There is a paradox at the centre of prostate health. Age is one of the strongest determinants of prostatic disease, yet men of similar age can follow markedly different clinical paths. One may reach later life with few urinary symptoms, another develops benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) that affect sleep and quality of life, while another is diagnosed with prostate cancer whose behaviour may range from indolent disease requiring surveillance to an aggressive tumour requiring systemic treatment.
Androgens, ageing, genetics and family history remain fundamental to our understanding of these conditions, but they do not account for the full heterogeneity of prostate disease. The prostate exists within a metabolic and immunological environment shaped by adiposity, insulin sensitivity, vascular health, diet, medication, immune activity and inflammatory exposure across the life course. In recent years, another component of that environment has entered the discussion: the microbiome.
The proposition is not that prostate disease can be reduced to a disturbance of intestinal bacteria. A more useful question is whether microbial activity contributes to the inflammatory, metabolic and hormonal environment in which prostate disease develops and progresses.
That question takes us beyond the prostate itself.
Inflammation: more than a histological observation
Inflammation is not a new concept in prostate pathology. Inflammatory infiltrates are frequently identified in prostatic tissue, particularly in BPH, and sustained inflammatory signalling has been proposed as one contributor to stromal and epithelial proliferation, tissue remodelling and the development of hyperplasia.
A 2024 review by Chen and colleagues examining gut microbiota, prostate inflammation and BPH describes inflammatory processes as an important component of BPH pathogenesis and considers how microbial dysbiosis might influence this environment through immune and metabolic pathways. The authors propose that alterations in microbial metabolites, intestinal barrier function and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) exposure may provide plausible links between intestinal dysbiosis and prostatic inflammation.
The metabolic context also matters. BPH is not simply a local consequence of ageing and androgen exposure; obesity, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome have been associated with prostate enlargement and LUTS. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of ten studies involving 3,947 patients with BPH found metabolic syndrome to be associated with greater prostate volume, with a tendency towards higher symptom scores, although substantial heterogeneity remained.
A 2026 systematic review of the gut-prostate axis in BPH adds a more current layer to this evidence. Xu and colleagues reviewed ten preclinical and six clinical studies and found recurring associations between BPH, altered gut microbial composition, inflammatory markers and indices of intestinal barrier dysfunction. The authors identified an increased Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio, reduced Lactobacillus abundance and altered microbial metabolites among the reported features, while emphasising that the clinical literature remains small and heterogeneous. The importance of the paper lies less in defining a single BPH microbiome than in bringing inflammation, barrier integrity and microbial metabolism into the same mechanistic framework.
Adipose tissue is biologically active, producing adipokines and inflammatory mediators; hyperinsulinaemia influences growth signalling, while metabolic dysfunction may promote oxidative stress and low-grade systemic inflammation. These pathways intersect with those now being investigated within microbiome research, making it difficult to consider diet, metabolism, immunity and microbial ecology as independent systems.
It is within this context that the concept of a gut-prostate axis starts to make sense.
The gut-prostate axis
The gastrointestinal tract contains an extensive microbial ecosystem that participates in digestion, immune maturation, bile-acid metabolism, xenobiotic metabolism and the production and transformation of bioactive molecules. Its relationship with the host is mediated not simply by which organisms are present, but by what those organisms do.
This distinction matters because microbiome research has often concentrated on cataloguing bacterial taxa and labelling organisms as beneficial or detrimental. Functional activity may tell us more. Two individuals can harbour different microbial communities capable of performing overlapping metabolic functions; conversely, the same organism may behave differently according to diet, neighbouring microorganisms and the biochemical environment in which it exists.
The gut-prostate axis therefore encompasses several possible routes of communication: microbial metabolites entering the circulation; immune signalling originating at the intestinal mucosa; changes in intestinal barrier integrity; microbial transformation of dietary components; systemic metabolic effects; and, in prostate cancer, the possibility that microorganisms may influence androgen metabolism and therapeutic response.
Recent human evidence supports an association, although causality is harder to establish.
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis by Huang and colleagues included seven studies comprising 250 men with prostate cancer and 192 controls. Overall gut microbial alpha-diversity was lower in men with prostate cancer, while differences were identified across several bacterial groups, including Proteobacteria, Bacteroidia, Clostridia, Prevotellaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Faecalibacterium and Bacteroides. The small number of studies, methodological differences and geographical variation mean that we cannot define a diagnostic prostate-cancer microbiome, but the findings support further investigation of a relationship between intestinal microbial ecology and prostate disease.
