From this NIH study of 2,000 PCa patients who had RP, the 10-year overall survival stats for men with a psoas muscle mass in the top quartile (psoas goes from spine to femur) is approximately 90%. Cancer-specific survival is about 98%.
From non-referenced studies and stats, the average age at diagnosis is 66. Overall mortality for a 66 y.o. man is approximately 15% (regardless of cancer status).
So the mortality for men with high leg muscle mass is actually less than that of the average man.
And, as noted in this study, muscle mass is correlated with testosterone and IGFBP-3. And of course, inversely correlated with SHBG (binds testosterone and makes it biologically inactive). My bro-science guess is that GH, testosterone, and IGF-1 can be damaging IF they aren't put to use. If anabolic hormones are introduced into the system without a need, I would guess that bad things could happen - the growth of cancer as much as anything else. But if the body is attempting to adapt to resistive stress by hypertrophy, I would guess that the benefits might outweigh the negatives. But as far as I know, this is only conjecture and has not been proven.
I have seen many studies on exercise vs. prostate cancer patient mortality and fat vs. prostate cancer mortality. Almost all of the larger NIH and country studies show that exercise is beneficial for prostate cancer patients. Fat isn't as clear cut but belly fat and visceral fat appear to be highly correlated with increased mortality rates. Whether this is causal or not can be argued. Almost anything can be argued though and analysis paralysis is something that I do not feel that we have the luxury of engaging in. This study is specifically concerned with muscle mass. What I would like to see is a study that breaks out the top 25% into <1% increments. And I would love to see studies about the interactions of resistance training with GH and IGF-1 as they pertain to cancer or all-cause mortality