Background Sex hormones have been implicated in prostate carcinogenesis, yet epidemiological studies have not provided substantiating evidence. We tested the hypothesis that circulating concentrations of sex steroid hormones reflect intraprostatic concentrations using serum and adjacent microscopically-verified benign prostate tissue from prostate cancer cases. Methods Incident localized prostate cancer cases scheduled for surgery were invited to participate. Consented participants completed surveys, and provided resected tissues and blood. Histologic assessment of the ends of fresh frozen tissue confirmed adjacent microscopically-verified benign pathology. Sex steroid hormones in sera and tissues were extracted, chromatographically separated, and then quantitated by radioimmunoassays. Linear regression was used to account for variations in intraprostatic hormone concentrations by age, body mass index, race and study site, and subsequently to assess relationships with serum hormone concentrations. Gleason score (from adjacent tumor tissue), race and age were assessed as potential effect modifiers. Results Circulating sex steroid hormone concentrations had low-to-moderate correlations with-and explained small proportions of variations in-intraprostatic sex steroid hormone concentrations. Androstane-3α,17β-diol glucuronide (3α-diol G) explained the highest variance of tissue concentrations of 3α-diol G (linear regression r2=0.21), followed by serum testosterone and tissue dihydrotestosterone (r2=0.10), and then serum estrone and tissue estrone (r2=0.09). There was no effect modification by Gleason score, race or age. Conclusions Circulating concentrations of sex steroid hormones are poor surrogate measures of the intraprostatic hormonal milieu. Impact The high exposure misclassification provided by circulating sex steroid hormone concentrations for intraprostatic levels may partly explain the lack of any consistent association of circulating hormones with prostate cancer risk.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
5%
Nursing and Health Professions
1
5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
1
5%
Other
2
11%
Unknown
6
32%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2018.
All research outputs
#28,677,544
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#4,926
of 5,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#301,601
of 374,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#30
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 374,236 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
