospadias.
N Engl J Med. 1974;291(18):944-949.
283. Petrow V, Padilla GM, Mukherji S, Marts SA. Endo-
crine dependence of prostatic cancer upon dihydrotes-
tosterone and not upon testosterone. J Pharm Pharmacol.
1984;36(5):352-353.
284. McConnell JD, Roehrborn CG, Bautista OM, Andriole
GL, Jr., Dixon CM, Kusek JW, Lepor H, et al. The long-
term eect of doxazosin, nasteride, and combination
therapy on the clinical progression of benign prostatic
hyperplasia. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(25):2387-2398.
285. Roehrborn CG, Barkin J, Siami P, Tubaro A, Wilson TH,
Morrill BB, Gagnier RP. Clinical outcomes after combined
therapy with dutasteride plus tamsulosin or either mono-
therapy in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)
by baseline characteristics: 4-year results from the rand-
omized, double-blind Combination of Avodart and Tamsu-
losin (CombAT) trial. BJU Int. 2011;107(6):946-954.
286. Dorsam J, Altwein J. 5alpha-Reductase inhibitor treat-
ment of prostatic diseases: background and practical im-
plications. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2009;12(2):130-
136.
287. Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS,
Miller GJ, Ford LG, Lieber MM, et al. The inuence
of nasteride on the development of prostate cancer.
N Engl J Med. 2003;349(3):215-224.
288. Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Brawley OW, Gomella LG,
Marberger M, Montorsi F, Pettaway CA, et al. Eect of
dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med.
2010;362(13):1192-1202.
289. Fleshner N, Lucia MS, Melich K, Nandy IM, Black L,
Rittmaster RS. Eect of dutasteride on prostate can-
cer progression and cancer diagnosis on rebiopsy in the
REDEEM surveillance study. [abstract]. J Clin Oncol.
2011;29(7_suppl):2-2.
290. Bowers LW, Maximo IX, Brenner AJ, Beeram M, Hurst-
ing SD, Price RS, Tekmal RR, et al. NSAID use reduces
breast cancer recurrence in overweight and obese women:
role of prostaglandin-aromatase interactions. Cancer Res.
2014;74(16):4446-4457.
291. Jafari S, Etminan M, Afshar K. Nonsteroidal anti-inam-
matory drugs and prostate cancer: a systematic review
of the literature and meta-analysis. Can Urol Assoc J.
2009;3(4):323-330.
292. Roberts RO, Jacobson DJ, Girman CJ, Rhodes T, Lieber
MM, Jacobsen SJ. A population-based study of daily non-
steroidal anti-inammatory drug use and prostate cancer.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(3):219-225.
293. Leitzmann MF, Stampfer MJ, Ma J, Chan JM, Colditz
GA, Willett WC, Giovannucci E. Aspirin use in relation
to risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
Prev. 2002;11(10 Pt 1):1108-1111.
294. Salinas CA, Kwon EM, FitzGerald LM, Feng Z, Nelson
PS, Ostrander EA, Peters U, et al. Use of aspirin and other
nonsteroidal antiinammatory medications in relation to
prostate cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(5):578-
590.
295. Habel LA, Zhao W, Stanford JL. Daily aspirin use and
prostate cancer risk in a large, multiracial cohort in the
US. Cancer Causes Control. 2002;13(5):427-434.
296. Hamilton RJ, Goldberg KC, Platz EA, Freedland SJ. The
inuence of statin medications on prostate-specic anti-
gen levels. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(21):1511-1518.
297. Chang SL, Harshman LC, Presti JC, Jr. Impact of com-
mon medications on serum total prostate-specic antigen
levels: analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Ex-
amination Survey. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(25):3951-3957.
298. Bonovas S, Filioussi K, Sitaras NM. Statin use and the
risk of prostate cancer: A metaanalysis of 6 randomized
clinical trials and 13 observational studies. Int J Cancer.
2008;123(4):899-904.
299. Gutt R, Tonlaar N, Kunnavakkam R, Karrison T, Weich-
selbaum RR, Liauw SL. Statin use and risk of prostate
cancer recurrence in men treated with radiation therapy.
J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(16):2653-2659.
300. Hamilton RJ, Banez LL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Platz
EA, Kane CJ, Presti JC, Jr., et al. Statin medication use
and the risk of biochemical recurrence after radical pros-
tatectomy: results from the Shared Equal Access Re-
gional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Database. Cancer.
2010;116(14):3389-3398.
