Cohort study evaluates ZJU index's link to high-risk prostate cancer and mortality, suggesting new screening insights.
Prostate cancer (PCa) ranks among leading causes of male cancer mortality, but PSA screening lacks specificity. Metabolic dysregulation drives PCa pathogenesis; however, composite metabolic indices remain underexplored. The ZJU index—integrating BMI, fasting glucose, triglycerides, and liver enzymes—may enable novel risk stratification. We evaluated the ZJU index in the NHANES population cohort ( N = 3,482) and a biopsy-confirmed clinical PCa cohort ( N = 246) from The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. Multivariable logistic regression, restricted cubic splines, Boruta feature selection, and Cox proportional hazards models assessed associations with PSA-defined high-risk status for PCa, PSA levels, and all-cause mortality. Elevated ZJU index independently predicted reduced PSA-defined High-risk PCa. In NHANES, each unit increment lowered high-risk PCa odds by 3% (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–1.00, P = 0.049); however, Q4 versus Q1 showed no statistically significant association in the fully adjusted model (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35–1.14, P = 0.13). In the clinical cohort of PSA-selected biopsy patients, Q4 was associated with 93% lower odds of biopsy-confirmed PCa (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02–0.19, P < 0.001). ZJU inversely correlated with PSA (linear in NHANES; nonlinear clinically) and ranked highly in feature importance. Survival analysis revealed a nonlinear association with all-cause mortality (P-nonlinear < 0.001), with restricted cubic spline analysis suggesting a potential U-shaped pattern, though categorical analysis showed a significantly increased hazard only in Q4. The ZJU index is associated with PSA-defined high-risk prostate cancer status and biopsy-confirmed PCa among PSA-selected patients, and shows a nonlinear association with all-cause mortality, underscoring metabolic health in oncogenesis. Further validation is needed before incorporating it into screening frameworks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: