Weak handgrip may not independently predict prostate cancer risk
A recent study challenges the assumption that low handgrip strength (HGS) is a reliable predictor of increased prostate cancer risk among older men. The research, published in the journal Maturitas, suggests that while HGS is a valuable marker of overall health, its role in assessing prostate cancer risk appears to be limited.
The study, led by researchers from the University of Sharjah, Roskilde University, the University of Helsinki, Shifa International Hospitals, and King Saud University, analyzed data from a large longitudinal cohort of 64,371 men aged 50 and above. The findings reveal that low HGS does not independently predict prostate cancer risk in older European men, contrary to earlier assumptions.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that approximately 1.5 million new cases of prostate cancer occur globally each year, making it the second most common cancer among men and the fourth most common cancer overall. The study's significance lies in its potential to offer new insights into a potential pathway for early detection of a disease that can often be fatal if not detected in time.
Initially, the models showed that low handgrip strength was associated with a 1.13 percentage point increase in prostate cancer risk. Moreover, a propensity score matching model suggested an 83% relative increase in risk (1.30 percentage points; OR = 1.949). However, after adjusting for country-level matching, the researchers found that the effect of handgrip strength became "statistically insignificant" in predicting prostate cancer among older European men.
The authors report that their key finding - the absence of a statistically significant association between low handgrip strength and prostate cancer risk - suggests that handgrip is unlikely to be a reliable tool for early detection or for predicting disease progression. They acknowledge that these findings may appear surprising and somewhat inconsistent with existing literature on the relationship between handgrip strength and cancer outcomes.
To address these inconsistencies, the authors recommend that future research use propensity score matching (PSM) in a large European cohort population with standardized measurement and a specific focus on prostate cancer. They highlight the potential for residual confounding, noting that unmeasured factors such as diet, physical activity, genetic predisposition, and healthcare utilization could still influence the observed associations.
Despite these findings, the study demonstrates several notable strengths. Its large sample size and longitudinal design enhance statistical power and the temporal validity of the findings. In addition, the use of multiple analytical approaches, including pooled logistic regression, fixed-effects models, and PSM, provides a robust and comprehensive assessment of the relationship between HGS and prostate cancer risk.
In conclusion, the authors state that "while a low HGS is initially associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, this relationship does not remain statistically significant after adjusting for relevant covariates and applying robust statistical controls." These findings suggest that although HGS is a valuable indicator of overall health and frailty, it may not serve as an independent predictor of prostate cancer risk in older men.
This study raises important questions about the role of handgrip strength in cancer risk assessment and highlights the need for further research to explore alternative biomarkers and early detection methods for prostate cancer.
