Patterns of finasteride and dutasteride use in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial cohort: effects of socio-demographic factors and a black box warning

Background: Five-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs), specifically finasteride and dutasteride, have been shown to significantly reduce prostate cancer incidence. However, these agents were also associated with a significant increase in the detection of high-grade prostate cancer leading to an FDA black box warning in 2011. Little is known about the effect of this warning on the subsequent use of these 5-ARIs. The purpose of this analysis was to assess use patterns of finasteride and dutasteride before and after the black box warning. Methods: This cohort study evaluated men enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) screening trial who had ≥12 months of Medicare Part D coverage from 2008 to 2015, and had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer through 2007. Socio-demographic factors and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) status were ascertained from follow-up questionnaires, while medication use was ascertained from linkage to Medicare Part D claims data. Results: Of 14,833 eligible men, 88.7% identified as non-Hispanic white, 1.7% as African-American, 5.2% as Asian/Pacific Islander and 1.7% as Hispanic. The median age was 72 years; 41.8% reported a BPH diagnosis. Only 13.6% and 4% of the population took finasteride or dutasteride, respectively, at any time from 2008 to 2015. During this period, finasteride use significantly increased from 3.6% to 9.7% and was highest among men with BPH; dutasteride use remained low and decreased from 2.8% to 1.9%. Conclusions: Finasteride use significantly increased after the FDA’s 2011 black box warning, while dutasteride use remained low and steady throughout the study period

A mathematical model for top-shelf vertigo: the role of sedimenting otoconia in BPPV

Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV) is a mechanical disorder of the vestibular system in which calcite particles called otoconia interfere with the mechanical functioning of the fluid-filled semicircular canals normally used to sense rotation. Using hydrodynamic models, we examine the two mechanisms proposed by the medical community for BPPV: cupulolithiasis, in which otoconia attach directly to the cupula (a sensory membrane), and canalithiasis, in which otoconia settle through the canals and exert a fluid pressure across the cupula. We utilize known hydrodynamic calculations and make reasonable geometric and physical approximations to derive an expression for the transcupular pressure $\Delta P_c$ exerted by a settling solid particle in canalithiasis. By tracking settling otoconia in a two-dimensional model geometry, the cupular volume displacement and associated eye response (nystagmus) can be calculated quantitatively. Several important features emerge: 1) A pressure amplification occurs as otoconia enter a narrowing duct; 2) An average-sized otoconium requires approximately five seconds to settle through the wide ampulla, where $\Delta P_c$ is not amplified, which suggests a mechanism for the observed latency of BPPV; and 3) An average-sized otoconium beginning below the center of the cupula can cause a volumetric cupular displacement on the order of 30 pL, with nystagmus of order $2^\circ$/s, which is approximately the threshold for sensation. Larger cupular volume displacement and nystagmus could result from larger and/or multiple otoconia.Comment: 15 pages, 5 Figures updated, to be published in J. Biomechanic

Inflammation in benign prostate tissue and prostate cancer in the finasteride arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial

BACKGROUND: A previous analysis of the placebo arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) reported 82% overall prevalence of intraprostatic inflammation and identified a link between inflammation and higher-grade prostate cancer and serum PSA. Here we studied these associations in the PCPT finasteride arm. METHODS: Prostate cancer cases (N=197) detected either on a clinically indicated biopsy or on protocol-directed end-of-study biopsy, and frequency-matched controls (N=248) with no cancer on an end-of-study biopsy were sampled from the finasteride arm. Inflammation in benign prostate tissue was visually assessed using digital images of H&E stained sections. Logistic regression was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: In the finasteride arm, 91.6% of prostate cancer cases and 92.4% of controls had at least one biopsy core with inflammation in benign areas; p < 0.001 for difference compared to placebo arm. Overall, the odds of prostate cancer did not differ by prevalence (OR=0.90, 95% CI 0.44-1.84) or extent (P-trend=0.68) of inflammation. Inflammation was not associated with higher-grade disease (prevalence: OR=1.07, 95% CI 0.43-2.69). Furthermore, mean PSA concentration did not differ by the prevalence or extent of inflammationin either cases or controls. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of intraprostatic inflammation was higher in the finasteride than placebo arm of the PCPT, with no association with higher-grade prostate cancer. IMPACT: Finasteride may attenuate the association between inflammation and higher-grade prostate cancer. Moreover, the missing link between intraprostatic inflammation and PSA suggests that finasteride may reduce inflammation-associated PSA elevation

Tissue Effects in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Short-term Finasteride in Early Prostate Cancer.

