Literature DB >> 17848668

Detection bias due to the effect of finasteride on prostate volume: a modeling approach for analysis of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

Yael C Cohen1, Kenneth S Liu, Norman L Heyden, Alexandra D Carides, Keaven M Anderson, Anastasia G Daifotis, Peter H Gann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) demonstrated a 24.8% reduction in the 7-year prevalence of prostate cancer among patients treated with finasteride (5 mg daily) compared with that among patients treated with placebo; however, a 25.5% increase in the prevalence of high-Gleason grade tumors was observed, the clinical significance of which is unknown. One hypothesized explanation for this increase is that finasteride reduced prostate volume, leading to detection of more high-grade tumors due to increased sampling density. This possibility was investigated in an observational reanalysis of the PCPT data, with adjustment for sampling density.
METHODS: A logistic model for the association of high-grade (Gleason score 7-10) prostate cancer with baseline covariates and/or baseline covariates plus prostate volume and number of cores obtained at biopsy was developed using the placebo group (n = 4775) of the PCPT. This model was then applied to the finasteride group (n = 5123) to compare the predicted and observed numbers of high-grade tumors in that group. In a second approach, odds ratios (ORs) for prostate cancer in the finasteride versus placebo groups calculated from binary and polytomous logistic regression models that contained or excluded covariates for gland volume and number of needle cores were compared.
RESULTS: Median prostate volume was 25% lower in the finasteride group (median = 25.1 cm3) than in the placebo group (median = 33.5 cm3). The logistic model developed in the placebo group showed that the likelihood of detection of high-grade prostate cancer decreased as volume increased (for each 10 cm3 increase in prostate volume, OR = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.90). Based on this model, 239 high-grade prostate cancers were predicted in the finasteride group, whereas 243 were observed, a non-statistically significant difference. Among all participants, the odds ratios for high-grade cancer in the finasteride versus placebo groups decreased from 1.27 (95% CI = 1.05 to 1.54) with adjustment for baseline covariates to 1.03 (95% CI = 0.84 to 1.26) following additional adjustment for gland volume and number of biopsy cores in binary outcome models and from 1.14 (95% CI = 0.94 to 1.38) to 0.88 (95% CI = 0.72 to 1.09) following these adjustments in the polytomous models.
CONCLUSIONS: Although analyses using postrandomization data require cautious interpretation, these results suggest that sampling density bias alone could explain the excess of high-grade cancers among the finasteride-assigned participants in the PCPT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17848668     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm130

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  30 in total

1.  Dutasteride and prostate cancer risk.

Authors:  Haim Matzkin
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Prostate cancer: A closer look at the initial results from the REDUCE trial.

Authors:  Peter H Gann
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Does variation in either age at start of therapy or duration of therapy make chemoprevention with finasteride cost-effective?

Authors:  S B Stewart; C D Scales; J W Moul; S D Reed
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 5.554

4.  Epidemiology of prostate cancer and treatment remarks.

Authors:  Stefano Arcangeli; Valentina Pinzi; Giorgio Arcangeli
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-28

Review 5.  The strategies to control prostate cancer by chemoprevention approaches.

Authors:  Harold Ting; Gagan Deep; Chapla Agarwal; Rajesh Agarwal
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 2.433

6.  Cancer Progress and Priorities: Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Kevin H Kensler; Timothy R Rebbeck
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 7.  Novel targets for prostate cancer chemoprevention.

Authors:  Fazlul H Sarkar; Yiwei Li; Zhiwei Wang; Dejuan Kong
Journal:  Endocr Relat Cancer       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 5.678

8.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: the role of the oncologist in cancer prevention and risk assessment.

Authors:  Robin T Zon; Elizabeth Goss; Victor G Vogel; Rowan T Chlebowski; Ismail Jatoi; Mark E Robson; Dana S Wollins; Judy E Garber; Powel Brown; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 9.  An introduction to acinar pressures in BPH and prostate cancer.

Authors:  Panikar Wadhera
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  Rank-based principal stratum sensitivity analyses.

Authors:  X Lu; D V Mehrotra; B E Shepherd
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-05-19       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.