301. Ku JH, Jeong CW, Park YH, Cho MC, Kwak C, Kim HH.
Relationship of statins to clinical presentation and bio-
chemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in Korean
patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2011;14(1):63-68.
302. (PDQ) NCICT. Statin therapy versus placebo prior to
prostatectomy. In: Development VOoRa, editor. 2017.
303. (PDQ) NCICT. Phase II study of atorvastatin calcium and
celecoxib in patients with hormone-dependent prostate-
specic antigen progression after local therapy for pros-
tate cancer. 2018.
304. Ansbaugh N, Shannon J, Mori M, Farris PE, Garzotto M.
Agent Orange as a risk factor for high-grade prostate can-
cer. Cancer. 2013;119(13):2399-2404.
305. Shah SR, Terris MK. Editorial comment on: Agent Or-
ange exposure, Vietnam War veterans, and the risk of
prostate cancer. Cancer. 2008;113(9):2382-2384.
306. Hammond B, Katzenellenbogen BS, Krauthammer N,
McConnell J. Estrogenic activity of the insecticide chlor-
decone (Kepone) and interaction with uterine estrogen
receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979;76(12):6641-
6645.
307. Eroschenko VP. Estrogenic activity of the insecticide
chlordecone in the reproductive tract of birds and mam-
mals. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1981;8(5-6):731-742.
308. Sirica AE, Wilkerson CS, Wu LL, Fitzgerald R, Blanke
RV, Guzelian PS. Evaluation of chlordecone in a two-
stage model of hepatocarcinogenesis: a signicant sex
dierence in the hepatocellular carcinoma incidence.
Carcinogenesis. 1989;10(6):1047-1054.
309. Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone
R, Lynch CF, Knott C, et al. Use of agricultural pesticides
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org
88
Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
and prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study
cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(9):800-814.
310. Mahajan R, Bonner MR, Hoppin JA, Alavanja MC. Phor-
ate exposure and incidence of cancer in the agricultural
health study. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(8):1205-
1209.
311. Lynch SM, Mahajan R, Beane Freeman LE, Hoppin JA,
Alavanja MC. Cancer incidence among pesticide applica-
tors exposed to butylate in the Agricultural Health Study
(AHS). Environ Res. 2009;109(7):860-868.
312. Christensen CH, Platz EA, Andreotti G, Blair A, Hop-
pin JA, Koutros S, Lynch CF, et al. Coumaphos exposure
and incident cancer among male participants in the Agri-
cultural Health Study (AHS). Environ Health Perspect.
2010;118(1):92-96.
313. Molowa DT, Shayne AG, Guzelian PS. Purication and
characterization of chlordecone reductase from human
liver. J Biol Chem. 1986;261(27):12624-12627.
314. Kume T, Iwasa H, Shiraishi H, Yokoi T, Nagashima K,
Otsuka M, Terada T, et al. Characterization of a novel
variant (S145C/L311V) of 3alpha-hydroxysteroid/dihy-
drodiol dehydrogenase in human liver. Pharmacogenet-
ics. 1999;9(6):763-771.
315. Rubin BS. Bisphenol A: an endocrine disruptor with
widespread exposure and multiple eects. J Steroid Bio-
chem Mol Biol. 2011;127(1-2):27-34.
316. Sungur S, Koroglu M, Ozkan A. Determination of bis-
phenol a migrating from canned food and beverages in
markets. Food Chem. 2014;142:87-91.
317. Geens T, Aerts D, Berthot C, Bourguignon JP, Goeyens
L, Lecomte P, Maghuin-Rogister G, et al. A review of
dietary and non-dietary exposure to bisphenol-A. Food
Chem Toxicol. 2012;50(10):3725-3740.
318. Acevedo N, Davis B, Schaeberle CM, Sonnenschein
C, Soto AM. Perinatally administered bisphenol a as a
potential mammary gland carcinogen in rats. Environ
Health Perspect. 2013;121(9):1040-1046.
319. Nomura SO, Harnack L, Robien K. Estimating bisphenol
A exposure levels using a questionnaire targeting known
sources of exposure. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(4):593-
606.
320. Tarapore P, Ying J, Ouyang B, Burke B, Bracken B, Ho
SM. Exposure to bisphenol A correlates with early-onset
prostate cancer and promotes centrosome amplication
and anchorage-independent growth in vitro. PLoS One.
2014;9(3):e90332.
321. Prins GS, Hu WY, Shi GB, Hu DP, Majumdar S, Li G,
Huang K, et al. Bisphenol A promotes human prostate
stem-progenitor cell self-renewal and increases in vivo
carcinogenesis in human prostate epithelium. Endocrinol-
ogy. 2014;155(3):805-817.
