Abstract
Background
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) may prospectively decrease absolute lean mass (LM) and increase absolute fat mass (FM). Given that estimates of LM by dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry may be overestimated in obese people, this study examined the influence of adiposity on muscle health in men treated with ADT for PCa.
Methods
This cross‐sectional study examined the influence of adiposity on total and appendicular LM (ALM), muscle cross‐sectional (CSA), and muscle strength in 70 men treated with ADT [mean (standard deviation) age, 71 (6) years] for PCa compared with age‐matched PCa (n = 52) and healthy controls (n = 70). Total body LM, FM and ALM, and 66% tibia and radius muscle CSA were quantified by dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry and peripheral quantitative computed tomography, respectively. ALM was further divided by height (m2) or body mass index, with muscle CSA expressed as a per cent of total limb CSA. Upper and lower body and back (three‐repetition maximum and dynamometry) muscle strength were expressed per kilogram of body weight.
Results
On average, ADT‐treated men had 4.4–6.4 kg greater FM compared with controls (P ≤ 0.014) and there were no differences in total body or ALM. Total body per cent LM and ALMBMI were 3.8–5.4% (P ≤ 0.001) and 7.8–9.4% (P ≤ 0.001) lower, respectively, in ADT‐treated men compared with both controls. Percentage muscle CSA at both sites and muscle strength (except leg) were 3.0–6.0% (P ≤ 0.031) and 15–17% (P ≤ 0.010) lower, respectively, in ADT‐treated men compared with both controls.
Conclusions
The findings from this study indicate muscle mass, size, and strength are compromised in men treated with ADT after accounting for their increased adiposity or body size.
Keywords: Sarcopenia, Atrophy, Prostatic neoplasms, Body composition, Adipose tissue
Introduction
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed male cancer both worldwide and in Australia.1, 2 Besides the notable contribution to male cancer‐related deaths,1 the diagnosis and treatment of PCa may predispose men to a range of adverse health outcomes. One specific treatment, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), is often accompanied by deleterious effects on lean mass, fat mass, and muscle strength.3, 4 This is of clinical relevance given that these changes increase the risk of cardiometabolic diseases, osteoporosis, falls, fractures, mobility limitations, and mortality.5, 6, 7, 8 When compared with healthy‐hormonal and non‐hormonal PCa‐matched controls, men treated with ADT have consistently been shown to have increased fat mass.9, 10 However, similar comparisons of lean mass and muscle strength have yielded mixed results that may be related to the inclusion of different comparison groups. For instance, absolute total body lean mass was shown to be approximately 3.8 kg lower in 67 men treated with ADT (mean age, 71 years) when compared with both healthy and PCa controls, respectively.10 However, controls were on average 4–8 years younger, which may have confounded these results. In another study that compared 20 ADT‐treated men (mean age, 70 years) with age‐matched healthy (n = 18) and PCa controls (n = 20), no significant differences were detected between groups for absolute total body lean mass.11 Similar conflicting findings have been reported for muscle strength. For instance, when compared with age‐matched healthy controls, men treated with ADT had similar12 or 29% lower13 handgrip muscle strength. Another cross‐sectional study of 20 ADT‐treated men (mean age, 70 years) demonstrated that they had approximately half the upper body muscle strength (bench press one‐repetition maximum) compared with 18 age‐matched PCa controls, but similar leg muscle strength (leg press one‐repetition maximum).11 One factor that could contribute to the heterogeneity in the results for lean mass and muscle strength between men treated with and without ADT and healthy controls is a difference in fat (adiposity).
Previous research has shown that increased adiposity (fat mass) is often associated with increased lean mass and muscle strength in men aged greater than 55 years, which may be explained by additional muscle contractile work required during normal locomotion and activities of daily living associated with excess fat.14, 15 Currently, there are several methods to adjust lean mass for adiposity (body size), including appendicular lean mass (ALM) divided by height (m) squared (ALMI) or body mass index (BMI) (ALMBMI)16, 17 and total body lean mass expressed as a percentage of total body weight.18 Increased adiposity has been associated with greater muscle strength in healthy older men,14 and thus, muscle strength is often normalized to body weight (e.g. expressed as strength per kilogram of body weight). To date, these adiposity‐based adjustments have received limited attention in men treated with ADT. One cross‐sectional study observed that 30 ADT‐treated men (mean age, 72 years) and 25 age‐matched non‐ADT hypogonadal controls had similar ALMI (mean, both 7.5 kg/m2); however, no comparison was made to eugonadal men.19 Conversely, neither ALMBMI nor body weight‐adjusted muscle strength has been examined in this clinical population group. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare absolute and adiposity‐adjusted measures of total body and regional lean mass and muscle strength in men treated with ADT to appropriately selected age‐matched PCa and healthy controls.