A 2026 prospective study in European Urology Focus moved the question closer to risk stratification. Liss and colleagues derived a microbiome-based score, PRIMUS, from men undergoing prostate-cancer screening and reported that higher scores were associated with greater subsequent prostate-cancer risk over a median follow-up of approximately 4.5 years. The score is not a clinical diagnostic tool, but the study is important because it treats the gut microbiome as a potential lifestyle-linked exposure rather than a static microbial signature.
The evidence base has expanded since then. A 2025 systematic review examining the human microbiome from prostate cancer diagnosis through treatment screened 810 records and included 42 studies. It reported associations involving tumour, urinary and intestinal microbiota, as well as potential relationships between microbial composition, inflammation, disease progression and treatment response. The authors also highlighted microbial androgen synthesis and endotoxin production as mechanisms requiring further investigation.
A 2026 Oncogene review by Cheng and colleagues takes a broader view across the prostate disease continuum, from health and BPH through prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome to prostate cancer. Rather than proposing one microbiome for all prostate disorders, the authors describe converging influences from circulating gut-derived metabolites, immune education, local microbial communities and host metabolism. That distinction supports the central argument of this article: shared pathways do not make these diseases interchangeable.
This moves the discussion beyond the question of whether men with prostate cancer have "different gut bacteria". What may prove more relevant is microbial function and the host response to it.
From intestinal barrier to prostatic inflammation
One proposed route begins at the intestinal epithelium.
The intestinal barrier is a selective interface formed by epithelial cells, tight-junction proteins, mucus, immune cells and the resident microbiota. Its function is not to create an impermeable wall, but to regulate the movement of nutrients, microbial products and other molecules between the intestinal lumen and the internal environment.
Diet, microbial activity, metabolic disease, medication, infection and ageing can influence this system. When barrier regulation is disturbed, exposure to microbial-associated molecular patterns, including LPS from Gram-negative organisms, may increase. These signals can activate innate immune receptors, including Toll-like receptors (TLRs), with downstream activation of inflammatory pathways.
Within prostate research, signalling through pathways including NF-kB and STAT3 is of interest because of their roles in cytokine production, cell survival, proliferation and the inflammatory tumour microenvironment. Microbial influences on T-cell balance, including regulatory T cells and Th17 responses, and on macrophage polarisation have also been proposed as mechanisms connecting microbial ecology with prostate inflammation and carcinogenesis. Reviews of intraprostatic inflammation emphasise that infection, microbial products and altered microbial communities may interact with host inflammatory pathways rather than operating as isolated causes.
The model therefore looks less like a direct line from "bad bacteria" to prostate disease and more like an interconnected system in which intestinal integrity, microbial products, metabolic dysfunction and immune activation modify the environment experienced by prostatic tissue. Many of those pathways are also influenced by nutrition, which gives diet a more substantial role in this discussion than the familiar search for individual "prostate foods".
Microbial metabolites and the SCFA question
Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), principally acetate, propionate and butyrate, are produced during microbial fermentation of dietary substrates, particularly microbiota-accessible carbohydrates. They participate in epithelial energy metabolism, immune regulation and cell signalling, and butyrate has attracted attention because of its role as an energy substrate for colonocytes and its effects on histone deacetylases and immune pathways.
It would be tempting to construct a simple argument in which more fibre produces more SCFAs, SCFAs are anti-inflammatory and greater SCFA production must therefore benefit prostate health. Prostate research suggests that the relationship is more complex.
A 2024 study in Nature Communications by Lachance and colleagues examined interactions between dietary long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, gut microbiota and prostate cancer in human cohorts and experimental models. Lower microbial alpha-diversity was associated with greater tumour burden in men with untreated prostate cancer. In mouse models, faecal microbiota transplantation from patients with high-volume prostate cancer promoted tumour growth, providing experimental evidence for microbiome-tumour crosstalk rather than association alone.
The dietary component was also of interest. Omega-3 long-chain fatty-acid intervention altered microbial composition and was associated with prostate cancer outcomes; in a pre-prostatectomy clinical cohort, EPA supplementation reduced faecal butyrate concentrations, while higher faecal butyrate was observed in men with more aggressive disease in parts of the study. The authors concluded that diet could modulate interactions between gut microorganisms, their metabolites and prostate cancer.