322. Ho SM, Rao R, To S, Schoch E, Tarapore P. Bisphenol A
and its analogues disrupt centrosome cycle and microtu-
bule dynamics in prostate cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer.
2017;24(2):83-96.
323. Tse LA, Lee PMY, Ho WM, Lam AT, Lee MK, Ng SSM,
He Y, et al. Bisphenol A and other environmental risk
factors for prostate cancer in Hong Kong. Environ Int.
2017;107:1-7.
324. Shirai T, Asamoto M, Takahashi S, Imaida K. Diet and
prostate cancer. Toxicology. 2002;181-182:89-94.
325. Norrish AE, Ferguson LR, Knize MG, Felton JS, Sharpe
SJ, Jackson RT. Heterocyclic amine content of cooked
meat and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst.
1999;91(23):2038-2044.
326. Stott-Miller M, Neuhouser ML, Stanford JL. Consump-
tion of deep-fried foods and risk of prostate cancer. Pros-
tate. 2013;73(9):960-969.
327. Holt SK, Salinas CA, Stanford JL. Vasectomy and the
risk of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2565-2567;
discussion 2567-2568.
328. Cox B, Sneyd MJ, Paul C, Delahunt B, Skegg DC. Vasecto-
my and risk of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2002;287(23):3110-
3115.
329. Schwingl PJ, Meirik O, Kapp N, Farley TM, on behalf
of the HRP Multicenter Study of Prostate Cancer and Va-
sectomy. Prostate cancer and vasectomy: a hospital-based
case-control study in China, Nepal and the Republic of
Korea. Contraception. 2009;79(5):363-368.
330. Leitzmann MF, Platz EA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Gio-
vannucci E. Ejaculation frequency and subsequent risk of
prostate cancer. JAMA. 2004;291(13):1578-1586.
331. Rider JR, Wilson KM, Sinnott JA, Kelly RS, Mucci
LA, Giovannucci EL. Ejaculation Frequency and Risk
of Prostate Cancer: Updated Results with an Additional
Decade of Follow-up. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):974-982.
332. Papa NP, MacInnis RJ, English DR, Bolton D, Davis ID,
Lawrentschuk N, Millar JL, et al. Ejaculatory frequency
and the risk of aggressive prostate cancer: Findings from
a case-control study. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(8):530.e7-530.
e13.
333. Isaacs JT. Prostatic structure and function in relation to
the etiology of prostatic cancer. Prostate. 1983;4(4):351-
366.
334. Costello LC, Franklin RB. The clinical relevance of the
metabolism of prostate cancer; zinc and tumor suppres-
sion: connecting the dots. Mol Cancer. 2006;5:17.
335. Svatek RS, Karam JA, Rogers TE, Shulman MJ, Mar-
gulis V, Benaim EA. Intraluminal crystalloids are highly
associated with prostatic adenocarcinoma on concur-
rent biopsy specimens. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis.
2007;10(3):279-282.
336. Del Rosario AD, Bui HX, Abdulla M, Ross JS. Sulfur-
rich prostatic intraluminal crystalloids: a surgical patho-
logic and electron probe x-ray microanalytic study. Hum
Pathol. 1993;24(11):1159-1167.
337. Newman HF, Reiss H, Northup JD. Physical basis of
emission, ejaculation, and orgasm in the male. Urology.
1982;19(4):341-350.
338. Myles P, Evans S, Lophatananon A, Dimitropoulou
P, Easton D, Key T, Pocock R, et al. Diagnostic radia-
tion procedures and risk of prostate cancer. Br J Cancer.
2008;98(11):1852-1856.
339. Stark T, Livas L, Kyprianou N. Inammation in prostate
cancer progression and therapeutic targeting. Transl An-
drol Urol. 2015;4(4):455-463.
340. Raghow S, Hooshdaran MZ, Katiyar S, Steiner MS.
Toremifene prevents prostate cancer in the transgenic
Articles © The authors | Journal compilation © World J Oncol and Elmer Press Inc™ | www.wjon.org 89
Rawla World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63-89
adenocarcinoma of mouse prostate model. Cancer Res.
2002;62(5):1370-1376.
341. Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, Bolognese JA, Oxeni-
us B, Horgan K, Lines C, et al. Cardiovascular events as-
sociated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemo-
prevention trial. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(11):1092-1102.
