Table 1.

Relevant clinical studies of the relationship between MetS and prostate cancer.

Authors, year	Study design	Country	Population	Time	Age years (range or mean ± SD)	Cohort size	Exposure assessment: MetS criteria	Number of cases	Results (outcome: PCa)	Level of evidence
Laukkanen et al., 2004 [91]	Longitudinal cohort study	Finland	Kuopio communities	1984–2001	42–62	1880 (White)	WHO	56	Risk increase (RR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.06–3.53)	2b
Håheim et al., 2006 [92]	Longitudinal cohort study	Norway	Oslo study	1972–1998	40–49	15 933 (White)	Upper quartile levels ATP III criteria	507	Risk increase (RR: 1.56; 95 %CI: 1.21–2)	2b
Martin et al., 2009 [93]	Longitudinal cohort study	Norway	Nord-Trondelag Health study (HUNT 2)	1996–2005	48 ± 16.4	29 364 (White)	NCEP: ATP III	687	No association (HR: 0.91, 95% CI, 0.877–1.09)	2b
Beebe-Dimmer et al., 2009 [94]	Case-control study	USA	Gene Environment and Prostate Cancer study (GECAP)	2001–2004	62 ± 10.4	881 (56% White; 44% African-American)	NCEP: ATP III	637	Risk increase in African-American population (OR: 1.71, 95% CI; 0.97–3.01)	3
Tande et al., 2006 [95]	Longitudinal cohort study	USA	Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC);	1987–2000	45–64	6429 (49% White; 61% African-American)	NCEP: ATP III	385	Risk reduction (RR: 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51–1.05)	2b
Kheterpal et al., 2012 [96]	Longitudinal cohort study	USA	Robotic radical prostatectomy	2005–2008	45–65	2756	BMI ≥30 and ≥2 of the following: hypertension, diabetes or elevated blood glucose, and dyslipidemia	357	Greater pathology Gleason grade (≥7: 78% versus 64%, P < 0.001) and pathologic stage (≥T3 disease: 43% versus 32%, P < 0.001)	3
C. De Nunzio et al., 2011 [78]	Cohort study	Italy	Prostate biopsy cohort study	2009-2010	47–83	195 (White)	NCEP: ATP III	102	No association (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.48–1.95); Increased risk for Gleason score ≥7 in pts with PCA (OR: 3.82, 95% CI: 1.33–10.9)	3