| 1. |
- Ahlgren, Göran M., et al.
(author)
-
Docetaxel Versus Surveillance After Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Prostate Cancer : Results from the Prospective Randomised, Open-label Phase 3 Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 12 Trial
- 2018
-
In: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 73:6, s. 870-876
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy is standard treatment for other solid tumours, but to date has not proven effective in prostate cancer. Objective: o evaluate whether six cycles of docetaxel alone improve biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Design, setting, and participants: Open-label, randomised multinational phase 3 trial. Enrolment of 459 patients after prostatectomy. Inclusion criteria: high-risk pT2 margin positive or pT3a Gleason score ≥4+3, pT3b, or lymph node positive disease Gleason score ≥3+4. Patients assigned (1:1) to either six cycles of adjuvant docetaxel 75mg/m2 every 3 wk without daily prednisone (Arm A) or surveillance (Arm B) until endpoint was reached. Primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen progression ≥0.5 ng/ml. Intervention: Docetaxel treatment after prostatectomy. Results and limitations: Median time to progression, death, or last follow-up was 56.8 mo. Primary endpoint was reached in 190/459 patients-the risk of progression at 5 yr being 41% (45% in Arm A and 38% in Arm B). There was evidence of nonproportional hazards in Kaplan-Meier analysis, so we used the difference in restricted mean survival time as the primary estimate of effect. Restricted mean survival time to endpoint was 43 mo in Arm A versus 46 mo in Arm B (p = 0.06), a nonsignificant difference of 3.2 mo (95% confidence interval: 6.7 to -1.5 mo). A total of 116 serious adverse events were recorded in Arm A and 41 in Arm B with no treatment-related deaths. Not all patients received docetaxel by protocol. The endpoint is biochemical progression and some patients received radiation treatment before the endpoint. Conclusions: Docetaxel without hormonal therapy did not significantly improve biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Patient summary: In this randomised trial, we tested whether chemotherapy after surgery for high-risk prostate cancer decreases the risk of a rising prostate-specific antigen. We found no benefit from docetaxel given after radical prostatectomy. In this randomised trial, docetaxel without hormonal therapy or continuous corticosteroids was given after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. We found no benefit from docetaxel alone given after radical prostatectomy.
|
|
| 2. |
- Andriole, Gerald L, et al.
(author)
-
Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer.
- 2010
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406. ; 362:13, s. 1192-202
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We conducted a study to determine whether dutasteride reduces the risk of incident prostate cancer, as detected on biopsy, among men who are at increased risk for the disease.
|
|
| 3. |
- Assel, Melissa, et al.
(author)
-
A Four-kallikrein Panel and β-Microseminoprotein in Predicting High-grade Prostate Cancer on Biopsy : An Independent Replication from the Finnish Section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer
- 2019
-
In: European Urology Focus. - : Elsevier BV. - 2405-4569. ; 5:4, s. 561-567
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: A panel of four kallikrein markers (total, free, and intact prostate-specific antigen [PSA] and human kallikrein-related peptidase 2 [hK2]) improves predictive accuracy for Gleason score ≥7 (high-grade) prostate cancer among men biopsied for elevated PSA. A four-kallikrein panel model was originally developed and validated by the Dutch center of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). The kallikrein panel is now commercially available as 4Kscore™. Objective: To assess whether these findings could be replicated among participants in the Finnish section of ERSPC (FinRSPC) and whether β-microseminoprotein (MSP), a candidate prostate cancer biomarker, adds predictive value. Design, setting, and participants: Among 4861 biopsied screening-positive participants in the first three screening rounds of FinRSPC, a case-control subset was selected that included 1632 biopsy-positive cases matched by age at biopsy to biopsy-negative controls. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The predictive accuracy of prespecified prediction models was compared with biopsy outcomes. Results and limitations: Among men with PSA of 4.0-25. ng/ml, 1111 had prostate cancer, 318 of whom had high-grade disease. Total PSA and age predicted high-grade cancer with an area under the curve of 0.648 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.614-0.681) and the four-kallikrein panel increased discrimination to 0.746 (95% CI 0.717-0.774). Adding MSP to the four-kallikrein panel led to a significant (Wald test; p = 0.015) but small increase (0.003) in discrimination. Limitations include a risk of verification bias among men with PSA of 3.0-3.99. ng/ml and the absence of digital rectal examination results. Conclusions: These findings provide additional evidence that kallikrein markers can be used to inform biopsy decision-making. Further studies are needed to define the role of MSP. Patient summary: Four kallikrein markers and β-microseminoprotein in blood improve discrimination of high-grade prostate cancer at biopsy in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Four kallikrein markers and β-microseminoprotein (MSP) in blood improve discrimination of high-grade cancer at biopsy in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. These kallikrein markers can be used to inform biopsy decision-making. Further studies are needed to define the role of MSP.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Auvinen, Anssi, et al.