342. Price D, Stein B, Sieber P, Tutrone R, Bailen J, Golubo
E, Burzon D, et al. Toremifene for the prevention of pros-
tate cancer in men with high grade prostatic intraepitheli-
al neoplasia: results of a double-blind, placebo controlled,
phase IIB clinical trial. J Urol. 2006;176(3):965-970; dis-
cussion 970-961.
343. Taneja SS, Morton R, Barnette G, Sieber P, Hancock ML,
Steiner M. Prostate cancer diagnosis among men with
isolated high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia enrolled
onto a 3-year prospective phase III clinical trial of oral
toremifene. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(5):523-529.
344. Jorgensen JT. Drug-diagnostics co-development in oncol-
ogy. Front Oncol. 2014;4:208.
345. Olsen D, Jorgensen JT. Companion diagnostics for tar-
geted cancer drugs - clinical and regulatory aspects. Front
Oncol. 2014;4:105.
... Studies have also shown that prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates are strongly related to the age with the highest incidence being seen in elderly men. 25 Further, older patients are more likely to have high-risk prostate cancer at diagnosis and less likely to receive local therapy. Indeed, underuse of potentially curative local therapy among older men with high-risk disease may in part explain observed differences in cancer-specific survival across age strata. ...
Article
Full-text available
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Noncommercial uses of the work are permitted, provided the original work is properly cited. Introduction: Prostate cancer is an emerging health problem in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is often diagnosed at an advanced stage due to lack of access to screening and diagnostic facilities. Methods: This study therefore aimed to model the effects of risk factors on the outcome of prostate cancer screening using Generalized Bayesian ordinal logistic regression with random effects then compare the results obtained with the model without random effects. The study further used Mean Squared Errors to establish if the estimates for the two models were different. Results: The findings in this study indicate that aged individuals have high chances of having prostate cancer at the early, late or advanced stage. The individual with traces of family history and hereditary breast & ovarian cancer syndrome are also most likely to be in late or advanced stage of prostate cancer. Conclusion: From the findings aged individuals, having traces of family history and individuals with hereditary breast & ovarian cancer history, should make sure they understand all symptoms of prostate cancer so that incase of any signs they immediately seek for screening services. In addition, the Ministry of Health should create awareness training and increase screening facilities, this will also encourage for early screening and detection of prostate cancer. The models with presence of random effects were considered best since they had lowest Widely Applicable Information Criterion values in each category. ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Received Revised
... Prostate cancer is the second-most frequent malignancy in men and the fifth leading cause of death worldwide [70]. Many prostate cancers are detected on the basis of elevated plasmatic levels of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a glycoprotein normally expressed by prostate tissue, whose levels are often increased in intraprostatic inflammation [71]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Absent in melanoma 2 (AIM2) is a member of the innate immune sensors that recognizes cytosolic nucleic acids, leading to inflammasome assembly. In recent years, several studies in the oncology field have highlighted the presence of cytoplasmic double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) following necrosis and/or genomic instability, which is typical of malignant transformation. The recognition of dsDNA by the AIM2 inflammasome either in cancer cells or in immune cells can further exacerbate inflammatory processes on the basis of cancer progression. In this context, the role of AIM2 in cancer is still controversial in that some authors assume that AIM2 activation has pro-tumor activities, while others define it as anti-tumor. This discrepancy may be due to the nature of the cells where AIM2 is expressed or the histology of the tumor. This review aims to provide an overview of the controversial role of AIM2 in cancer, taking into consideration the pharmacological tools currently available to modulate AIM2 activity in cancer.
