IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1004362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk factors for prostate cancer: An umbrella review of prospective observational studies and mendelian randomization analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Huijie Cui
  • Wenqiang Zhang
  • Li Zhang
  • Yang Qu
  • Zhengxing Xu
  • Zhixin Tan
  • Peijing Yan
  • Mingshuang Tang
  • Chao Yang
  • Yutong Wang
  • Lin Chen
  • Chenghan Xiao
  • Yanqiu Zou
  • Yunjie Liu
  • Ling Zhang
  • Yanfang Yang
  • Yuqin Yao
  • Jiayuan Li
  • Zhenmi Liu
  • Chunxia Yang
  • Xia Jiang
  • Ben Zhang

Abstract

Background: The incidence of prostate cancer is increasing in older males globally. Age, ethnicity, and family history are identified as the well-known risk factors for prostate cancer, but few modifiable factors have been firmly established. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate various factors modifying the risk of prostate cancer reported in meta-analyses of prospective observational studies and mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. Methods and findings: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from the inception to January 10, 2022, updated on September 9, 2023, to identify meta-analyses and MR studies on prostate cancer. Eligibility criteria for meta-analyses were (1) meta-analyses including prospective observational studies or studies that declared outcome-free at baseline; (2) evaluating the factors of any category associated with prostate cancer incidence; and (3) providing effect estimates for further data synthesis. Similar criteria were applied to MR studies. Meta-analysis was repeated using the random-effects inverse-variance model with DerSimonian—Laird method. Quality assessment was then conducted for included meta-analyses using AMSTAR-2 tool and for MR studies using STROBE-MR and assumption evaluation. Subsequent evidence grading criteria for significant associations in meta-analyses contained sample size, P values and 95% confidence intervals, 95% prediction intervals, heterogeneity, and publication bias, assigning 4 evidence grades (convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak). Significant associations in MR studies were graded as robust, probable, suggestive, or insufficient considering P values and concordance of effect directions. Conclusions: In this large-scale study, we summarized the associations of various factors with prostate cancer risk and provided comparisons between observational associations by meta-analysis and genetically estimated causality by MR analyses. In the absence of convincing overlapping evidence based on the existing literature, no robust associations were identified, but some effects were observed for height, physical activity, and smoking. Huijie Cui and team identify and evaluate various risk factors of prostate cancer reported in meta-analyses of prospective observational studies and Mendelian randomization analyses.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Huijie Cui & Wenqiang Zhang & Li Zhang & Yang Qu & Zhengxing Xu & Zhixin Tan & Peijing Yan & Mingshuang Tang & Chao Yang & Yutong Wang & Lin Chen & Chenghan Xiao & Yanqiu Zou & Yunjie Liu & Ling Zhang, 2024. "Risk factors for prostate cancer: An umbrella review of prospective observational studies and mendelian randomization analyses," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-33, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004362
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004362
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004362&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004362?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.