Methods
Participants
This was a pre‐planned cross‐sectional study, performed parallel to the baseline of a randomized controlled trial,20 where comparisons were made between 70 men treated with ADT for PCa, 52 men treated with non‐hormonal therapies (i.e. surgery, radiotherapy, or active surveillance) for PCa (PCa controls), and 70 men not diagnosed with PCa (healthy controls). Eligible participants were men aged 50–85 years. Participants were excluded if they did not have the ability to complete surveys in the English language, had any disorder known to affect bone, calcium, or vitamin D metabolism (other than hypogonadism), were currently receiving pharmacological intervention known to affect bone metabolism (other than ADT), had supplemented with protein, calcium (>600 mg/day), or vitamin D (>1000 IU/day) in the past three months, had undertaken progressive resistance training (>one session/week) or regular weight‐bearing impact exercise (>150 min/week) in the past three months, were current smokers, had a weight greater than 159 kg, or had any absolute contraindications to exercise testing (e.g. musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or neurological) according to the American College of Sports Medicine guidelines.21 Specific to men treated with ADT, treatment must have been pharmacological (surgical orchiectomy excluded) and administered for greater than 12 weeks at enrolment.
Men treated with ADT were recruited via clinician referral from Alfred Health (Melbourne, Australia), Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (Victoria, Australia), and private urology practices (Victoria, Australia), as well as from PCa support groups (Victoria, Australia) and advertisements in state/local newspapers. PCa and healthy controls were recruited from PCa support groups and advertisements in state/local newspapers. The study was approved by the human research ethics committees at Deakin University (HREC 2013‐184), Alfred Health (Project No: 4515/15), and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (Project No: 17/118). All participants gave their informed written consent prior to participation. This study was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Measurements
Lean and fat mass
Total and regional lean and fat mass (kg) and total body per cent lean and fat mass (%) were assessed by dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) and analysed using software version 12.30.008 (Lunar iDXA, GE Lunar Corp., Madison, USA). Participants were assigned an individual study identifier code, which allowed for blinded assessment of all DXA scans. ALM was calculated as arm lean mass (kg) plus leg lean mass (kg). ALMI was calculated as ALM (kg) divided by height (m) squared. ALM adjusted for BMI (ALMBMI) was calculated as ALM (kg) divided by BMI (kg/m2). Percentage ALM was calculated as ALM divided by total weight multiplied by 100.
Muscle and limb cross‐sectional area
Muscle and limb cross‐sectional area (CSA) of the forearm (66% radius) and lower leg (66% tibia) was assessed by peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT; XCT 3000, Stratec Medizintechnik GmbH, Pforzheim, Germany). After performing a scout view of the distal radius and tibia, scans were performed at the 4% and 66% regions of the radius and tibia. Slice thickness was 1 mm, and voxel size was set at 0.5 mm with a scanning speed of 20 mm/s. ImageJ version 1.52 (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/) and the BoneJ plugin (version 1.4.2; http://bonej.org) soft tissue analysis was used to analyse all pQCT images.22 Muscle CSA (cm2) was calculated by subtracting fat CSA and bone CSA from total CSA. Thresholds of 40 and 690 mg/cm3 hydroxyapatite density were used for the estimation of fat and bone CSA, respectively. Individual study identifier codes allowed for the blinded assessment of all pQCT scans. Per cent muscle CSA was calculated as muscle CSA (cm2) divided by total limb CSA (cm2).
Muscle strength
Maximal muscle (grip) strength was assessed using a digital hand‐held dynamometer (Jamar Plus Digital, Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN, USA).23 The participant was seated with their foreman resting on the arm of chair whilst maintaining a 90° angle at the elbow. Participants were asked to squeeze the dynamometer maximally. Six trials were completed (three with each hand alternating) with the single highest score recorded.
Muscle strength was obtained for the upper body (Chest press, Powerline Smith Machine PSM144X, Body‐Solid Inc., Forest Park, IL, USA), lower body (Leg press, Omni Leg Press S‐31‐OPD, Synergy Fitness, Yatala, Australia), and back (Seated row, Adjustable Tower Pulley System F3ATFS, Nautilus, Independence, VA, USA) using a three‐repetition maximum (3‐RM) protocol.21 The 3‐RM protocol assessed the maximum weight that could be lifted for three repetitions whilst maintaining correct form and technique. Prior to completing the 3‐RM testing, participants completed a 5 min aerobic warm‐up. Thereafter, each participant performed a warm‐up set of 8–10 repetitions with a light load. The participant then completed 6–8 repetitions at a heavier weight. The load was increased incrementally until only three repetitions could be completed. A 2 min recovery period was provided between each set. Muscle strength per kilogram body weight was calculated as muscle strength (kg) divided by weight (kg).
Medical history, demographics, and lifestyle
A lifestyle and medical questionnaire was used to obtain age and ethnicity, past and current co‐morbidities, use of prescription medication, and PCa details and treatment. The Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors physical activity questionnaire was used to assess participation in a comprehensive list of low, moderate, and vigorous physical activities.24 Participants documented the frequency and duration of their participation in a ‘typical week’ of the preceding 4 weeks with the result expressed as the total habitual physical activity (kJ/day). Diet was assessed using a 24 h food recall. Dietary analysis was performed using Australia‐specific dietary analysis software (FoodWorks, Xyris software, Highgate Hills, Australia).