... Prostate cancer is more prevalent in industrialized nations, with GLOBOCAN estimating 1,276,106 new cases and 358,989 deaths worldwide in 2018. Each year, approximately 80,000 individuals globally succumb to prostate cancer, with an average of 190,000 new cases diagnosed annually (2). In Korea, recent data ranks prostate cancer as the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in men, highlighting a pressing need for effective prevention and treatment strategies (3,4). ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Prostate cancer (PCa) is a malignancy characterized by abnormal cell proliferation in the prostate gland, a critical component of the male reproductive system. Atractylodes lancea DC. (ALD), a medicinal herb commonly used in traditional Asian medicine, is highly regarded for its antioxidant, antidiabetic, and anticancer properties. Virtual docking stud-ies have identified Atractylenolide II and III as active components of ALD, demonstrating strong binding potential to inhibit androgen receptor (AR) activity, with docking scores of -8.9 and -9.3, respectively. These findings suggest that ALD may exert a synergistic effect comparable to or greater than that of enzalutamide (ENZ) in inhibiting AR. How-ever, its specific anticancer and anti-metastatic mechanisms in prostate cancer remain unclear. Methods The cytotoxic effects of ALD were evaluated on PC3 and DU145 prostate cancer cells, as well as on the normal prostate cell line BPH-1. Cell viability was assessed using the EZ-Cytotoxic kit, while colony formation assays and TUNEL staining were used to meas-ure proliferation and apoptosis, respectively. Apoptosis was further analyzed through an-nexin V-FITC/PI staining and quantified by flow cytometry (FACS). Western blotting was performed to elucidate the underlying molecular mechanisms. Additionally, mito-chondrial membrane potential (ΔΨm) and intracellular calcium levels were measured to evaluate mitochondrial function, while reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation was assessed with and without pretreatment with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) . Results ALD selectively reduced the viability of PC3 and DU145 prostate cancer cells while spar-ing BPH-1 normal prostate cells, demonstrating cancer-selective cytotoxicity. ALD dis-rupted mitochondrial function by reducing ΔΨm and increasing intracellular calcium lev-els. A concentration-dependent increase in ROS generation was observed in PC3 and DU145 cells, which was completely inhibited by NAC pretreatment, confirming a ROS-mediated mechanism. Colony formation assays revealed a significant reduction in prolif-eration, while TUNEL and annexin V-FITC/PI staining indicated enhanced apoptosis. Western blot analysis showed that ALD modulates critical survival pathways, leading to apoptotic cell death. Discussion These findings demonstrate that ALD exerts potent anticancer effects against metastatic prostate cancer cells through ROS-mediated apoptosis and mitochondrial dysfunction, while exhibiting minimal cytotoxicity toward normal prostate cells. The presence of ac-tive compounds such as Atractylenolide II and III suggests a synergistic interaction that enhances AR inhibition and promotes apoptosis. ALD’s ability to engage multiple path-ways highlights its therapeutic potential as a selective and multifaceted treatment for ag-gressive prostate cancer.
... Prostate cancer is an age-related disease and the second leading cause of cancer in the western countries [1,2]. It is now widely recognized that majority of the prostate cancers are androgendependent [3,4]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Prostate cancer is an age-related most common cancer characterized by uncontrolled cell growth that develops in the walnut-sized prostate gland in men that potentially forms tumors and metastases to other parts of the body that are untreated. It is widely recognized that 80% of the prostate cancers are androgen-dependent. Thus, inhibition of CYP17 hydroxylase and lyase will stop the androgen synthesis and testosterone over production and ultimately help in treating prostate cancer. Heterocyclic scaffolds (especially imidazole and triazole) have great affinity and potency against the CYP17 hydroxylase and lyase. In this study, we developed a statistically robust and reliable predictive model using Hansch and topological parameters with a series of phenyl alkyl imidazole-based 17α-hydroxylase/17-20-lyase inhibitors. The promising scaffolds were optimized based on the mechanistic interpretations of substitutions, fragments, and branching, and a total of 3645 novel compounds were designed and screened over topological models to identify drug-like potential inhibitors. Molecular docking analysis depicted binding patterns, interaction energies, and a possible mechanism of inhibition of potential molecules. Finally, six potential hydroxylase and nine lyase inhibitors were reported based on the docking score and binding free energy. The novel 369 and 318 are the most promising designed candidates for prostate cancer treatment, while the compound 625 is a potential selective lyase inhibitor with 375-fold activity over the hydroxylase. The ADMET study states the compounds are drug-like and non-toxic. The findings of this study will definitely help the experimental researchers with a prior basis for the potential of novel, promising CYP-17 inhibitors of this class. Received: 23 August 2024 | Revised: 19 December 2024 | Accepted: 15 January 2025 Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to this work. Data Availability Statement The data that support this work are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. Author Contribution Statement Balaji Wamanrao Matore: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Anjali Murmu: Writing – review & editing. Jagadish Singh: Formal analysis, Investigation. Partha Pratim Roy: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Resources, Supervision, Project administration.
... It ranks as the second most frequent cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer death among men worldwide [24]. However, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels can be elevated in some men without cancer [34], and factors such as urinary tract infections, medications, and surgery can also affect PSA levels [35]. Consequently, tissue biopsy remains the gold standard for confirming prostate cancer, as PSA screening alone may not be clinically reliable. ...
