A Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data Reveals an Association between Circulating Levels of IGF-I and Prostate Cancer Risk
Ruth C Travis,Paul N Appleby,Richard M Martin,Jeff M P Holly,Demetrius Albanes,Amanda Black,H B As Bueno-de-Mesquita,June M Chan,Chu Chen,Maria-Dolores Chirlaque,Michael B Cook,Mélanie Deschasaux,Jenny L Donovan,Luigi Ferrucci,Pilar Galan,Graham G Giles,Edward L Giovannucci,Marc J Gunter,Laurel A Habel,Freddie C Hamdy,Kathy J Helzlsouer,Serge Hercberg,Robert N Hoover,Joseph A M J L Janssen,Rudolf Kaaks,Tatsuhiko Kubo,Loic Le Marchand,E Jeffrey Metter,Kazuya Mikami,Joan K Morris,David E Neal,Marian L Neuhouser,Kotaro Ozasa,Domenico Palli,Elizabeth A Platz,Michael Pollak,Alison J Price,Monique J Roobol,Catherine Schaefer,Jeannette M Schenk,Gianluca Severi,Meir J Stampfer,Pär Stattin,Akiko Tamakoshi,Catherine M Tangen,Mathilde Touvier,Nicholas J Wald,Noel S Weiss,Regina G Ziegler,Timothy J Key,Naomi E Allen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1551
2016-04-15
Abstract:The role of insulin-like growth factors (IGF) in prostate cancer development is not fully understood. To investigate the association between circulating concentrations of IGFs (IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-1, IGFBP-2, and IGFBP-3) and prostate cancer risk, we pooled individual participant data from 17 prospective and two cross-sectional studies, including up to 10,554 prostate cancer cases and 13,618 control participants. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the ORs for prostate cancer based on the study-specific fifth of each analyte. Overall, IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-2, and IGFBP-3 concentrations were positively associated with prostate cancer risk (Ptrend all ≤ 0.005), and IGFBP-1 was inversely associated weakly with risk (Ptrend = 0.05). However, heterogeneity between the prospective and cross-sectional studies was evident (Pheterogeneity = 0.03), unless the analyses were restricted to prospective studies (with the exception of IGF-II, Pheterogeneity = 0.02). For prospective studies, the OR for men in the highest versus the lowest fifth of each analyte was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.43) for IGF-I, 0.81 (0.68-0.96) for IGFBP-1, and 1.25 (1.12-1.40) for IGFBP-3. These associations did not differ significantly by time-to-diagnosis or tumor stage or grade. After mutual adjustment for each of the other analytes, only IGF-I remained associated with risk. Our collaborative study represents the largest pooled analysis of the relationship between prostate cancer risk and circulating concentrations of IGF-I, providing strong evidence that IGF-I is highly likely to be involved in prostate cancer development. Cancer Res; 76(8); 2288-300. ©2016 AACR.