Literature DB >> 17848673

Finasteride and high-grade prostate cancer in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

M Scott Lucia1, Jonathan I Epstein, Phyllis J Goodman, Amy K Darke, Victor E Reuter, Francisco Civantos, Catherine M Tangen, Howard L Parnes, Scott M Lippman, Francisco G La Rosa, Michael W Kattan, E David Crawford, Leslie G Ford, Charles A Coltman, Ian M Thompson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) reported a decreased incidence of prostate cancer overall but an increase in the incidence of high-grade prostate cancer with finasteride compared with placebo. We assessed whether the increased high-grade prostate cancer associated with finasteride in the PCPT was due to finasteride's potential effects on tumor morphology or prostate size.
METHODS: Prostate biopsies with Gleason score 8-10 (n = 90, finasteride; n = 52, placebo) were examined histologically for hormonal effects, and those with Gleason score 7-10 (n = 282, finasteride; n = 244, placebo) were examined for pathologic surrogates of disease extent. Prostate volumes were measured at biopsy. Samples from radical prostatectomies (n = 222, finasteride; n = 306, placebo) were examined for tumor grade and extent, and, where possible, grades at biopsy and prostatectomy were compared between the groups. Logistic regression was used to analyze differences between treatment groups with respect to pathologic criteria. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Degenerative hormonal changes in high-grade biopsies were equivalent between the finasteride and placebo groups, but prostate volumes were lower in the finasteride group (median = 25.1 versus 34.4 cm3, P<.001). Pathologic surrogates for tumor extent were lower with finasteride than with placebo, including mean percentage of positive cores (34% versus 38%, P = .016), mean tumor linear extent (greatest [4.4 versus 4.8 mm, P = .19] and aggregate [7.6 versus 9.2 mm, P = .13]), bilaterality (22.8% versus 30.6%, P = .046), and perineural invasion (14.2% versus 20.3%, P = .07). Among patients who had prostatectomy, the finasteride-associated increase in high-grade disease (Gleason score > or = 7) at biopsy (42.7% finasteride versus 25.4% placebo, P<.001) was diminished at prostatectomy (46.4% finasteride versus 38.6% placebo, P = .10). Biopsy identified a greater proportion of patients with high-grade disease present at prostatectomy in the finasteride group than in the placebo group (69.7% versus 50.5%, P = .01). The rate of upgrading (from low-grade cancer at biopsy to high-grade cancer at prostatectomy) and pathologic stage at prostatectomy were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Effects of finasteride on prostate volume and selective inhibition of low-grade cancer, rather than effects on tumor morphology, may have contributed to the increase in high-grade cancers with finasteride in the PCPT. Although induction of high-grade cancer cannot be excluded, the results suggest that high-grade cancer was detected earlier and was less extensive in the finasteride group than in the placebo group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17848673     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm117

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


  67 in total

1.  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

2.  Finasteride modifies the relation between serum C-peptide and prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

Authors:  Marian L Neuhouser; Cathee Till; Alan Kristal; Phyllis Goodman; Ashraful Hoque; Elizabeth A Platz; Ann W Hsing; Demetrius Albanes; Howard L Parnes; Michael Pollak
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2010-02-23

3.  In vivo imaging of intraprostatic-specific gene transcription by PET.

Authors:  Frédéric Pouliot; Breanne D W Karanikolas; Mai Johnson; Makoto Sato; Saul J Priceman; David Stout; Joanne Sohn; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Jean B deKernion; Lily Wu
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 4.  Beyond odds ratios--communicating disease risk based on genetic profiles.

Authors:  Peter Kraft; Sholom Wacholder; Marilyn C Cornelis; Frank B Hu; Richard B Hayes; Gilles Thomas; Robert Hoover; David J Hunter; Stephen Chanock
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 5.  Risk factors for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Amit R Patel; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Urol       Date:  2009-02

Review 6.  Molecular targets for cancer chemoprevention.

Authors:  William N William; John V Heymach; Edward S Kim; Scott M Lippman
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 84.694

7.  A 49-year-old Hispanic male with intraepithelial neoplasia and focal atypia.

Authors:  Mark Soloway
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.092

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

9.  Does the level of prostate cancer risk affect cancer prevention with finasteride?

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Howard L Parnes; Scott M Lippman; Charles A Coltman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 10.  Prostate Cancer Prevention: Concepts and Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Zachary Hamilton; J Kellogg Parsons
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.