Article
Full-text available
Attenuated total reflection-Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy has shown significant promise in the context of liquid biopsy, offering a potential tool for cancer diagnostics. Unlike traditional tissue biopsies, which may not fully capture the clonal heterogeneity of tumors, liquid biopsy reflects the dynamic state of the disease and its progression more comprehensively. Biofluids such as serum and plasma are low-cost, minimally invasive diagnostic media with well-established clinical uses. This review assesses the use of ATR-FTIR spectroscopy to detect biochemical changes in biofluids linked to various malignancies, including breast, ovarian, endometrial, prostate, bladder, kidney, pancreatic, colorectal, hepatic, esophageal, gastric, lung, and brain cancers. While ATR-FTIR offers the advantages of rapid, minimally invasive detection and real-time disease monitoring, its integration into clinical practice faces challenges, particularly in terms of reproducibility due to variability in sample preparation, spectral acquisition, and data processing. The translation of ATR-FTIR into routine diagnostics will require validation through large-scale cohort studies and multicenter trials to ensure its clinical reliability and effectiveness.
Article
Full-text available
African American men face a stark prostate cancer (PCa)‐related health disparity, with the highest incidence and mortality rates compared to other races. Additional and innovative measures are warranted to reduce this health disparity. Here, we focused on the identification of a novel serum exosome‐based “protein signature” for potential use in the early detection and better prognosis of PCa in African American men. Nanoparticle tracking analyses showed that compared to healthy individuals, exosome concentration (number/ml) was increased by ~3.2‐fold (P ˂ 0.05) in the sera of African American men with PCa. Mass spectrometry‐based proteomic analysis of serum exosomes identified seven unique and fifty‐five overlapping proteins (up‐ or downregulated) in African Americans with PCa compared to healthy African Americans. Furthermore, ingenuity pathway analyses identified the inflammatory acute‐phase response signaling as the top pathway associated with proteins loaded in exosomes from African American PCa patients. Interestingly, African American PCa E006AA‐hT cells secreted exosomes strongly induced a proinflammatory M2‐phenotype in macrophages and showed calcium response on sensory neurons, suggesting a neuroinflammatory response. Additionally, proteomic analyses showed that the protein Isoform 2 of Filamin A has higher loading (2.6‐fold) in exosomes from African Americans with PCa, but a lesser loading (0.6‐fold) was observed in exosomes from Caucasian men with PCa compared to race‐matched healthy individuals. Interestingly, TCGA and Taylor's dataset as well as IHC analyses of PCa tissue showed a lower Filamin A expression in tissues of PCa patients compared with normal subjects. Overall, these results support the usefulness of serum exosomes to noninvasively detect inflammatory phenotype and to discover novel biomarkers associated with PCa in African American men.
Article
Full-text available
We previously observed a positive association between seropositivity for the parasite Trichomonas vaginalis and risk of clinically significant prostate cancer at diagnosis. Here, we examined whether T. vaginalis seropositivity was associated with increased prostate cancer‐specific or all‐cause mortality among prostate cancer patients. We studied 736 men with prostate cancer from the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS) and 749 men with prostate cancer from the Health Professionals Follow‐Up Study (HPFS). We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate multivariable‐adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the association between T. vaginalis serostatus and progression to death from prostate cancer and from all causes. In PHS, 423 men died of any cause during a median follow‐up of 13.8 years from the date of cancer diagnosis, among whom 131 died of prostate cancer. In HPFS, there were 287 deaths, including 77 deaths from prostate cancer, during a median follow‐up of 12.8 years. We found no association between T. vaginalis serostatus and either prostate cancer mortality or all‐cause mortality in either the PHS or HPFS. While previous studies suggest a possible role for T. vaginalis in the development of clinically significant prostate cancer, our findings do not support the hypothesis that T. vaginalis serostatus is associated with mortality among prostate cancer patients.
Article
Full-text available
Although research has reported that prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality rates are among the highest for African Americans, the data is inconclusive regarding PCa rates in native African men, Black men residing in other countries, and men in Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Data reveals that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and disease incidence have risen significantly in developing and Asian countries, and PCa has become one of the leading male cancers in many of those nations. The objective of this study was to review published peer-reviewed studies that address PCa in different regions of the world to get a better understanding of how PCa incidence, prevalence, detection, and mortality are influenced by race, ethnicity, and geography. A secondary goal was to compare PCa data from various world regions to contextualize how disproportionate the incidence and mortality rates are among men from the African diaspora versus men of European, Hispanic, and Asian descent, as well as to highlight the need for more robust screening and treatment guidelines in developing countries. There are differences in incidence and mortality rates between men of African, Asian, Hispanic, and European ancestry, confirming the involvement of genetic factors. However, differences between men of the same race and ethnicity who live in different countries suggest that environmental factors may also be implicated. Availability and access to diagnostic and health-care services as well as recommendations regarding PCa testing vary from country to country and contribute to the variability in incidence and mortality rates.