BackgroundIn the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, finasteride selectively suppressed low-grade prostate cancer and significantly reduced the incidence of prostate cancer in men treated with finasteride compared with placebo. However, an apparent increase in high-grade disease was also observed among men randomized to finasteride. We aimed to determine why and hypothesized that there is a grade-dependent response to finasteride.MethodsFrom 2007 to 2012, we randomized dynamically by intranet-accessible software 183 men with localized prostate cancer to receive 5mg finasteride or placebo daily in a double-blind study during the 4-6weeks preceding prostatectomy. As the primary end point, the expression of a predefined molecular signature (ERβ, UBE2C, SRD5A2, and VEGF) differentiating high- and low-grade tumors in Gleason grade (GG) 3 areas of finasteride-exposed tumors from those in GG3 areas of placebo-exposed tumors, adjusted for Gleason score (GS) at prostatectomy, was compared. We also determined androgen receptor (AR) levels, Ki-67, and cleaved caspase 3 to evaluate the effects of finasteride on the expression of its downstream target, cell proliferation, and apoptosis, respectively. The expression of these markers was also compared across grades between and within treatment groups. Logistic regression was used to assess the expression of markers.FindingsWe found that the predetermined molecular signature did not distinguish GG3 from GG4 areas in the placebo group. However, AR expression was significantly lower in the GG4 areas of the finasteride group than in those of the placebo group. Within the finasteride group, AR expression was also lower in GG4 than in GG3 areas, but not significantly. Expression of cleaved caspase 3 was significantly increased in both GG3 and GG4 areas in the finasteride group compared to the placebo group, although it was lower in GG4 than in GG3 areas in both groups.InterpretationWe showed that finasteride's effect on apoptosis and AR expression is tumor grade dependent after short-term intervention. This may explain finasteride's selective suppression of low-grade tumors observed in the PCPT

Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer

This Review was sponsored and funded by the International Society of Cancer Prevention (ISCaP), the European Association of Urology (EAU), the National Cancer Institute, USA (NCI) (grant number 1R13CA171707-01), Prostate Cancer UK, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) (grant number C569/A16477), and the Association for International Cancer Research (AICR

Long-Term Survival of Participants in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial

In the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), finasteride significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer but was associated with an increased risk of high-grade disease. With up to 18 years of follow-up, we analyzed rates of survival among all study participants and among those with prostate cancer

Comparison of MR/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Biopsy With Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer

IMPORTANCE Targeted magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy has been shown to detect prostate cancer. The implications of targeted biopsy alone vs standard extended-sextant biopsy or the 2 modalities combined are not well understood. OBJECTIVE To assess targeted vs standard biopsy and the 2 approaches combined for the diagnosis of intermediate-to high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective cohort study of 1003 men undergoing both targeted and standard biopsy concurrently from 2007 through 2014 at the National Cancer Institute in the United States. Patients were referred for elevated level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or abnormal digital rectal examination results, often with prior negative biopsy results. Risk categorization was compared among targeted and standard biopsy and, when available, whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy as the &quot;gold standard.&quot; INTERVENTIONS Patients underwent multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging to identify regions of prostate cancer suspicion followed by targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy and concurrent standard biopsy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary objective was to compare targeted and standard biopsy approaches for detection of high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score Ն4 + 3); secondary end points focused on detection of low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 or low-volume 3 + 4) and the biopsy ability to predict whole-gland pathology at prostatectomy. RESULTS Targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy diagnosed 461 prostate cancer cases, and standard biopsy diagnosed 469 cases. There was exact agreement between targeted and standard biopsy in 690 men (69%) undergoing biopsy. Targeted biopsy diagnosed 30% more high-risk cancers vs standard biopsy (173 vs 122 cases, P &lt; .001) and 17% fewer low-risk cancers (213 vs 258 cases, P &lt; .001). When standard biopsy cores were combined with the targeted approach, an additional 103 cases (22%) of mostly low-risk prostate cancer were diagnosed (83% low risk, 12% intermediate risk, and 5% high risk). The predictive ability of targeted biopsy for differentiating low-risk from intermediate-and high-risk disease in 170 men with whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy was greater than that of standard biopsy or the 2 approaches combined (area under the curve, 0.73, 0.59, and 0.67, respectively; P &lt; .05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among men undergoing biopsy for suspected prostate cancer, targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy, compared with standard extended-sextant ultrasound-guided biopsy, was associated with increased detection of high-risk prostate cancer and decreased detection of low-risk prostate cancer. Future studies will be needed to assess the ultimate clinical implications of targeted biopsy

Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change

A vast range of disorders—from indolent to fast-growing lesions—are labelled as cancer. Therefore, we believe that several changes should be made to the approach to cancer screening and care, such as use of new terminology for indolent and precancerous disorders. We propose the term indolent lesion of epithelial origin, or IDLE, for those lesions (currently labelled as cancers) and their precursors that are unlikely to cause harm if they are left untreated. Furthermore, precursors of cancer or high-risk disorders should not have the term cancer in them. The rationale for this change in approach is that indolent lesions with low malignant potential are common, and screening brings indolent lesions and their precursors to clinical attention, which leads to overdiagnosis and, if unrecognised, possible overtreatment. To minimise that potential, new strategies should be adopted to better define and manage IDLEs. Screening guidelines should be revised to lower the chance of detection of minimal-risk IDLEs and inconsequential cancers with the same energy traditionally used to increase the sensitivity of screening tests. Changing the terminology for some of the lesions currently referred to as cancer will allow physicians to shift medicolegal notions and perceived risk to reflect the evolving understanding of biology, be more judicious about when a biopsy should be done, and organise studies and registries that offer observation or less invasive approaches for indolent disease. Emphasis on avoidance of harm while assuring benefit will improve screening and treatment of patients and will be equally effective in the prevention of death from cancer

Plasma Tocopherols and Risk of Prostate Cancer in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)

The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) showed higher prostate cancer incidence in men supplemented with high-dose α-tocopherol. We therefore examined whether pre-supplementation plasma α-tocopherol or γ-tocopherol was associated with overall or high-grade prostate cancer. A stratified case-cohort sample that included 1,746 incident prostate cancer cases diagnosed through June, 2009 and a subcohort of 3,211 men was derived from the SELECT trial of 35,533 men. Plasma was collected at entry in 2001–2004, and median follow-up was 5.5 years (range, 0 – 7.9 years). Incidence of prostate cancer as a function of plasma α-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol, and supplementation with α-tocopherol or selenomethionine was estimated by the hazard ratio (HR). Plasma γ-tocopherol was not associated with prostate cancer. Men with higher α-tocopherol concentrations appeared to have risk similar to that of men with lower concentrations [overall HR for fifth (Q5) vs. first quintile (Q1), 1.21 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.88–1.66, P-trend=0.24; in the trial placebo arm, Q5 HR, 0.85, 95% CI, 0.44–1.62, P-trend=0.66]. We found a strong positive plasma α-tocopherol association among men receiving the trial selenomethionine supplement [Q5 HR, 2.04, 95% CI, 1.29–3.22; P-trend=0.005]. A positive plasma α-tocopherol-prostate cancer association also appeared limited to high-grade disease (Gleason grade 7––10, overall Q5 HR, 1.59, 95% CI, 1.13–2.24, P-trend=0.001; among men receiving selenomethionine, HR, 2.12, 95% CI, 1.32–3.40; P-trend=0.0002). Our findings indicate that higher plasma α-tocopherol concentrations may interact with selenomethionine supplements to increase high-grade prostate cancer risk, suggesting a biological interaction between α-tocopherol and selenium itself or selenomethionine

Serum estrogen levels and prostate cancer risk in the prostate cancer prevention trial: a nested case–control study

OBJECTIVE: Finasteride reduces prostate cancer risk by blocking the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone. However, whether finasteride affects estrogens levels or change in estrogens affects prostate cancer risk is unknown. METHODS: These questions were investigated in a case-control study nested within the prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT) with 1,798 biopsy-proven prostate cancer cases and 1,798 matched controls. RESULTS: Among men on placebo, no relationship of serum estrogens with risk of prostate cancer was found. Among those on finasteride, those in the highest quartile of baseline estrogen levels had a moderately increased risk of Gleason score < 7 prostate cancer (for estrone, odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-2.15; for estradiol, OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.03-2.18). Finasteride treatment increased serum estrogen concentrations; however, these changes were not associated with prostate cancer risk. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm those from previous studies that there are no associations of serum estrogen with prostate cancer risk in untreated men. In addition, finasteride results in a modest increase in serum estrogen levels, which are not related to prostate cancer risk. Whether finasteride is less effective in men with high serum estrogens, or finasteride interacts with estrogen to increase cancer risk, is uncertain and warrants further investigation