Statistical analysis
Based on previous research, this study was powered (≥80%, P < 0.05, two tailed) to detect the following between‐group differences between men treated with ADT and healthy controls (hypothesized to demonstrate the largest differences between groups): total body lean mass (mean ± standard deviation; −4.0 kg ± 5.6 kg),25 total body per cent fat mass (5.4% ± 6.4%),25 and handgrip strength (−11.2 kg ± 5.9 kg).13 All analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0 (IBM Corp, Chicago, USA). Initially, all data were screened for outliers and descriptive statistics were computed to compare the three groups on known confounding variables of the outcomes of interest. Equality of variances and normality of distribution of all data were assessed using Levene's test and Shapiro–Wilk's test, respectively (no data violated these assumptions). Between‐group comparisons were assessed by analyses of variance or χ2 tests. Continuous data were reported as mean ± standard deviation, whereas categorical variables were reported as frequency and percentage, unless stated otherwise. P < 0.05 (two tailed) was adopted as significant for all statistical tests.
Results
Participant characteristics
Participant characteristics are shown in Table 1. For men treated with ADT, the mean (range) treatment duration was 25 (3–166) months. On average, men treated with ADT had a 7.9% greater BMI than PCa controls (P = 0.012), but not healthy controls. There was a between‐group difference for obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), with the highest proportion in ADT‐treated men (29%) compared with PCa (17%) and healthy controls (21%). ADT‐treated men reported a 9.8% lower dietary protein intake per kilogram of body weight compared with PCa controls (P = 0.014), but not healthy controls. When compared with PCa controls only, men treated with ADT were more likely to have been diagnosed with advanced PCa and previously undergone radiotherapy or chemotherapy, but less likely to have had a prostatectomy. No other significant differences were observed between groups for other demographic, diet, physical activity, or medical treatment outcomes (Table 1).
Table 1.
Participant characteristics of men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), PCa controls, and healthy controls
| Men treated with ADT | PCa controls | Healthy controls | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 70 | 52 | 70 | — |
| Age (years) | 71 ± 6 | 69 ± 6 | 69 ± 7 | 0.073 |
| Height (cm) | 175.1 ± 6.4 | 176.1 ± 7.2 | 176.0 ± 6.5 | 0.726 |
| Weight (kg) | 88.5 ± 17.1 | 82.4 ± 13.5 | 85.1 ± 14.7 | 0.073 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 28.8 ± 5.0 | 26.6 ± 4.0 | 27.5 ± 3.1 | 0.013 |
| Obese, n (%) | 20 (29.0) | 9 (17.3) | 15 (21.4) | 0.002 |
| Ethnicity, n (%) | ||||
| Caucasian | 68 (97.1) | 51 (98.1) | 66 (94.3) | 0.382 |
| Asian | 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.9) | 4 (5.7) | |
| African | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Co‐morbidities, n (%)* | 62 (88.6) | 42 (80.8) | 61 (87.1) | 0.441 |
| If yes, total (n) | 3 ± 1 | 2 ± 1 | 2 ± 1 | 0.372 |
| Prescription medication, n (%) | 55 (78.6) | 34 (65.4) | 45 (64.3) | 0.132 |
| If yes, total (n) | 3 ± 2 | 3 ± 2 | 3 ± 2 | 0.201 |
| Physical activity (kJ/day) | 2634 ± 1706 | 3199 ± 1960 | 3016 ± 1698 | 0.192 |
| Diet | ||||
| Energy (kJ/day) | 8666 ± 2579 | 8316 ± 2151 | 8571 ± 2354 | 0.727 |
| Protein (g/day) | 93 ± 31 | 103 ± 34 | 99 ± 31 | 0.239 |
| Protein (g/kg/day) | 1.07 ± 0.36 | 1.28 ± 0.43 | 1.18 ± 0.38 | 0.017 |
| Protein (% of energy/day) | 19 ± 5 | 21 ± 6 | 20 ± 4 | 0.021 |
| Carbohydrate (g/day) | 214 ± 87 | 203 ± 67 | 218 ± 66 | 0.508 |
| Carbohydrate (% of energy/day) | 40 ± 10 | 40 ± 10 | 42 ± 8 | 0.477 |
| Fat (g/day) | 77 ± 34 | 76 ± 32 | 73 ± 29 | 0.683 |
| Fat (% of energy/day) | 33 ± 10 | 33 ± 11 | 31 ± 7 | 0.234 |
| Saturated fat (g/day) | 28 ± 13 | 26 ± 12 | 29 ± 13 | 0.472 |
| Saturated fat (% of energy/day) | 12 ± 4 | 11 ± 4 | 12 ± 4 | 0.390 |
| Time since PCa diagnosis (mo)a | 69 ± 70 | 71 ± 58 | — | 0.889 |
| Stage of PCa, n (%)a | ||||
| Localized/removed | 20 (28.6) | 44 (84.6) | — | <0.001 |
| Advanced | 45 (64.3) | 6 (11.1) | — | |
| Unknown | 5 (7.1) | 2 (3.7) | — | |
| Duration of ADT (months) | 25 ± 36 | — | — | — |
| Previous prostatectomy, n (%)a | 34 (48.6) | 36 (69.2) | — | 0.022 |
| Previous radiotherapy, n (%)a | 48 (68.6) | 12 (23.1) | — | <0.001 |
| Previous chemotherapy, n (%)a | 11 (15.7) | 0 (0.0) | — | 0.003 |
| Active surveillance, n (%) | — | 8 (15.4) | — | — |
Data are mean ± standard deviation and number (percentage). Bold = statistical significance.