Article
Full-text available
BACKGROUND Temporal trends in prostate cancer incidence and death rates have been attributed to changing patterns of screening and improved treatment (mortality only), among other factors. This study evaluated contemporary national‐level trends and their relations with prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) testing prevalence and explored trends in incidence according to disease characteristics with stage‐specific, delay‐adjusted rates. METHODS Joinpoint regression was used to examine changes in delay‐adjusted prostate cancer incidence rates from population‐based US cancer registries from 2000 to 2014 by age categories, race, and disease characteristics, including stage, PSA, Gleason score, and clinical extension. In addition, the analysis included trends for prostate cancer mortality between 1975 and 2015 by race and the estimation of PSA testing prevalence between 1987 and 2005. The annual percent change was calculated for periods defined by significant trend change points. RESULTS For all age groups, overall prostate cancer incidence rates declined approximately 6.5% per year from 2007. However, the incidence of distant‐stage disease increased from 2010 to 2014. The incidence of disease according to higher PSA levels or Gleason scores at diagnosis did not increase. After years of significant decline (from 1993 to 2013), the overall prostate cancer mortality trend stabilized from 2013 to 2015. CONCLUSIONS After a decline in PSA test usage, there has been an increased burden of late‐stage disease, and the decline in prostate cancer mortality has leveled off. Cancer 2018. © 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.
Article
This article provides a status report on the global burden of cancer worldwide using the GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with a focus on geographic variability across 20 world regions. There will be an estimated 18.1 million new cancer cases (17.0 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 9.6 million cancer deaths (9.5 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) in 2018. In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer (11.6% of the total cases) and the leading cause of cancer death (18.4% of the total cancer deaths), closely followed by female breast cancer (11.6%), prostate cancer (7.1%), and colorectal cancer (6.1%) for incidence and colorectal cancer (9.2%), stomach cancer (8.2%), and liver cancer (8.2%) for mortality. Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among males, followed by prostate and colorectal cancer (for incidence) and liver and stomach cancer (for mortality). Among females, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, followed by colorectal and lung cancer (for incidence), and vice versa (for mortality); cervical cancer ranks fourth for both incidence and mortality. The most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, however, substantially vary across countries and within each country depending on the degree of economic development and associated social and life style factors. It is noteworthy that high‐quality cancer registry data, the basis for planning and implementing evidence‐based cancer control programs, are not available in most low‐ and middle‐income countries. The Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development is an international partnership that supports better estimation, as well as the collection and use of local data, to prioritize and evaluate national cancer control efforts. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2018;0:1‐31. © 2018 American Cancer Society
Article
Importance In the United States, the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer is approximately 13%, and the lifetime risk of dying of prostate cancer is 2.5%. The median age of death from prostate cancer is 80 years. Many men with prostate cancer never experience symptoms and, without screening, would never know they have the disease. African American men and men with a family history of prostate cancer have an increased risk of prostate cancer compared with other men. Objective To update the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based screening for prostate cancer. Evidence Review The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer and subsequent treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a review of existing decision analysis models and the overdiagnosis rate of PSA-based screening. The reviews also examined the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening in patient subpopulations at higher risk of prostate cancer, including older men, African American men, and men with a family history of prostate cancer. Findings Adequate evidence from randomized clinical trials shows that PSA-based screening programs in men aged 55 to 69 years may prevent approximately 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over approximately 13 years per 1000 men screened. Screening programs may also prevent approximately 3 cases of metastatic prostate cancer per 1000 men screened. Potential harms of screening include frequent false-positive results and psychological harms. Harms of prostate cancer treatment include erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel symptoms. About 1 in 5 men who undergo radical prostatectomy develop long-term urinary incontinence, and 2 in 3 men will experience long-term erectile dysfunction. Adequate evidence shows that the harms of screening in men older than 70 years are at least moderate and greater than in younger men because of increased risk of false-positive results, diagnostic harms from biopsies, and harms from treatment. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the net benefit of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men aged 55 to 69 years is small for some men. How each man weighs specific benefits and harms will determine whether the overall net benefit is small. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the potential benefits of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older do not outweigh the expected harms. Conclusions and Recommendation For men aged 55 to 69 years, the decision to undergo periodic PSA-based screening for prostate cancer should be an individual one and should include discussion of the potential benefits and harms of screening with their clinician. Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results that require additional testing and possible prostate biopsy; overdiagnosis and overtreatment; and treatment complications, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the balance of benefits and harms on the basis of family history, race/ethnicity, comorbid medical conditions, patient values about the benefits and harms of screening and treatment-specific outcomes, and other health needs. Clinicians should not screen men who do not express a preference for screening. (C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older. (D recommendation)
