Role of Metabolic Syndrome on Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes at Radical Prostatectomy in a Low-risk Prostate Cancer Cohort Potentially Eligible for Active Surveillance

Background: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is considered a potential risk factor for adverse outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP). Furthermore, studies about the effect of MetS on low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and its implications in active surveillance (AS) are limited.

Objective: To investigate the role of MetS (using International Diabetes Federation-American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute criteria) on perioperative and oncological outcomes after RP in low-risk PCa and in a subgroup potentially eligible for AS.

Design, setting, and participants: A total of 3662 patients treated with RP for low-risk PCa and further stratified as very low risk (VLR) PCa-prostate-specific antigen density of ≤0.15ng/ml/cm³, ≤2 cores involved, and no core with >50% cancer involvement-at a tertiary referral hospital were identified.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Outcomes analyzed were pathological outcomes, perioperative complications, biochemical failure (BCF), and overall survival. Pathological outcomes and complications were analyzed with logistic regression models. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze survival outcomes.

Results and limitations: In univariate/multivariate analyses, MetS was associated with upgrading and positive surgical margins in the entire cohort, upgrading only in the VLR group. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, MetS patients had a higher rate of overall death (p<0.0001) and BCF (p=0.03) for MetS patients. In the VLR group, no differences were found for BCF (p=0.064). Further, in Cox proportional hazards models, MetS was not associated with BCF (hazard ratio=1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.95-1.60, p=0.12). MetS patients had a higher rate of complications compared with non-MetS patients (23.7% vs 19.7%; p=0.01). In multivariate analysis, MetS was associated with a higher rate of complications (odds ratio=1.24, 95% CI=1.04-1.49, p=0.018) but did not impact the rate of major ones. This study is limited by its retrospective design.

Conclusions: In low-risk PCa treated with RP but potentially eligible for AS, MetS impacted perioperative and pathological outcomes, suggesting further study of MetS in patients undergoing AS.

Patient summary: Metabolic syndrome negatively impacts perioperative and pathological outcomes in low-risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy but potentially eligible for active surveillance, in a large American single-center cohort. These findings suggest the need for a more cautious approach to low-risk prostate cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome.