Juzar Jamnagerwalla1, Lauren E Howard2, Adriana C Vidal1, Daniel M Moreira3, Ramiro Castro-Santamaria4, Gerald L Andriole5, Stephen J Freedland6. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Surgery Section, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Research and Development, GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. 5. Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. 6. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California; Surgery Section, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: Stephen.Freedland@cshs.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite routine use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor to treat erectile dysfunction the role in prostate cancer chemoprevention remains unclear. Only a few studies have explored the link between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor use and prostate cancer. We tested the association between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor and prostate cancer risk in the REDUCE (Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events) trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: REDUCE was a 4-year multicenter study testing the effect of daily dutasteride on prostate cancer risk in men with prostate specific antigen 2.5 to 10.0 ng/ml and negative biopsy who underwent study mandated biopsies at 2 and 4 years. The association of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor with overall prostate cancer risk and disease grade (Gleason 2-6 and 7-10) was examined using adjusted logistic and multinomial regression analysis. Secondary analysis was performed to explore the association between phosphodiesterase type5 inhibitor and prostate cancer risk in North American men, given the significantly higher use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor in these subjects. RESULTS:Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor was not associated with prostate cancer diagnosis (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68-1.20, p = 0.476), low grade disease (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67-1.27, p = 0.632) or high grade disease (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51-1.39, p = 0.508). An inverse trend was seen between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor and prostate cancer diagnosisin North American men but this was not statistically significant (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42-1.07, p = 0.091). CONCLUSIONS:Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor use was not associated with decreased prostate cancer diagnoses on post-hoc analysis of REDUCE. In North American men, who had much higher baseline use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, this treatment was associated with an inverse trend of prostate cancer diagnosis that approached but did not reach statistical significance.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Despite routine use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor to treat erectile dysfunction the role in prostate cancer chemoprevention remains unclear. Only a few studies have explored the link between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor use and prostate cancer. We tested the association between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor and prostate cancer risk in the REDUCE (Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events) trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: REDUCE was a 4-year multicenter study testing the effect of daily dutasteride on prostate cancer risk in men with prostate specific antigen 2.5 to 10.0 ng/ml and negative biopsy who underwent study mandated biopsies at 2 and 4 years. The association of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor with overall prostate cancer risk and disease grade (Gleason 2-6 and 7-10) was examined using adjusted logistic and multinomial regression analysis. Secondary analysis was performed to explore the association between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor and prostate cancer risk in North American men, given the significantly higher use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor in these subjects. RESULTS: Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor was not associated with prostate cancer diagnosis (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68-1.20, p = 0.476), low grade disease (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67-1.27, p = 0.632) or high grade disease (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51-1.39, p = 0.508). An inverse trend was seen between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor and prostate cancer diagnosis in North American men but this was not statistically significant (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42-1.07, p = 0.091). CONCLUSIONS: Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor use was not associated with decreased prostate cancer diagnoses on post-hoc analysis of REDUCE. In North American men, who had much higher baseline use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, this treatment was associated with an inverse trend of prostate cancer diagnosis that approached but did not reach statistical significance.
Authors: Bimal Bhindi; Jennifer Locke; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Girish S Kulkarni; David S Margel; Robert J Hamilton; Antonio Finelli; John Trachtenberg; Alexandre R Zlotta; Ants Toi; Karen M Hersey; Andrew Evans; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Neil E Fleshner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ronald W Lewis; Kerstin S Fugl-Meyer; Giovanni Corona; Richard D Hayes; Edward O Laumann; Edson D Moreira; Alessandra H Rellini; Taylor Segraves Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Andrea Gallina; Marco Bianchi; Giorgio Gandaglia; Vito Cucchiara; Nazareno Suardi; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Gerald Andriole; David Bostwick; Otis Brawley; Leonard Gomella; Michael Marberger; Donald Tindall; Sharon Breed; Matt Somerville; Roger Rittmaster Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Gerald B Brock; Chris G McMahon; K K Chen; Timothy Costigan; Wei Shen; Vish Watkins; Greg Anglin; Steve Whitaker Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Wayne J G Hellstrom; Marc Gittelman; Gary Karlin; Thomas Segerson; Marc Thibonnier; Terry Taylor; Harin Padma-Nathan Journal: Urology Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: William Hankey; Benjamin Sunkel; Fuwen Yuan; Haiyan He; Jennifer M Thomas-Ahner; Zhong Chen; Steven K Clinton; Jiaoti Huang; Qianben Wang Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 4.803