Co‐morbidities included asthma/respiratory problems, chronic bronchitis, muscle/ligament problems, back pain, angina/stroke/heart condition, diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesteromaemia.
Men treated with ADT vs. PCa controls only.
Lean and fat mass
There were no significant differences between the groups for absolute total body, appendicular, or leg lean mass nor ALMI, but ADT‐treated men had 9.2% lower absolute arm lean mass compared with healthy controls (P = 0.007), but not PCa controls (Table 2). Men treated with ADT also had 4.4–6.4 kg (P ≤ 0.014) and 3.8–5.4% (P ≤ 0.002) greater total body fat mass compared with both controls. When adjusted for BMI, ADT‐treated men had 9.4% and 7.8% lower ALMBMI compared with PCa (P < 0.001) and healthy controls (P = 0.002), respectively. Additionally, when compared with PCa and healthy controls, men treated with ADT had 5.4% (P < 0.001) and 3.8% (P = 0.001) lower total body per cent lean mass, respectively.
Table 2.
Mean total body and regional lean mass, muscle cross‐sectional area, and total body fat mass in men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), PCa controls and healthy controls, and the mean difference between the three groups
| Unadjusted mean ± standard derivation | Unadjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men treated with ADT | PCa controls | Healthy controls | P value | Men treated with ADT vs. PCa controls | Men treated with ADT vs. healthy controls | PCa controls vs. healthy controls | |
| Lean mass | |||||||
| Total body (kg) | 53.8 ± 6.5 | 54.8 ± 6.3 | 55.5 ± 6.4 | 0.263 | −1.0 (−3.9, 1.8) | −1.8 (−4.4, 0.8) | −0.7 (−3.6, 2.1) |
| Total body (%) | 62.2 ± 6.7 | 67.5 ± 6.0 | 65.9 ± 5.1 | <0.001 | −5.4 (−8.0, −2.7) *** | −3.8 (−6.2, −1.3) ** | 1.6 (−1.0, 4.2) |
| Arm (kg) | 6.2 ± 1.1 | 6.7 ± 0.9 | 6.8 ± 1.0 | 0.006 | −0.4 (−0.9, 0.0) | −0.5 (−0.9, −0.1) ** | −0.1 (−0.6, 0.3) |
| Leg (kg) | 18.5 ± 2.6 | 18.6 ± 2.7 | 19.1 ± 2.6 | 0.362 | −0.1 (−1.3, 1.1) | −0.6 (−1.7, 0.5) | −0.5 (−1.7, 0.7) |
| Appendicular (kg) | 24.7 ± 3.5 | 25.3 ± 3.5 | 25.9 ± 3.5 | 0.164 | −0.5 (−2.1, 1.0) | −1.1 (−2.6, 0.3) | −0.6 (−2.2, 0.9) |
| ALMI (kg/m2) | 8.07 ± 0.95 | 8.13 ± 0.86 | 8.36 ± 0.78 | 0.119 | −0.07 (−0.45, 0.32) | −0.29 (−0.65, 0.06) | −0.23 (−0.61, 0.16) |
| ALMBMI | 0.875 ± 0.117 | 0.961 ± 0.128 | 0.946 ± 0.117 | <0.001 | −0.086 (−0.139, −0.032) *** | −0.071 (−0.120, −0.022) ** | 0.015 (−0.038, 0.068) |
| Muscle cross‐sectional area | |||||||
| Forearm (cm2) | 38.8 ± 5.8 | 41.3 ± 5.2 | 42.2 ± 6.0 | 0.003 | −2.5 (−5.2, 0.1) | −3.5 (−5.9, −1.0) ** | −0.9 (−3.6, 1.8) |
| Forearm (%) | 67.5 ± 6.1 | 73.5 ± 4.5 | 72.7 ± 4.8 | <0.001 | −6.0 (−8.4, −3.5) *** | −5.2 (−7.4, −2.9) *** | 0.8 (−1.7, 3.3) |
| Lower leg (cm2) | 75.4 ± 11.7 | 73.5 ± 9.2 | 76.4 ± 12.1 | 0.403 | 1.8 (−3.3, 7.0) | −1.0 (−5.7, 3.7) | −2.9 (−8.0, 2.3) |
| Lower leg (%) | 73.5 ± 6.8 | 76.4 ± 6.8 | 77.2 ± 6.3 | 0.004 | −3.0 (−6.0, −0.1) * | −3.7 (−6.5, −1.0) ** | −0.8 (−3.9, 2.4) |
| Fat mass | |||||||
| Total body (kg) | 30.5 ± 10.9 | 24.1 ± 8.6 | 26.1 ± 7.5 | <0.001 | 6.4 (2.4, 10.5) ** | 4.4 (0.7, 8.2) * | −2.0 (−6.0, 2.0) |
| Total body (%) | 35.3 ± 7.1 | 29.8 ± 6.4 | 31.5 ± 5.4 | <0.001 | 5.4 (2.6, 8.3) *** | 3.8 (1.2, 6.4) ** | −1.7 (−4.5, 1.1) |
Data are unadjusted mean ± standard deviation and unadjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval). ALM, appendicular lean mass; ALMBMI, appendicular lean mass adjusted for body mass index; ALMI, appendicular lean mass index. Bold = statistical significance.
