Losing Hair at 20 Is Linked to Increased Risk of Prostate Cancer in Later Life, Study Finds

Male pattern baldness and prostate cancer risk in a population-based case-control study

Abstract
PURPOSE: Male pattern baldness (MPB) and prostate cancer (PCa) share commonality as prevalent, heritable and androgen-related conditions. Studies exploring the relationship between the two conditions have been inconclusive. Using a population-based, case-control study of PCa, we explore the relationship between early-onset MPB and PCa risk.

METHODS: Cases were men aged 35-74 diagnosed with PCa between 2002 and 2005 in King County, Washington. Controls were frequency matched by age and identified by random digit dialing. Hair pattern at age 30 and at 1 year prior to diagnosis (cases) or reference date (controls) was determined using showcards. PCa risk associated with balding was assessed with logistic regression.

RESULTS: Data from 999 cases of PCa and 942 controls were analyzed. Hair loss at age 30 was more common in controls (25.2%) than cases (19.8%, p=0.005), and those with hair loss at age 30 had a 29% relative risk reduction for PCa (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.91). No risk reduction was seen for men only reporting hair loss at referent age (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73-1.12). In men aged >60 at referent date, the risk reduction was greater for men with hair loss at age 30 from both the top of head and forehead (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.93).

CONCLUSION: Early-onset MPB was associated with a reduced relative risk of PCa in this population-based study. Further research into a possible mechanistic link between these prevalent and androgen-related conditions is warranted.

tonyj wrote: Now I'm just completely lost in contradicting studies.

jdp701 on Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:20 am

tonyj wrote: Now I'm just completely lost in contradicting studies.



Here was an article that has been previously posted


"But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge. Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter, leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst dangerously wrong."

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/23/why-almost-everything-you-hear-about-medicine-is-wrong.html

jdp701 wrote:

tonyj wrote: Now I'm just completely lost in contradicting studies.

Here was an article that has been previously posted


"But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge. Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter, leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst dangerously wrong."

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/23/why-almost-everything-you-hear-about-medicine-is-wrong.html

abc123 wrote:I'm convinced you just scour the internet trying to find things that confirm your point of view.