This should not be interpreted as evidence that butyrate is harmful. It demonstrates why microbial metabolites cannot be considered independently of physiological context. Concentration, site of production, absorption, host metabolic state, tumour biology, diet and the wider microbial community can all influence biological effect, while faecal concentration is not synonymous with systemic exposure or production rate.
For nutrition science, this provides a useful corrective to the tendency to classify individual microorganisms or metabolites as universally "good" or "bad". The functional microbiome is dynamic, and its relationship with disease is likely to depend upon context.
Diet deserves more than a footnote
Nutrition and prostate health have often been discussed in terms of individual nutrients and foods: tomatoes for lycopene, selenium, soy, perhaps less dairy or red meat. Current research gives us good reason to widen that view. Dietary patterns, their metabolic consequences and their effects upon microbial metabolism may tell us more than any isolated nutrient.
A 2025 systematic review in European Urology brought together 63 studies - 49 prospective cohort studies and 14 randomised clinical-trial reports - examining dietary patterns in prostate cancer prevention and management. The evidence was heterogeneous, but the review reflects a broader movement in nutrition research away from isolated nutrients and towards dietary patterns capable of influencing several biological systems at the same time.
This approach makes nutritional sense. A Mediterranean-style or prudent dietary pattern alters fibre exposure, fatty-acid profile, polyphenol consumption, glycaemic load, energy density and micronutrient intake while influencing body composition, insulin sensitivity, cardiovascular health and the gut microbiome.
Human survivorship data published in 2026 also support the relevance of dietary pattern to microbial ecology. Raber and colleagues analysed 79 prostate-cancer survivors, many with prior androgen-deprivation exposure, and found that Mediterranean, Healthy Eating Index and MIND-style dietary scores were associated with differences in gut microbial community structure. The study was observational and relatively small, but it provides a useful human example of diet and microbiome being linked within the same prostate-cancer population.
Fibre and plant diversity
Fibre has particular relevance to the microbiome because human digestive enzymes cannot completely degrade many complex carbohydrates. These substrates reach the colon, where they become available for microbial fermentation.
Wholegrains, legumes, vegetables, fruit, nuts and seeds therefore provide not only nutrients but substrates capable of changing microbial metabolism. Different fibres favour different organisms and metabolic pathways, which is one reason dietary diversity may be more meaningful than simply reaching a numerical fibre target.
The prostate-specific evidence is not strong enough to prescribe fibre as a treatment for BPH or prostate cancer, but a fibre-rich dietary pattern has relevance to several associated pathways, including bowel health, microbial metabolism, glycaemic regulation, satiety, body-weight management and cardiovascular risk.
The practical point is diversity. Oats and barley provide beta-glucans; legumes contribute resistant starch and fermentable fibres; onions, garlic and leeks provide fructans; fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds contribute different combinations of fibre and polyphenols. A varied plant intake therefore provides a changing range of substrates rather than repeatedly feeding the microbiota from the same limited pool.
Polyphenols
Polyphenol-rich foods - including berries, apples, herbs, spices, tea, cocoa, extra-virgin olive oil and many vegetables - add another dimension to the diet-microbiome relationship. A substantial proportion of dietary polyphenols reaches the colon, where microbial transformation produces metabolites with different bioavailability and biological activity from their parent compounds.
This relationship works in both directions: diet shapes microbial activity, while microbial activity helps determine how components of the diet are metabolised. In prostate health, the significance may lie less in identifying one protective polyphenol than in recognising that a plant-rich dietary pattern generates a complex biochemical exposure involving both human and microbial metabolism.
Tomatoes and lycopene
Tomatoes have become associated with prostate nutrition because of lycopene, a carotenoid concentrated in tomatoes and tomato products. Research has explored associations between lycopene intake or circulating concentrations and prostate cancer risk, but the evidence does not justify presenting tomatoes as preventive therapy.
They do, however, illustrate how food preparation changes nutritional exposure. Cooking tomatoes and consuming them with dietary fat increases lycopene bioavailability, making tomato-based sauces cooked with extra-virgin olive oil a useful component of a Mediterranean-style dietary pattern whose potential benefits extend well beyond one carotenoid.
Soy, fermentation and isoflavones
Soy deserves the same degree of nuance. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis examined observational evidence relating soy-product consumption to prostate cancer incidence. Interest has centred on isoflavones such as genistein and daidzein, but their metabolism also demonstrates the importance of inter-individual microbial variation.
Some intestinal microbial communities can convert daidzein to equol, whereas others cannot, potentially creating different biological exposures from the same food. Fermentation introduces another variable, making foods such as tempeh and miso of interest within the wider relationship between diet, microbial activity and bioactive compounds.
