Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 8;23(14):7560. doi: 10.3390/ijms23147560

Table 1.

Effect of prostate cancer on anthropometric data. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

Cont1 (n = 8) PCa1 (n = 10) Cont2 (n = 10) PCa2 (n = 14)
Body weight (g) 471.7 ± 27.8 408.5 ± 23.3 ** 541.8 ± 44.9 *** 494.6 ± 35.4 ####,+
Body weight-to-tibial length ratio
(g·cm−1)
53.0 ± 3.3 46.8 ± 2.5 119.4 ± 9.5 **** 112.5 ± 8.1 ####
Prostate
weight (g)
2.7 ± 0.3 4.4 ± 0.4 **** 2.9 ± 0.3 4.8 ± 0.7 ++++
Prostate-to-
tibial length ratio (g·cm−1)
0.3 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 **** 0.6 ± 0.1 **** 1.0 ± 0.1 ####,++++
Gastrocnemius muscle weight (mg) 4.7 ± 0.2 4.1 ± 0.4 ** 4.4 ± 0.3 4.5 ± 0.3
Gastrocnemius-to-body weight ratio (mg·g−1) 1.0 ± 0.1 1.0 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1 *** 0.9 ± 0.1 ##
Adipose tissue weight (g) 3.8 ± 0.6 3.4 ± 0.4 12.8 ± 3.5 **** 9.8 ± 1.9 ###,+
Adipose tissue-to-body weight ratio (mg·g−1) 0.8 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.1 2.3 ± 0.5 **** 2.0 ± 0.4 ####
Retroperitoneal adipose tissue weight (g) 2.8 ± 0.4 2.7 ± 0.3 0.9 ± 0.4 **** 0.8 ± 0.4 ####
Retroperitoneal adipose tissue-to-body weight ratio (mg·g−1) 0.6 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 **** 0.1 ± 0.1 ####
Mesenteric adipose tissue weight (g) 1.0 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.1 11.8 ± 3.3 **** 9.1 ± 1.8 ####,+
Mesenteric adipose tissue-to-body weight ratio (mg·g−1) 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 2.2 ± 0.5 **** 1.8 ± 0.3 ####

** p < 0.01 vs. Cont1, *** p < 0.001 vs. Cont1, **** p < 0.0001 vs. Cont1, ## p < 0.01 vs. PCa1, ### p < 0.001 vs. PCa1, #### p < 0.0001 vs. PCa1, + p < 0.05 vs. Cont2, ++++ p < 0.0001 vs. Cont2.