Abstract
Purpose
The impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and metformin use on biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial.
Methods
We retrospectively evaluated 6,863 patients who underwent RP for clinically localized PC between 2000 and 2011. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models addressed the association of DM and metformin use with BCR.
Results
Overall, 664 patients had a diagnosis of DM from which 287 (43 %) were on metformin and 377 (57 %) were on anti-diabetics other than metformin. DM and metformin were not associated with any clinicopathologic features (p values >0.05). Within a median follow-up of 25 months (interquartile range 35 months), 774 (11.3 %) patients experienced BCR. Actuarial 5-year biochemical-free survival was 83 % for non-diabetic, 79 % for diabetic patients without metformin use, and 85 % for diabetic patients with metformin use (log rank p = 0.17). In uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses with the non-diabetic group as referent, DM without metformin use (HR = 0.99; 95 % CI 0.75–1.30, p = 0.65) and DM with metformin use (HR = 0.84, 95 % CI 0.58–1.22, p = 0.36) were not associated with BCR after RP. A subgroup analysis stratified by nodal status, surgical margins, tumor stage, and Gleason sum did not reveal any significant association between DM, use of metformin and risk of BCR.
Conclusions
We found no association between DM or metformin use and cancer-specific features or BCR in patients treated with RP. The effect of DM and metformin on complications, wound healing and overall survival needs to be assessed in similar cohorts.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the most widely used treatment approaches in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PC) [1]. Unfortunately, up to 40 % of patients experience disease recurrence during long-term follow-up despite apparently successful surgery [2]. The impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on the incidence and natural history of PC remains controversial [3–5]. The results of a recent meta-analysis suggest that diabetes mellitus is associated with decreased incidence of prostate cancer [4]. In contrast, in men with PCa, preexisting DM appears to be associated with a higher risk of recurrence, suggesting that DM may affect disease progression following RP [6].
Metformin is a biguanide derivate and one of the most commonly used oral drugs for non-insulin-dependent DM. Studies suggested a significant association of metformin with favorable cancer outcomes of diabetic patients in various malignancies [7–12]. Increased cumulative duration of metformin exposure after PC diagnosis was found to be associated with decreased cancer-specific and any-cause mortality in diabetic men [13]. Furthermore, metformin appears to reduce the development of castration-resistant PC and cancer-specific mortality in patients treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) [14]. In contrast, metformin use was not associated with decreased risk of BCR in a study on patients with PC treated with RP [15]. These results are further confirmed by another recent study, which found metformin use not associated with risk reduction in BCR and any-cause mortality in patients treated with RP [16]. Based on the conflicting results of studies in PC, the association of DM and metformin with BCR warrants further analysis in a large cohort. We therefore hypothesized that DM is associated with the features of biologically aggressive PC, while metformin exerts a protective effect. For this purpose, we assessed a large multicenter cohort of patients treated with RP for clinically localized PC.
Subjects/patients and methods
Patient selection and data collection
This was an institutional-review-board-approved study, with all participating sites providing the necessary institutional data sharing agreements prior to the initiation of the study. A computerized databank was generated for data transfer. After combining the data sets, reports were generated for each variable to identify data inconsistencies and other data integrity problems. Through regular communication with all sites, resolution of all identified anomalies was achieved before analysis. Prior to analysis, the database was closed and the final data set was produced. A total of eight US and European centers provided data. The study cohort included 7,447 patients with clinically localized PC treated with RP between 2000 and 2011. Patients with preoperative PSA > 50 ng/ml (n = 15), missing preoperative PSA (n = 57), surgical margin status (n = 13), lymph node status (n = 54), RP Gleason score (n = 32), and/or missing follow-up data (n = 463) were excluded from the analysis. This left 6,863 patients for analysis. No patient received preoperative radiotherapy, hormonal treatment, or chemotherapy. No patient had distant metastatic disease at the time of RP.
Pathological evaluation
All surgical specimens were processed according to standard pathologic procedures as outlined elsewhere [17]. Genito-urinary pathologists assigned pathologic stage, which was reassigned according to the 2007 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor, node, and metastasis (TNM) staging system when necessary. Lymphoid tissue removed was submitted for histological examination. Positive pathological margin was defined as tumor cells in contact with the inked surface of the prostatectomy specimen.
Follow-up
Follow-up (FU) was performed according to institutional protocols. Generally, patients were seen postoperatively quarterly within the first year, semiannually in the second year, and annually thereafter. Digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) evaluation were performed at each visit. The primary endpoint BCR was defined as PSA value >0.2 ng/ml on two consecutive visits [1]. The date of BCR were attributed to the day of the first PSA. In case of lymph node metastasis, immediate adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was initiated. No patient received immediate postoperative radiotherapy.