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01.
P < 0.001.
Muscle cross‐sectional area
Forearm muscle CSA was lower in ADT‐treated men when compared with healthy controls (8.4%; P = 0.003), but no significant differences were observed between groups for lower leg muscle CSA (Table 2). However, when expressed as a per cent of total limb CSA, ADT‐treated men had 5.2–6.0% (P < 0.001) lower forearm and 3.0–3.7% (P ≤ 0.031) lower leg muscle CSA compared with both controls.
Muscle strength
Absolute handgrip muscle strength was 9.5–13% (P ≤ 0.016) lower in ADT‐treated men compared with both controls, whereas back (seated row) muscle strength was only lower in men treated with ADT compared with healthy controls (14%, P = 0.001; Table 3). ADT‐treated men had similar absolute leg (leg press) and chest (chest press) muscle strength compared with both controls. However, when muscle strength was expressed per kilogram of body weight and compared with both controls, men treated with ADT had lower handgrip (15–17%; P < 0.001), chest (15%; P ≤ 0.009), and back muscle strength (15–16%; P < 0.001). Body weight‐adjusted leg muscle strength was also 15% lower (P = 0.010) in ADT‐treated men compared with healthy controls, but not PCa controls.
Table 3.
Mean muscle strength outcomes in men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), PCa controls and healthy controls, and the mean differences between the three groups
| Unadjusted mean ± standard derivation | Unadjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men treated with ADT | PCa controls | Healthy controls | P value | Men treated with ADT vs. PCa controls | Men treated with ADT vs. healthy controls | PCa controls vs. healthy controls | |
| Muscle strength | |||||||
| Handgrip (kg) | 37.9 ± 6.5 | 41.7 ± 6.7 | 43.3 ± 8.0 | <0.001 | −3.8 (−7.0, −0.5) * | −5.4 (−8.4, −2.4) *** | −1.6 (−4.8, 1.6) |
| Handgrip/weight (kg/kg) | 0.44 ± 0.11 | 0.52 ± 0.10 | 0.51 ± 0.09 | <0.001 | −0.08 (−0.12, −0.03) *** | −0.07 (−0.12, −0.03) *** | 0.002 (−0.04, 0.47) |
| Chest (kg) | 38.2 ± 10.3 | 40.2 ± 6.6 | 42.6 ± 11.2 | 0.073 | −2.1 (−7.1, 3.0) | −4.4 (−9.0, 0.2) | −2.4 (−7.4, 2.7) |
| Chest/weight (kg/kg) | 0.44 ± 0.11 | 0.51 ± 0.11 | 0.51 ± 0.12 | 0.002 | −0.07 (−0.13, −0.01) ** | −0.07 (−0.12, −0.01) ** | 0.004 (−0.06, 0.06) |
| Leg (kg) | 139.7 ± 46.9 | 143.4 ± 42.0 | 160.2 ± 49.5 | 0.049 | −3.8 (−26.8, 19.3) | −20.6 (−41.5, 0.4) | −16.8 (−40.2, 6.6) |
| Leg/weight (kg/kg) | 1.61 ± 0.49 | 1.80 ± 0.48 | 1.88 ± 0.51 | 0.010 | −0.19 (−0.44, 0.05) | −0.28 (−0.50, −0.05) * | −0.08 (−0.33, 0.17) |
| Back (kg) | 48.7 ± 11.3 | 52.1 ± 9.5 | 56.2 ± 11.2 | 0.002 | −3.4 (−8.9, 2.1) | −7.5 (−12.5, −2.5) ** | −4.1 (−9.6, 1.4) |
| Back/weight (kg/kg) | 0.56 ± 0.12 | 0.65 ± 0.10 | 0.66 ± 0.10 | <0.001 | −0.10 (−0.15, −0.04) *** | −0.11 (−0.16, −0.06) *** | −0.01 (−0.07, 0.04) |
Data are unadjusted mean ± standard deviation and unadjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval). 3‐RM, three‐repetition maximum. Bold = statistical significance.
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01.
P < 0.001.
Discussion
The main findings from this study were that absolute total body and ALM were not different between men with PCa treated with and without ADT and healthy controls, but after adjusting for greater adiposity in men treated with ADT, they were found to have 3.8–5.4% and 7.8–9.4% lower per cent total body lean mass and ALMBMI, respectively. Similarly, there were limited differences in absolute appendicular muscle CSA and muscle strength, but after accounting for differences in adiposity or body size, men treated with ADT had 3.0–6.0% and 15–17% lower per cent muscle CSA and body weight‐adjusted muscle strength, respectively. Collectively, these findings suggest that it is important to account for adiposity when examining muscle health in men treated ADT for PCa.
