Risk of prostate cancer is not associated with levels of C-reactive protein and other commonly used markers of inflammation

Authors

  • Mieke Van Hemelrijck,

    Corresponding author
    1. King's College London, School of Medicine, Division of Cancer Studies, Cancer Epidemiology Group, London, United Kingdom
    • Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Division of Cancer Studies, School of Medicine, King's College London, Research Oncology, 3rd Floor, Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Hospital, London SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author
    • Tel.: +44 (0)20 -3287 -9815

  • Ingmar Jungner,

    1. Clinical Epidemiological Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet and CALAB Research, Stockholm, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Göran Walldius,

    1. Department of Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    2. Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Hans Garmo,

    1. King's College London, School of Medicine, Division of Cancer Studies, Cancer Epidemiology Group, London, United Kingdom
    2. Regional Oncologic Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Elisa Binda,

    1. King's College London, Division of Immunology, Infection and Inflammatory disease, Peter Gorer Department of Immunobiology, School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Adrian Hayday,

    1. King's College London, Division of Immunology, Infection and Inflammatory disease, Peter Gorer Department of Immunobiology, School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom
    2. London Research Institute, Cancer Research UK, London, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mats Lambe,

    1. Regional Oncologic Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    2. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lars Holmberg,

    1. King's College London, School of Medicine, Division of Cancer Studies, Cancer Epidemiology Group, London, United Kingdom
    2. Regional Oncologic Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Niklas Hammar

    1. Department of Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    2. AstraZeneca Sverige, Södertalje, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Role of funding organizations: The funding organizations had no influence in the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data, and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. The corresponding author had full access to all of the data and the final responsibility to submit for publication

Abstract

Most population-based studies studied the association between inflammation and prostate cancer (PCa) by assessing C-reactive protein (CRP). As these findings have shown inconsistent results, we aimed to also study different markers that have been commonly taken as indications of inflammation. A cohort based on four groups of men (n = 34,891), according to age at cohort entry (45, 55, 65 and 75 years), with measurements of glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, haptoglobin, albumin, hemoglobin and leukocytes were selected from the Apolipoprotein Mortality Risk database. A total of 17,937 men had measurements of non-high-sensitive CRP. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze associations between inflammatory markers and PCa. A total of 49 of 12,063 men developed PCa in the age 45 group, whereas 207 of 9,940, 472 of 8,266 and 276 of 3,618 were diagnosed in the age 55, 65 and 75 groups, respectively. Mean follow-up time was 7.5 years (SD: 3.9). No markers showed an association with PCa risk, nor was there a trend by quartiles or an indication for different PCa risks by strata of hypercholesterolemia, hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia status. The studied markers were not found to be associated with PCa risk. These null findings might be due to methodological issues; however, it is unlikely that strong and long-lasting associations between inflammation and PCa risk were missed as this was a large database with long follow-up. This indicates need for international consensus on appropriate inflammatory markers in the context of cancer that may be practically applied in large studies.

Ancillary