Statistical analysis
Associations of DM with and without metformin use with categorical variables were assessed using χ 2 test. Differences in continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. BCR-free survival curves were generated using the Kaplan–Meier method; log-rank test was applied for pairwise comparison of survival. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models addressed the association of DM with and without metformin use with BCR after RP. All p values were two-sided, and statistical significance was defined as a p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics® 20 (SPSS®, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
Association of diabetes mellitus and metformin use with clinicopathologic characteristics
Table 1 shows the clinicopathologic characteristics of the 6,863 patients and their association with DM and metformin use. A total of 664 (9.7 %) patients had DM, 287 (4.2 %) were taking metformin at the time of RP. There was no difference in age, preoperative PSA, biopsy or RP Gleason sum, pathologic tumor stage, lymph node status or surgical margin status between non-diabetics, diabetics using metformin, and diabetics not using metformin.
Association between diabetes mellitus and biochemical recurrence
Within a median follow-up of 25 months (interquartile range 35 months), 774 (11.3 %) patients experienced BCR; 689 (11.1 %) non-diabetic; and 85 (12.8 %) diabetic patients. Actuarial estimates of BCR-free survival were 90 % (standard error ±0), 83 % ± 1, and 76 % ± 1 for non-diabetics and 89 % ± 1, 82 % ± 2, and 74 % ± 3 for diabetics at 3, 5, and 7 years, respectively (p = 0.38) (Fig. 1). In univariable Cox regression analyses, DM (p = 0.38) was not associated with BCR, whereas age (p = 0.001), preoperative PSA (p < 0.001), RP Gleason sum (p < 0.001), lymph node metastasis (p < 0.001), positive surgical margins (p < 0.001), extracapsular extension (p < 0.001), and seminal vesicle invasion (p < 0.001) were all associated with BCR.
Association between metformin use and biochemical recurrence
Within follow-up, 56 (14.9 %) patients with DM and no metformin use and 29 (10.1 %) patients with DM and metformin use experienced BCR. Actuarial estimates of BCR-free survival were 87 % ± 2, 79 % ± 3, and 71 % ± 5 for diabetics without metformin use and 92 % ± 2, 85 % ± 3, and 79 % ± 5 for diabetics with metformin use at 3, 5, and 7 years, respectively. No significant differences in BCR-free survival could be found between non-diabetics and diabetics with metformin use (p = 0.51), non-diabetics and diabetics without metformin use (p = 0.08), and diabetics with and without metformin use (p = 0.10). In univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses, DM with or without metformin use was not associated with BCR, whereas preoperative PSA (p < 0.001), RP Gleason sum (p < 0.001), lymph node metastasis (p < 0.001), positive surgical margins (p < 0.001), extracapsular extension (p < 0.001), and seminal vesicle invasion (p < 0.001) were all associated with BCR (Table 2).
A subgroup analysis in patients with and without lymph node metastasis, negative and positive surgical margins, capsular invasion and seminal vesicle invasion as well as categorized Gleason sum (≤6, =7, ≥8) did not reveal any significant association between DM, metformin use, and BCR in uni- and multivariable analyses (Table 2).
Discussion
In our study, we could not detect a significant association between DM and increased risk of BCR in patients treated with RP. This stands in contrast to the results of a previous study on the association of DM with PCa outcomes after RP, which found DM independently to be associated with a 55 % increase in risk of BCR [15]. One explanation for these contradictory results might be that the rate of positive surgical margins and positive lymph nodes in this study was higher in diabetic patients. As positive surgical margins [18] and positive lymph nodes [19] are well-known risk factors for BCR, differences in clinicopathologic features might have driven the results of the aforementioned study toward a higher rate of BCR in DM patients. Similar to the results of our study, a previous study does not reveal a beneficial effect of metformin use on the outcome of patients with PCa after RP [15]. These findings are further supported by a recent study, which found no association between metformin use and PC outcomes in diabetics following RP [16]. In contrast, Spratt et al. [14] reported metformin use to be associated with a lower BCR rate and PC-specific mortality in patients treated with EBRT for clinically localized PC compared to diabetics not using metformin and non-diabetic patients. A possible explanation for the positive effect of metformin use on the outcome of PC treated with EBRT is a potential synergism between metformin and ionizing radiation. Both metformin and ionizing radiation have been shown to activate the AMP kinase pathway that leads to the downregulation of cell growth, cell cycle progression, and angiogenesis [20, 21]. Increased cumulative duration of metformin exposure after PC diagnosis was also found to be associated with decreased cancer-specific and any-cause mortality in diabetic men [13]. Furthermore, an analysis of the impact of metformin use on survival in 233 PC patients revealed metformin use as significant predictor of overall survival in multivariate analysis [22]. While our analyzed patient cohort consisted of clinically localized PC, the population of the two aforementioned studies encompassed patients with advanced PC, and only a low number of patients were treated with RP. One explanation for theses seemingly contradictory findings regarding the impact of metformin on PCa outcomes could be that metformin’s antiproliferative effect can only be exerted when the cancer is present. A recent study showed that metformin decreased glucose oxidation and increased dependency on reductive glutamine metabolism both in cancer cell lines and in a mouse model of prostate cancer [23]. Furthermore, metformin has been shown to inhibit the inflammatory response associated with cellular transformation and cancer stem cell growth in vivo and in vitro [24]. As RP significantly alters the natural history of the cancer, it possibly abrogates the potentially antiproliferative effect of metformin. Another explanation for the survival benefit of PCa patients taking metformin might be associated with the cardiovascular effects of antidiabetic drugs. A recent study on mortality and cardiovascular risk of different insulin secretagogues and metformin showed that most of the insulin secretagogues appear to be associated with increased cardiovascular risk and mortality [25]. Thus, the survival benefit in patients taking metformin might be related to its positive cardiovascular properties rather than its potential antiproliferative effect.
