Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jun 8.
Published in final edited form as: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2011 Jul 5;14(4):346–353. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2011.31

TABLE 3.

Risk for Gleason Sum ≥7 CaP detection1 with abnormal DRE compared to normal DRE.

By BMI Category
Study Cohort Overall <25 25–29.9 ≥30 p-trend3
Duke Prostate Center 0.41
 OR2 2.41 1.85 2.53 2.74
 95% CI 1.76 – 3.30 0.97 – 3.51 1.52 – 4.21 1.61 – 4.66
 P <0.001 0.062 <0.001 <0.001
Durham VA 0.26
 OR2 3.51 2.84 3.32 4.46
 95% CI 2.44 – 5.05 1.36 – 5.92 1.84 – 5.96 2.41 – 8.24
 P <0.001 0.006 <0.001 <0.001
La Sapienza University 0.03
 OR2 2.82 2.08 3.61 7.29
 95% CI 1.94 – 4.11 1.01 – 4.27 2.02 – 6.46 2.84 – 18.72
 P <0.001 0.046 <0.001 <0.001
COMBINED4 0.03
 OR2 2.76 2.03 2.78 3.60
 95% CI 2.26 – 3.37 1.37 – 3.01 2.03 – 3.80 2.51 – 5.16
 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Abbreviations: CaP, prostate cancer; BMI, body-mass index; DRE, digital rectal exam; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

1

In reference to men who either had Gleason Sum <7 tumors or a negative biopsy.

2

For overall model with BMI as continuous variable, DRE results adjusted for log BMI, log PSA, age at biopsy, year of biopsy, and ethnicity. For models stratified by BMI category, DRE results adjusted for log PSA, age at biopsy, year of biopsy, and ethnicity. All models constructed using multivariable logistic regression.

3

Test for trend of increasing odds ratios across BMI categories.

4

Combined analyses additionally adjusted for study center.