Article
Background: Environmental exposures are contributing factors to prostate cancer etiology, but these remain unclear. We aimed to document the associations between environmental risk factors and prostate cancer in Chinese, with special reference to bisphenol A (BPA). Methods: We recruited 431 newly diagnosed prostate cancer cases and 402 age-matched controls from Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong. We obtained each participant's clinical data and epidemiological information on chronic BPA exposure and other environmental risk factors (e.g., dietary habits, occupation and shift work) using a standard questionnaire. A new assessment tool of environmental BPA exposure was developed and replicated. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to examine odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the association of prostate cancer with a novel cumulative BPA exposure index (CBPAI) and other environmental risk factors. Results: Weekly consumption of deep fried food (OR=1.85, 95% CI: 1.15-2.95) and pickled vegetable (OR=1.87, 95% CI: 1.07-3.28) was significantly associated with excessive prostate cancer risk. Prostate cancer was positively associated with nightshift work (OR=1.76, 95% CI: 1.07-2.89) and it was negatively associated with green tea drinking (OR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.91). There was a positive exposure-response relationship between CBPAI and prostate cancer, with the greatest and significant risk in the high versus reference category (OR=1.57, 95% CI: 1.01-2.44). Conclusions: Frequent consumption of deep fried food and pickled vegetable, non-habitual green tea drinking and nightshift work are the contributing risk factors to prostate cancer in Hong Kong Chinese. More importantly, this study provides the first epidemiological evidence on carcinogenicity of BPA on the human prostate.
Article
Objective: To estimate the global prevalence and incidence of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection in 2003. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken of published seroprevalence surveys describing the prevalence or incidence of HSV-2 by age and gender. For each of 12 regions, pooled prevalence values by age and gender were generated in a random-effect model. HSV-2 incidence was then estimated from these pooled values using a constant-incidence model. Values of the HSV-2 seroprevalence from the model fits were applied to the total population to estimate the numbers of people infected. Findings: The total number of people aged 15-49 years who were living with HSV-2 infection worldwide in 2003 is estimated to be 536 million, while the total number of people who were newly infected with HSV-2 in 2003 is estimated to be 23.6 million. While the estimates are limited by poor availability of data, general trends are evident. For example, more women than men were infected, and the number infected increased with age. Although prevalence varied substantially by region, predicted prevalence was mostly higher in developing regions than developed regions. Conclusion: The prevalence of HSV-2 is relatively easy to measure since infection is lifelong and has a specific serological test. The burden of disease is less easy to quantify. Despite the often sparse data on which these estimates are based, it is clear that HSV-2 infection is widespread. The dramatic differences in prevalence between regions are worthy of further exploration.
Article
Objectives: Recent literature reports inverse associations with ejaculator frequency and prostate cancer (PC). We sought to explore the relationship between ejaculatory frequency from ages 20 to 50 and subsequent development of aggressive PC. Material and methods: We conducted a case-control study sampling 2,141 men from private urology practices in Victoria, Australia. Cases were defined as men with high grade or high stage PC and controls being biopsy negative men. Ejaculation frequency recalled at age decades 20, 30, and 40 second was assessed by questionnaire. Unconditional multivariable logistic regression models were used to generate odds ratios (ORs). Results: An inverse association with ejaculatory frequency at age 30 to 39 was observed (OR per 5-unit increase per week = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.72-0.96) but not at ages 20 to 29 (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.89-1.14) or ages 40 to 49 (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.81-1.12). This result differed between men with new sexual partners after age 30 (OR = 0.77, P = 0.009) and those with no new partners (OR = 0.97, P = 0.8) though the test for a difference between these estimates was not significant (P = 0.11). Conclusion: We found only weak evidence of an inverse association between ejaculatory frequency in the fourth decade of life and advanced PC, which was not significantly modified by number of new sexual partners. No relationship was found for ejaculatory frequency in the third and fifth decades of life.
Article
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, covering all aspects of prostatic diseases, in particular prostate cancer. The journal is of interest to surgeons, oncologists, clinicians, and researchers involved in disease of the prostate.