Tofu, tempeh, edamame and other soy foods can form part of a varied plant-rich diet without needing to be elevated to the status of medicinal foods.
Dietary fat
Fat quality is relevant because it intersects with inflammation, cardiovascular health and microbial metabolism. The Lachance study provides an example of diet-microbiome-tumour interaction involving long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, although its findings require replication before they can be translated into prostate-specific supplementation advice.
For practice, the more defensible position remains to favour unsaturated-fat sources such as extra-virgin olive oil, nuts, seeds and fish where appropriate within an overall dietary pattern, rather than extrapolating from mechanistic research to high-dose supplementation.
The metabolic consequences of diet
The other side of the nutritional equation deserves equal attention. Dietary patterns characterised by high energy density, limited plant diversity and substantial quantities of highly processed foods can promote excess energy intake, poor glycaemic control and adiposity. Their relationship with prostate health may therefore operate through several pathways rather than through one food or ingredient.
The 2025 Johns Hopkins review by Cruz-Lebrón and colleagues places diet and microbiome together as potential mediators of prostate cancer risk, progression and therapeutic response, highlighting bacterial infection, microbial metabolism of dietary precursors, drug metabolism and microbial androgen metabolism among the pathways now under investigation.
For the nutrition practitioner, this is a more useful model than asking whether a man should eat more broccoli. It allows us to consider what his habitual diet is doing to insulin sensitivity, body composition, cardiovascular risk, microbial substrate availability and inflammatory exposure over years rather than days.
The androgen-microbiome relationship
One of the more provocative developments in prostate microbiome research concerns androgen metabolism.
Androgen signalling is central to prostate physiology and prostate cancer, and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) remains a cornerstone of treatment for advanced disease. Research indicates that the relationship between treatment and microbiota may be bidirectional: ADT can alter microbial ecology, while certain intestinal microorganisms appear capable of metabolising steroid precursors and contributing to androgen availability.
Prospective data published in 2026 make this relationship more tangible. Ishida and colleagues followed men with high-risk localised prostate cancer receiving androgen-deprivation therapy and found that short-term ADT altered the gut microbial environment, including an increase in Ruminococcus 2 that was associated with lower testosterone concentrations and inversely related to dietary n-3 polyunsaturated fatty-acid intake. The study does not establish a therapeutic dietary prescription, but it demonstrates that treatment, hormone status and habitual diet can intersect within the gut microbial environment.
The 2025 systematic review of 42 studies identified microbial androgen synthesis as one potential mechanism associated with treatment resistance, while the Johns Hopkins review also highlights androgen metabolism by gut microorganisms as an area of therapeutic interest.
If substantiated, this would mean that in some circumstances the microbiome is not merely responding to cancer and its treatment but may participate in the biochemical environment that influences treatment response. It also moves microbiome research well beyond digestive health, bringing microbial metabolism into contact with one of the defining hormonal pathways of prostate cancer.
Where do postbiotics enter the picture?
The development of postbiotic science is relevant because the prostate literature repeatedly returns to microbial function, rather than microbial composition alone.
The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) defines a postbiotic as a preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host. A qualifying postbiotic therefore contains inactivated microbial cells or cellular components, with or without metabolites, and the benefit must be demonstrated for the preparation concerned.
This distinction matters. Postbiotics are not simply the waste products left behind by probiotics, nor is every microbial metabolite a postbiotic. They are defined preparations whose composition and biological activity can be studied and standardised.
Their relevance within the gut-prostate model lies in the pathways discussed throughout this article: intestinal barrier integrity, immune signalling, inflammatory regulation and microbial-host communication.
Recent postbiotic reviews strengthen the biological rationale for this line of enquiry. A 2025 review of postbiotics in inflammation and a 2026 review of probiotics, postbiotics and synbiotics in immune modulation describe effects on epithelial barrier function, innate and adaptive immune signalling and inflammatory pathways as recurring areas of investigation. These papers are not prostate-specific, but they bring the postbiotic discussion into a current evidence base rather than relying only on the original 2021 consensus definition.
Live probiotics must remain viable through manufacture and storage and then encounter the individual ecological environment of the gastrointestinal tract. Postbiotic preparations offer a different approach because the microorganisms are deliberately inactivated, potentially allowing greater stability and more consistent delivery of defined microbial components.
This does not make probiotics and postbiotics competitors, nor does it mean that one should replace the other. They represent different approaches to influencing host-microbial biology.