While prediction of BCR is most crucial in the management of patients with PC, its association with clinicopathologic features is also important. We did not find any association between DM or metformin use and clinicopathologic features in patients treated with RP for clinically localized PC. This in accordance with a recent study, which found no significant differences in preoperative PSA, post-RP Gleason score, pathologic stage, positive surgical margins, or positive lymph nodes between diabetic patients using and not using metformin [16]. In addition, Patel et al. [15] reported no differences in preoperative PSA, post-RP Gleason score, and pathologic stage among men who underwent RP. In contrast to our study results, they found an association of DM with increased risk of positive surgical margins and positive lymph nodes compared to non-diabetic patients. Another recent study in patients treated with EBRT reported that patients with DM had a significantly higher proportion of Gleason ≥8 tumors than the control group (26.0 vs. 16.2 % p < 0.05) [14]. The patients in this study, however, were older than those in ours (69 vs. 62 years), so that a migration toward higher grade might explain the higher proportion of Gleason ≥8 tumors in that study.
Our study has several limitations. These include the retrospective design and the lack of information on dosage and duration of metformin intake prior to and after RP. This is specifically relevant in light of lacking impact of metformin use on pathologic features of PC at RP. The follow-up duration of our study is relatively short to draw a final conclusion on the impact of DM and metformin use on BCR in this cohort. Furthermore, information on the BMI of patients was missing, so that we could not adjust for this potential prognostic factor [26]. Moreover, we lacked information on preoperative serum levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factors. However, the correlation between preoperative IGF-I levels and risk of BCR after RP in patients with clinically localized PC has not been demonstrated [27]. Our study incorporates one of the largest cohorts of patients published so far on DM, metformin, and RP and confirms previously published data that metformin does not influence BCR after RP [15].
Conclusions
In our retrospective analysis, DM or metformin use was not associated with clinicopathologic features and BCR in patients treated with RP for PC. The potential effect of metformin on PC development needs further investigation. The effect of DM and metformin on complications, wound healing, and overall survival needs to be assessed in cohorts with long-term follow-up.
References
Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, Mottet N, Schmid HP, van der Kwast T, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, European Association of U (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59(1):61–71
Boorjian SA, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau B, Karnes RJ, Moul JW, Schaeffer EM, Stief C, Zorn KC (2012) A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol 61(4):664–675
Chiou WK, Hwang JS, Hsu KH, Lin JD (2012) Diabetes mellitus increased mortality rates more in gender-specific than in nongender-specific cancer patients: a retrospective study of 149,491 patients. Exp Diabetes Res 2012:701643
Zhang F, Yang Y, Skrip L, Hu D, Wang Y, Wong C, Qiu J, Lei H (2012) Diabetes mellitus and risk of prostate cancer: an updated meta-analysis based on 12 case–control and 25 cohort studies. Acta Diabetol 49(Suppl 1):S235–S246
Hitron A, Adams V, Talbert J, Steinke D (2012) The influence of antidiabetic medications on the development and progression of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol 36(4):e243–e250
Oh JJ, Hong SK, Lee S, Sohn SJ, Lee SE (2013) Diabetes mellitus is associated with short prostate-specific antigen doubling time after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 45(1):121–127
He X, Esteva FJ, Ensor J, Hortobagyi GN, Lee MH, Yeung SC (2012) Metformin and thiazolidinediones are associated with improved breast cancer-specific survival of diabetic women with HER2+ breast cancer. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol/ESMO 23(7):1771–1780
Jiralerspong S, Palla SL, Giordano SH, Meric-Bernstam F, Liedtke C, Barnett CM, Hsu L, Hung MC, Hortobagyi GN, Gonzalez-Angulo AM (2009) Metformin and pathologic complete responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in diabetic patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 27(20):3297–3302
Lee DJ, Kim B, Lee JH, Park SJ, Hong SP, Cheon JH, Kim TI, Kim WH (2012) [The effect of metformin on responses to chemotherapy and survival in stage IV colorectal cancer with diabetes]. Korean J Gastroenterol Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi 60(6):355–361