Several previous cross‐sectional studies have shown total body fat mass to be greater in men treated with ADT when compared with non‐treated PCa men (mean difference, 3.9 kg)10 and healthy controls (mean difference, 5.7–5.8 kg).9, 10 Consistent with these findings, we found that men treated with ADT had greater total body fat mass compared with PCa controls (6.4 kg) and healthy controls (4.4 kg). Similarly, total body per cent fat mass has been reported to be 3.9–6.0%10, 11, 26, 27 and 2.9–9.8%9, 10, 11, 26, 27, 28 greater in ADT‐treated men when compared with PCa and healthy controls, respectively. Interestingly, in a sample of 1129 healthy older men (mean age, 74 years), Koster et al.14 observed that leg lean mass was 1.3 kg greater per standard deviation increment (7.0 kg) of total body fat mass, suggesting that men with greater adiposity have increased lean mass.14 Consistent with these findings, there is evidence from one cross‐sectional study that showed obese older men (mean BMI, 31.9 kg/m2; mean age, 66 years) had 18%, 26%, and 14% higher absolute lean mass in the trunk, android, and gynoid regions, respectively, than age‐matched healthy weight men (mean BMI, 23.4 kg/m2).15 Considering these findings, and the observation of greater amounts of fat mass in the ADT‐treated men in our study compared with both controls, there is a need to adjust muscle outcomes for adiposity in this cohort of men to gain a greater understanding of potentially masked treatment‐related adverse effects.
To date, there have been several methods proposed to adjust lean mass for adiposity and/or body size, including ALMBMI and ALMI.16, 17, 18 When ALM was adjusted for BMI in our study, we found that men treated with ADT had 7.8–9.4% lower ALMBMI than both controls. In contrast, no difference was observed between groups for ALMI, which adjusts for height squared as an index of body size. To our knowledge, only one other study in men treated with ADT examined ALMI and observed that 30 ADT‐treated men (mean age, 72 years) and 25 age‐matched non‐ADT hypogonadal controls had similar results (mean, both 7.5 kg/m2). These findings in hypogonadal men (regardless of whether induced by ADT or not) were of a similar magnitude to the mean ALMI in our study (mean, 8.07 kg/m2). However, to our knowledge, adiposity‐based adjustments are yet to be applied in men treated with ADT when compared with controls, but some studies have considered adjustment for body size (e.g. total body per cent lean mass). For instance, Clay et al.26 reported that 42 men treated with chronic ADT (greater than 6 months; mean age, 73 years) had 4.4% and 4.5% lower total body per cent lean mass compared with PCa and healthy controls, respectively. Similarly, a cohort of 29 chronic ADT‐treated men (greater than 6 months; mean age, 73) were shown to have 3.9% and 5.4% less total body per cent lean mass when compared with PCa and healthy controls, respectively.27 When we expressed total body lean mass as a percentage of total body weight, men treated with ADT had 4.8–5.4% less total body per cent lean mass when compared with controls. Our findings that adiposity‐adjusted total body and regional lean mass were required to detect differences between groups support the use of these adjustments when considering these men and their susceptibility to treatment‐induced increases in adiposity.
Another novel aspect of this cross‐sectional study was the assessment of forearm and lower leg muscle CSA assessed via pQCT, which is important as this technique can provide an accurate measure of muscle size.29 However, consistent with the absolute lean mass DXA findings, minimal difference was observed between the three groups for absolute muscle CSA at either the forearm or lower leg. Whilst no previous studies have assessed the effects of ADT on pQCT‐derived muscle CSA at these sites, several prospective studies examining absolute muscle CSA at different sites (i.e. paraspinal, quadriceps, rectus femoris, and sartorius) observed decrements of 3.2–5.5% in paraspinal muscles and 15–22% in muscles of the upper leg over 15–48 weeks of therapy.30, 31, 32 Unfortunately, these studies did not include comparison control groups and did not account for known confounding variables, such as physical activity and diet.30, 31, 32 A noteworthy observation in our study was that when muscle CSA was expressed as a percentage of total arm or leg area, men treated with ADT had 3.0–6.0% lower muscle CSA than controls at both sites. This suggests that relative to body size, men treated with ADT have smaller forearm and lower leg muscle size, which adds further support to our findings that it is important to account for any adiposity (or size) when evaluating body composition (muscle) in ADT‐treated men.
As with muscle mass, there is some evidence that increased adiposity has been associated with greater muscle strength in healthy older men,14 and thus, muscle strength is often normalized to body weight (e.g. expressed as strength per kilogram of body weight). In our study, when measures of muscle strength were expressed relative to weight, we found that men treated with ADT had lower handgrip (15–17%), chest (15%), and back (15–16%) muscle strength compared with both controls. Moreover, ADT‐treated men had 15% lower leg muscle strength per kilogram of body weight compared with healthy controls, but not PCa controls. These findings suggest that treatment with ADT may have systemic effects on muscle strength when normalized to body weight. Whilst our study is the first to report muscle strength per kilogram of body weight in men treated with ADT, similar adjustments were applied in a sample of 1129 men aged 70–79 years after it was observed that for every standard deviation increase in fat mass (approximately 7.1 kg), leg muscle strength was 3.0–4.7 Nm greater.14 Additionally, leg muscle strength per kilogram of body weight was 0.6–0.9 Nm/kg lower per standard deviation increase in fat mass.14 This suggests that despite having greater absolute leg muscle strength, relative to body weight, men with greater body size were weaker. Potential reasons for these observations may include the accumulation of fat around and/or within muscle tissue or potential neurological changes associated with ADT‐induced hypogonadism. Indeed, in healthy older men, there is evidence that an increase in skeletal muscle fat infiltration is associated with lower muscle strength.33 It has also been reported that age‐related losses in muscle strength were only weakly associated with changes in muscle CSA.34 This may be related to various age‐related neurological changes, including a decrease in the number of functional motor units and the rate in which these can be maximally discharged, as well as a reduction in spinal excitability.35 Previous research has reported that androgens, such as testosterone, can enhance neural excitability36, 37; thus, hypogonadism may impair neural function in men treated with ADT that may influence muscle strength. Therefore, despite men with ADT having similar absolute muscle strength values compared with PCa and healthy controls, men treated with ADT appear to possess compromised weight‐adjusted muscle strength, with these deleterious effects potentially extending beyond a loss of lean mass and/or muscle CSA alone.