For prostate research, the question is whether defined postbiotic preparations could influence some of the inflammatory, barrier or metabolic pathways implicated in the gut-prostate axis. The current prostate literature provides a biological rationale for asking that question, while prostate-specific intervention research will be needed to establish which preparations, populations, endpoints and doses have clinical significance.
The distinction between biological plausibility and demonstrated therapeutic effect is an essential one, but it does not diminish the importance of the research. Once microbial activity is implicated in disease biology, interventions need not depend solely upon changing which living organisms colonise the gut; microbial components and the signals they generate become subjects of investigation in their own right.
BPH, prostate cancer and prostatitis are not one disease
One caution is necessary when discussing a "gut-prostate axis". BPH, prostate cancer and prostatitis should not be treated as though they represent different stages of the same process.
BPH is a benign hyperplastic condition; prostate cancer is malignant and biologically heterogeneous; prostatitis encompasses inflammatory syndromes with different causes and presentations. They may share inflammatory or metabolic pathways without sharing the same pathogenesis.
The evidence linking gut microbiota with BPH is developing but remains smaller than the prostate cancer literature, while the cancer literature itself consists largely of observational studies, mechanistic work and small clinical cohorts. Prostate-tissue, urinary, seminal and intestinal microbiomes may each provide different information, and methodological variation between studies remains substantial.
Rather than invalidating the gut-prostate hypothesis, these limitations tell us what the next generation of studies needs to accomplish: longitudinal sampling before disease develops, standardised sequencing and metabolomic methods, detailed dietary assessment, medication data, metabolic phenotyping and intervention trials capable of separating correlation from causation.
What does this mean in nutritional practice?
Clinical translation is more useful when it begins with the person rather than a stool-test result.
For a man concerned about prostate health, nutritional assessment should include dietary pattern and plant diversity, fibre intake, alcohol, fat quality, energy balance, body composition, metabolic health and cardiovascular risk alongside diagnosis, medication and treatment pathway.
A practical dietary framework might emphasise vegetables and fruit across a broad range of colours; legumes several times each week; wholegrains and other fibre-rich carbohydrates according to tolerance; nuts and seeds; extra-virgin olive oil as a principal culinary fat; fish where appropriate; and soy foods if enjoyed, while reducing the dominance of highly processed, energy-dense foods.
This is not a "prostate diet". It is a dietary pattern designed to support the metabolic, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and inflammatory environment in which healthy ageing takes place.
For men undergoing prostate cancer treatment, nutritional priorities may change. ADT can adversely affect body composition, insulin sensitivity, bone health and cardiovascular risk, making preservation of muscle mass, adequate protein intake, resistance exercise and metabolic monitoring important considerations. Nutrition should complement oncological care rather than sit outside it.
A 2026 systematic review of randomised trials examining diet and weight-management interventions during hormone therapy found that Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate approaches combined with exercise could improve selected cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors, although studies were generally small and durability varied. For clinical nutrition, this is a reminder that prostate-cancer survivorship is also metabolic medicine: dietary quality, muscle preservation, weight management and cardiovascular risk cannot be separated from the treatment pathway.
The microbiome adds another dimension to this framework, but it should not reduce nutrition to a list of bacteria that need to be increased or eliminated. A more useful objective is functional resilience: providing fermentable substrates, maintaining dietary diversity, supporting metabolic health and considering evidence-based microbiome interventions within the context of the individual.
The prostate does not age in isolation
The gut-prostate axis does not yet give us a new treatment for prostate disease, but it does ask us to reconsider the environment in which prostate disease develops.
Prostate health has long been understood through the biology of the gland itself: androgen signalling, cellular proliferation, genetic susceptibility, tumour grade and local pathology. Those remain indispensable. Microbiome and nutritional research add the metabolic and immunological environment surrounding that pathology.
The prostate belongs to a man whose metabolism, immune system, intestinal microbiota, diet and body composition have been interacting for decades. Some of those influences are modifiable and some are not, but considering them together may help us understand why age alone is such an incomplete predictor of what happens next.
Recent evidence is connecting dietary exposures with microbial metabolism, microbial ecology with inflammatory signalling, metabolic syndrome with prostate enlargement, and gut microorganisms with androgen metabolism and treatment response. These pathways do not operate independently, and no single bacterial species, nutrient or supplement is likely to explain them.
Postbiotic science has a place within this model because it directs attention towards the interface between microorganisms and host physiology: not simply which organisms are present, but which microbial components and signals reach the host and what biological responses follow.
