OBJECTIVES:Finasteride reduced the risk of prostate cancer by 24.8% in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT). Whether this represents treatment or prevention and who is most likely to benefit are unknown. We sought to clarify these issues by this investigation. METHODS: We fit a logistic regression model to men in the placebo group of the PCPT using risk factors for prostate cancer at entry to predict prostate cancer during the subsequent 7 years of study. Men in the two treatment groups were categorized into quintiles of risk of prostate cancer based on the predictive logistic model. A second model was fit evaluating finasteride's effect on prostate cancer for each subgroup defined by quartiles of baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) . The magnitude of the prevention effect of finasteride on prostate cancer was then evaluated across risk and PSA strata. RESULTS:Finasteride significantly reduced prostate cancer risk for all risk quintiles. For quintiles 1 through 5, odds ratios were 0.72, 0.52, 0.64, 0.66, and 0.71, respectively (all P < or = 0.05). For quartiles of risk of entry PSA (less than 0.7 ng/mL, 0.7 to 1.1 ng/mL, 1.1 to 1.7 ng/mL, and 1.8 to 3.0 ng/mL), odds ratios increased (smaller treatment effect) as PSA increased: 0.60, 0.62, 0.66, and 0.69, respectively, but remained significant for all strata (each P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Finasteride significantly reduced prostate cancer risk regardless of the level of this risk, estimated either by multivariable risk or by PSA stratum; this suggests that finasteride exerts both treatment and preventive effects. All men undergoing PSA screening should be informed of the potential for finasteride to reduce their risk of prostate cancer.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES:Finasteride reduced the risk of prostate cancer by 24.8% in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT). Whether this represents treatment or prevention and who is most likely to benefit are unknown. We sought to clarify these issues by this investigation. METHODS: We fit a logistic regression model to men in the placebo group of the PCPT using risk factors for prostate cancer at entry to predict prostate cancer during the subsequent 7 years of study. Men in the two treatment groups were categorized into quintiles of risk of prostate cancer based on the predictive logistic model. A second model was fit evaluating finasteride's effect on prostate cancer for each subgroup defined by quartiles of baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) . The magnitude of the prevention effect of finasteride on prostate cancer was then evaluated across risk and PSA strata. RESULTS:Finasteride significantly reduced prostate cancer risk for all risk quintiles. For quintiles 1 through 5, odds ratios were 0.72, 0.52, 0.64, 0.66, and 0.71, respectively (all P < or = 0.05). For quartiles of risk of entry PSA (less than 0.7 ng/mL, 0.7 to 1.1 ng/mL, 1.1 to 1.7 ng/mL, and 1.8 to 3.0 ng/mL), odds ratios increased (smaller treatment effect) as PSA increased: 0.60, 0.62, 0.66, and 0.69, respectively, but remained significant for all strata (each P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Finasteride significantly reduced prostate cancer risk regardless of the level of this risk, estimated either by multivariable risk or by PSA stratum; this suggests that finasteride exerts both treatment and preventive effects. All men undergoing PSA screening should be informed of the potential for finasteride to reduce their risk of prostate cancer.
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Ziding Feng; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: A Brufsky; P Fontaine-Rothe; K Berlane; P Rieker; M Jiroutek; I Kaplan; D Kaufman; P Kantoff Journal: Urology Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Chen Chi; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; Scott M Lippman; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-08-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Phyllis J Goodman; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Scott M Lippman; Charles A Coltman Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: G Andriole; M Lieber; J Smith; M Soloway; F Schroeder; D Kadmon; J DeKernion; J Rajfer; R Boake; D Crawford Journal: Urology Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: M Scott Lucia; 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 Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Abdelrahman S Mayhoub; Laura Marler; Tamara P Kondratyuk; Eun-Jung Park; John M Pezzuto; Mark Cushman Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Shelby D Reed; Charles D Scales; Suzanne B Stewart; Jielin Sun; Judd W Moul; Kevin A Schulman; Jianfeng Xu Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Lei Wang; Melissa J L Bonorden; Guang-xun Li; Hyo-Jeong Lee; Hongbo Hu; Yong Zhang; Joshua D Liao; Margot P Cleary; Junxuan Lü Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2009-04-28