A strength of this study is inclusion of both PCa and healthy controls that allowed for the effects of ADT to be quantified independent of PCa diagnosis, non‐hormonal PCa treatment, and ageing. Moreover, this study used robust measures of lean and fat mass via DXA and muscle CSA via pQCT; of which the latter provided the first known measurements of the forearm and lower leg in men treated with ADT compared with both PCa and healthy controls. However, several limitations also need to be considered when interpreting results. First, volunteer bias may have yielded results that were not representative of the broader population. Men treated with ADT in this analysis were involved in a larger RCT; all agreed to be allocated to a 52 week exercise training and nutritional supplementation intervention, which may have limited the study sample to only those capable and willing to complete such an intervention; therefore, participants may have been healthier than the average man treated with ADT. Conversely, PCa and healthy controls were recruited for a single visit promoted as a ‘free health assessment’, thus potentially increasing the likelihood that those with pre‐existing medical conditions or concerns would volunteer; hence, these individuals may have had compromised health when compared with the general population. Second, the cross‐sectional design of the current study precludes inference of causality and in particular the potential that reverse casualty was observed cannot be excluded (e.g. increased fat mass may have led to PCa progression and thus the need for ADT).38 Third, the modest sample size in comparison with the previous population‐based studies, as well as the large heterogeneity in the duration of treatment among ADT‐treated men in the current study, should be considered when interpreting these data. Notably, an exploratory multivariate analysis revealed ADT duration (independent of age, disease severity, BMI, protein intake, previous chemotherapy, and previous radiotherapy) was not associated with outcomes of absolute lean mass or muscle strength. Finally, although applied in previous studies to account for the confounding role of adiposity, there are limited long‐term prospective studies that have established the ability of adiposity‐adjusted muscle outcomes to predict risk in older men, particularly in men treated with ADT, and thus the inference of risk associated with these outcomes should be made with caution and therefore warrants further research of a prospective design.
Conclusion
The main finding from this study was that men treated with ADT had greater fat mass and compromised total and ALM, muscle CSA, and muscle strength compared with non‐ADT‐treated men with PCa and healthy controls after accounting for their increased adiposity. On this basis, we suggest that adiposity‐based adjustments be considered when assessing muscle‐related outcomes in men treated with ADT.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sector.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the contributions of Deakin University School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences Honours student Mr Stephen J. Foulkes. Gerontology Research Center is a joint effort between the University of Jyväskylä and the University of Tampere. The authors certify that they comply with the ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing of the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle.39
Owen P. J., Daly R. M., Dalla Via J., Mundell N. L., Livingston P. M., Rantalainen T., and Fraser S. F. (2019) The clinical relevance of adiposity when assessing muscle health in men treated with androgen deprivation for prostate cancer, Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 10: 1036–1044. 10.1002/jcsm.12446.
References
- 1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet‐Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:87–108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Kramer JL, Rowland JH, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:271–289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Owen PJ, Daly RM, Livingston PM, Fraser SF. Lifestyle guidelines for managing adverse effects on bone health and body composition in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: an update. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017;20:137–145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Storer TW, Miciek R, Travison TG. Muscle function, physical performance and body composition changes in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. Asian J Androl 2012;14:204–221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Dufour AB, Hannan MT, Murabito JM, Kiel DP, McLean RR. Sarcopenia definitions considering body size and fat mass are associated with mobility limitations: the Framingham Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2013;68:168–174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Srikanthan P, Hevener AL, Karlamangla AS. Sarcopenia exacerbates obesity‐associated insulin resistance and dysglycemia: findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e10805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Srikanthan P, Karlamangla AS. Muscle mass index as a predictor of longevity in older adults. Am J Med 2014;127:547–553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Szulc P, Beck TJ, Marchand F, Delmas PD. Low skeletal muscle mass is associated with poor structural parameters of bone and impaired balance in elderly men: the MINOS study. J Bone Miner Res 2005;20:721–729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Chen Z, Maricic M, Nguyen P, Ahmann FR, Bruhn R, Dalkin BL. Low bone density and high percentage of body fat among men who were treated with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2002;95:2136–2144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. van Londen GJ, Levy ME, Perera S, Nelson JB, Greenspan SL. Body composition changes during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a 2‐year prospective study. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2008;68:172–177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Basaria S, Lieb J, Tang AM, DeWeese T, Carducci M, Eisenberger M, et al. Long‐term effects of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer patients. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2002;56:779–786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Joly F, Alibhai SMH, Galica J, Park A, Yi QL, Wagner L, et al. Impact of androgen deprivation therapy on physical and cognitive function, as well as quality of life of patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. J Urol 2006;176:2443–2447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Soyupek F, Soyupek S, Perk H, Özorak A. Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: effects on hand function. Urol Oncol 2008;26:141–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Koster A, Ding J, Stenholm S, Caserotti P, Houston DK, Nicklas BJ, et al. Does the amount of fat mass predict age‐related loss of lean mass, muscle strength, and muscle quality in older adults? J Genrontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2011;66:888–895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Murton AJ, Marimuthu K, Mallinson JE, Selby AL, Smith K, Rennie MJ, et al. Obesity appears to be associated with altered muscle protein synthetic and breakdown responses to increased nutrient delivery in older men, but not reduced muscle mass or contractile function. Diabetes 2015;64:3160–3171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Studenski SA, Peters KW, Alley DE, Cawthon PM, McLean RR, Harris TB, et al. The FNIH sarcopenia project: rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2014;69:547–558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Cruz‐Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 2010;39:412–423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Muscaritoli M, Anker SD, Argiles J, Aversa Z, Bauer JM, Biolo G, et al. Consensus definition of sarcopenia, cachexia and pre‐cachexia: joint document elaborated by Special Interest Groups (SIG) “cachexia‐anorexia in chronic wasting diseases” and “nutrition in geriatrics”. Clin Nutr 2010;29:154–159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Boxer RS, Kenny AM, Dowsett R, Taxel P. The effect of 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy on muscle and fat mass in older men with localized prostate cancer. Aging Male 2005;8:207–212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Owen PJ, Daly RM, Livingston PM, Mundell NL, Dalla Via J, Millar JL, et al. Efficacy of a multi‐component exercise programme and nutritional supplementation on musculoskeletal health in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer (IMPACT): study protocol of a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2017;18:451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. American College of Sports Medicine . ACSM's Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 6th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 22. Rantalainen T, Nikander R, Heinonen A, Cervinka T, Sievänen H, Daly RM. Differential effects of exercise on tibial shaft marrow density in young female athletes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98:2037–2044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Roberts HC, Denison HJ, Martin HJ, Patel HP, Syddall H, Cooper C, et al. A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised approach. Age Ageing 2011;40:423–429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Stewart AL, Mills KM, King AC, Haskell WL, Gillis D, Ritter PL. CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire for older adults: outcomes for interventions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;33:1126–1141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Hvid T, Winding K, Rinnov A, Dejgaard T, Thomsen C, Iversen P, et al. Endurance training improves insulin sensitivity and body composition in prostate cancer patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy. Endocr Relat Cancer 2013;20:621–632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Clay CA, Perera S, Wagner JM, Miller ME, Nelson JB, Greenspan SL. Physical function in men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy. Phys Ther 2007;87:1325–1333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Dacal K, Sereika SM, Greenspan SL. Quality of life in prostate cancer patients taking androgen deprivation therapy. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54:85–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Galvão DA, Taaffe DR, Spry N, Joseph D, Turner D, Newton RU. Reduced muscle strength and functional performance in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen suppression: a comprehensive cross‐sectional investigation. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2009;12:198–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Erlandson MC, Lorbergs AL, Mathur S, Cheung AM. Muscle analysis using pQCT, DXA and MRI. Eur J Radiol 2016;85:1505–1511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Smith MR, Finkelstein JS, McGovern FJ, Zietman AL, Fallon MA, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Changes in body composition during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002;87:599–603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Chang D, Joseph DJ, Ebert MA, Galvão DA, Taaffe DR, Denham JW, et al. Effect of androgen deprivation therapy on muscle attenuation in men with prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2014;58:223–228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Ramalingam S, Sermer DJ, Gupta R, Healy P, Wu Y, George DJ, et al., eds. Changes in skeletal muscle cross sectional area (CSA) in patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with enzalutamide (ENZ). J Clin Oncol 2016;34:e16601. [Google Scholar]
- 33. Goodpaster BH, Carlson CL, Visser M, Kelley DE, Scherzinger A, Harris TB, et al. Attenuation of skeletal muscle and strength in the elderly: the Health ABC Study. J Appl Physiol 2001;90:2157–2165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Delmonico MJ, Harris TB, Visser M, Park SW, Conroy MB, Velasquez‐Mieyer P, et al. Longitudinal study of muscle strength, quality, and adipose tissue infiltration. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;90:1579–1585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Russ DW, Gregg‐Cornell K, Conaway MJ, Clark BC. Evolving concepts on the age‐related changes in “muscle quality”. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2012;3:95–109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Bonifazi M, Ginanneschi F, della Volpe R, Rossi A. Effects of gonadal steroids on the input–output relationship of the corticospinal pathway in humans. Brain Res 2004;1011:187–194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Herbst KL, Bhasin S. Testosterone action on skeletal muscle. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2004;7:271–277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Peisch SF, Van Blarigan EL, Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Kenfield SA. Prostate cancer progression and mortality: a review of diet and lifestyle factors. World J Urol 2016;1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. von Haehling S, Morley JE, Coats AJS, Anker SD. Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: update 2017. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017;8: 1081–1083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]