For nutrition professionals, this creates a broader way of approaching prostate health, moving away from isolated nutrients and towards dietary pattern, metabolic health, microbial function and inflammatory regulation while remaining within the boundaries of the clinical evidence.
For men themselves, the implications may be less novel but no less relevant. Nutrition cannot change age or inherited risk, but it can influence metabolic health, body composition, cardiovascular risk and microbial substrate availability, all of which form part of the physiological environment now being examined within the gut-prostate axis.
The prostate may be where disease becomes visible, but it does not age in isolation.
References
1. Xu Y, An L, Xie J, Luo C, Huang X, Luo G. The gut-prostate axis in benign prostatic hyperplasia: systematic review of microbial dysbiosis and pathogenic mechanisms. BMC Urol. 2026;26:26. doi:10.1186/s12894-025-02003-2.
2. Liss MA, White JR, Doris M, Lai Z, Johnson-Pais TL, Leach RJ, et al. Gut Microbiome as a Lifestyle Risk Factor Associated with Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2026.01.001.
3. Cheng B, Gong L, Xu H, Wang Z, Huang H, Guan X, Wu P. The microbiome across the prostate disease continuum: from health and BPH to prostatitis/CPPS and cancer. Oncogene. 2026;45:1955. doi:10.1038/s41388-026-03815-8.
4. Sandeep G, Pahari S, Nayak V, Gundamaraju R, Mishra P, Misra A. The Gut-Prostate Axis: Decoding the Interplay of Environmental Factors, Microbial Metabolites, and Hormonal Regulation in Prostate Cancer Pathogenesis. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2026. doi:10.1177/15330338261424322.
5. Ishida M, Narita S, Sato H, Sekine Y, Kobayashi M, Kashima S, et al. Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Dietary Habits Influence the Gut Microbial Environment in Patients With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer. Prostate. 2026;86(5):515-524. doi:10.1002/pros.70109.
6. Raber J, O'Niel A, Kasschau KD, Pederson A, Robinson N, Guidarelli C, et al. Diet-Microbiome Relationships in Prostate-Cancer Survivors with Prior Androgen Deprivation-Therapy Exposure and Previous Exercise Intervention Enrollment. Microorganisms. 2026;14(1):251. doi:10.3390/microorganisms14010251.
7. Pahulu I, Calumpit M, Tominez P, Shih JJ, Ebrahimi S, Deville NV, et al. Diet, nutrition, and hormone therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review with implications for future interventions. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2026;10(2):pkag014. doi:10.1093/jncics/pkag014.
8. Huang H, Liu Y, Wen Z, et al. Gut microbiota in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2024;24(1):261. doi:10.1186/s12885-024-12018-x.
9. Prakash P, Verma S, Gupta S. Influence of microbiome in intraprostatic inflammation and prostate cancer. Prostate. 2024;84(13):1179-1188. doi:10.1002/pros.24756.
10. Lachance G, Robitaille K, Laaraj J, et al. The gut microbiome-prostate cancer crosstalk is modulated by dietary polyunsaturated long-chain fatty acids. Nat Commun. 2024;15:3431. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45332-w.
11. Cruz-Lebrón A, Faiez TS, Hess MM, Sfanos KS. Diet and the microbiome as mediators of prostate cancer risk, progression, and therapy response. Urol Oncol. 2025;43(4):209-220. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.12.001.
12. Distante A, Garino D, Cerrato C, et al. The role of the human microbiome in prostate cancer: a systematic review from diagnosis to treatment. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41391-025-01028-w.
13. Huang Y, Wang W, Jin J. Association between soy products and prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Investig Clin Urol. 2024;65(6):540-550. doi:10.4111/icu.20240186.
14. Doke R, et al. Demystifying the role of postbiotics in inflammation and metabolic disorders. 2025. PMID:41695796.
15. Owrang M. Probiotics, postbiotics, and synbiotics in immune system modulation: A narrative review. Biotechnol Notes. 2026;7:114-119. doi:10.1016/j.biotno.2026.06.001.
16. Salminen S, Collado MC, Endo A, et al. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;18(9):649-667. doi:10.1038/s41575-021-00440-6.
Kate Arnold, Nutrition Consultant to The Postbiotic Company
This article discusses nutritional and microbiome research and is not a substitute for prostate screening, diagnosis or treatment. New or changing urinary symptoms and concerns about prostate health should be discussed with an appropriate healthcare professional.