Lee JH, Jeon SM, Hong SP, Cheon JH, Kim TI, Kim WH (2012) Metformin use is associated with a decreased incidence of colorectal adenomas in diabetic patients with previous colorectal cancer. Dig Liver Dis Off J Ital Soc Gastroenterol Ital Assoc Study Liver 44(12):1042–1047
Lee JH, Kim TI, Jeon SM, Hong SP, Cheon JH, Kim WH (2012) The effects of metformin on the survival of colorectal cancer patients with diabetes mellitus. Int J Cancer J Int cancer 131(3):752–759
Sadeghi N, Abbruzzese JL, Yeung SC, Hassan M, Li D (2012) Metformin use is associated with better survival of diabetic patients with pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res 18(10):2905–2912
Margel D, Urbach DR, Lipscombe LL, Bell CM, Kulkarni G, Austin PC, Fleshner N (2013) Metformin Use and All-Cause and Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality Among Men With Diabetes. J Clin Oncol 31(25):3069–3075
Spratt DE, Zhang C, Zumsteg ZS, Pei X, Zhang Z, Zelefsky MJ (2013) Metformin and prostate cancer: reduced development of castration-resistant disease and prostate cancer mortality. Eur Urol 63(4):709–716
Patel T, Hruby G, Badani K, Abate-Shen C, McKiernan JM (2010) Clinical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in diabetic patients treated with metformin. Urology 76(5):1240–1244
Kaushik D, Karnes RJ, Eisenberg MS, Rangel LJ, Carlson RE, Bergstralh EJ (2013) Effect of metformin on prostate cancer outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol
Wheeler TM, Lebovitz RM (1994) Fresh tissue harvest for research from prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 25(5):274–279
Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N, Slawin K, Scardino PT (2005) Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 174(3):903–907
Cheng L, Zincke H, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Scherer B, Bostwick DG (2001) Risk of prostate carcinoma death in patients with lymph node metastasis. Cancer 91(1):66–73
Sanli T, Rashid A, Liu C, Harding S, Bristow RG, Cutz JC, Singh G, Wright J, Tsakiridis T (2010) Ionizing radiation activates AMP-activated kinase (AMPK): a target for radiosensitization of human cancer cells. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78(1):221–229
Zakikhani M, Dowling R, Fantus IG, Sonenberg N, Pollak M (2006) Metformin is an AMP kinase-dependent growth inhibitor for breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 66(21):10269–10273
He XX, Tu SM, Lee MH, Yeung SC (2011) Thiazolidinediones and metformin associated with improved survival of diabetic prostate cancer patients. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol/ESMO 22(12):2640–2645
Fendt SM, Bell EL, Keibler MA, Davidson SM, Wirth GJ, Fiske B, Mayers JR, Schwab M, Bellinger G, Csibi A, Patnaik A, Blouin MJ, Cantley LC, Guarente LP, Blenis J, Pollak MN, Olumi AF, Vander Heiden M, Stephanopoulos G (2013) Metformin decreases glucose oxidation and increases the dependency of prostate cancer cells on reductive glutamine metabolism. Cancer Res
Hirsch HA, Iliopoulos D, Struhl K (2013) Metformin inhibits the inflammatory response associated with cellular transformation and cancer stem cell growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(3):972–977
Schramm TK, Gislason GH, Vaag A, Rasmussen JN, Folke F, Hansen ML, Fosbol EL, Kober L, Norgaard ML, Madsen M, Hansen PR, Torp-Pedersen C (2011) Mortality and cardiovascular risk associated with different insulin secretagogues compared with metformin in type 2 diabetes, with or without a previous myocardial infarction: a nationwide study. Eur Heart J 32(15):1900–1908
Jayachandran J, Banez LL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JC Jr, Amling CL, Kane CJ, Freedland SJ, Group SDS (2009) Obesity as a predictor of adverse outcome across black and white race: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Database. Cancer 115(22):5263–5271
Shariat SF, Bergamaschi F, Adler HL, Nguyen C, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Slawin KM (2000) Correlation of preoperative plasma IGF-I levels with pathologic parameters and progression in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 56(3):423–429
Acknowledgments
M. Rieken acknowledges grant support by the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Conflict of interest
A Bachmann is on the advisory board of American Medical Systems and principal investigator of the GOLIATH study. S.F. Shariat is on the advisory board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rieken, M., Kluth, L.A., Xylinas, E. et al. Association of diabetes mellitus and metformin use with biochemical recurrence in patients treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. World J Urol 32, 999–1005 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1171-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1171-7