(author)
-
Prostate Cancer Screening With PSA, Kallikrein Panel, and MRI : The ProScreen Randomized Trial
-
In: JAMA. - 0098-7484. ; , s. 1-8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has potential to reduce prostate cancer mortality but frequently detects prostate cancer that is not clinically important.OBJECTIVE: To describe rates of low-grade (grade group 1) and high-grade (grade groups 2-5) prostate cancer identified among men invited to participate in a prostate cancer screening protocol consisting of a PSA test, a 4-kallikrein panel, and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The ProScreen trial is a clinical trial conducted in Helsinki and Tampere, Finland, that randomized 61 193 men aged 50 through 63 years who were free of prostate cancer in a 1:3 ratio to either be invited or not be invited to undergo screening for prostate cancer between February 2018 and July 2020.INTERVENTIONS: Participating men randomized to the intervention underwent PSA testing. Those with a PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or higher underwent additional testing for high-grade prostate cancer with a 4-kallikrein panel risk score. Those with a kallikrein panel score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland, followed by targeted biopsies for those with abnormal prostate gland MRI findings. Final data collection occurred through June 31, 2023.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In descriptive exploratory analyses, the cumulative incidence of low-grade and high-grade prostate cancer after the first screening round were compared between the group invited to undergo prostate cancer screening and the control group.RESULTS: Of 60 745 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 57.2 [4.0] years), 15 201 were randomized to be invited and 45 544 were randomized not to be invited to undergo prostate cancer screening. Of 15 201 eligible males invited to undergo screening, 7744 (51%) participated. Among them, 32 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.41%) and 128 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.65%) were detected, with 1 cancer grade group result missing. Among the 7457 invited men (49%) who refused participation, 7 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.1%) and 44 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.6%) were detected, with 7 cancer grade groups missing. For the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected. During a median follow-up of 3.2 years, in the group not invited to undergo screening, 65 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.14%) and 282 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.62%) were detected. The risk difference for the entire group randomized to the screening invitation vs the control group was 0.11% (95% CI, 0.03%-0.20%) for low-grade and 0.51% (95% CI, 0.33%-0.70%) for high-grade cancer.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this preliminary descriptive report from an ongoing randomized clinical trial, 1 additional high-grade cancer per 196 men and 1 low-grade cancer per 909 men were detected among those randomized to be invited to undergo a single prostate cancer screening intervention compared with those not invited to undergo screening. These preliminary findings from a single round of screening should be interpreted cautiously, pending results of the study's primary mortality outcome.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03423303.
|
|
| 6. |
- Beer, Tomasz M., et al.
(author)
-
Enzalutamide in Men with Chemotherapy-naïve Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer : Extended Analysis of the Phase 3 PREVAIL Study
- 2017
-
In: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 71:2, s. 151-154
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Enzalutamide significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) among men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer at the prespecified interim analysis of PREVAIL, a phase 3, double-blind, randomized study. We evaluated the longer-term efficacy and safety of enzalutamide up to the prespecified number of deaths in the final analysis, which included an additional 20 mo of follow-up for investigator-assessed rPFS, 9 mo of follow-up for OS, and 4 mo of follow-up for safety. Enzalutamide reduced the risk of radiographic progression or death by 68% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–0.37; p < 0.0001) and the risk of death by 23% (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67–0.88; p = 0.0002). Median investigator-assessed rPFS was 20.0 mo (95% CI 18.9–22.1) in the enzalutamide arm and 5.4 mo (95% CI 4.1–5.6) in the placebo arm. Median OS was 35.3 mo (95% CI 32.2–not yet reached) in the enzalutamide arm and 31.3 mo (95% CI 28.8–34.2) in the placebo arm. At the time of the OS analysis, 167 patients in the placebo arm had crossed over to receive enzalutamide. The most common adverse events in the enzalutamide arm were fatigue, back pain, constipation, and arthralgia. This final analysis of PREVAIL provides more complete assessment of the clinical benefit of enzalutamide. PREVAIL is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01212991. Patient summary According to data from longer follow-up, enzalutamide continued to provide benefit over placebo in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid, 1982, et al.
(author)
-
Could Differences in Treatment Between Trial Arms Explain the Reduction in Prostate Cancer Mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer?
- 2019
-
In: European urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 75:6, s. 1015-1022
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Differential treatment between trial arms has been suggested to bias prostate cancer (PC) mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).To quantify the contribution of treatment differences to the observed PC mortality reduction between the screening arm (SA) and the control arm (CA).A total of 14 136 men with PC (SA: 7310; CA: 6826) in the core age group (55-69yr) at 16yr of follow-up.The outcomes measurements were observed and estimated numbers of PC deaths by treatment allocation in the SA and CA, respectively. Primary treatment allocation was modeled using multinomial logistic regression adjusting for center, age, year, prostate-specific antigen, grade group, and tumor-node-metastasis stage. For each treatment, logistic regression models were fitted for risk of PC death, separately for the SA and CA, and using the same covariates as for the treatment allocation model. Treatment probabilities were multiplied by estimated PC death risks for each treatment based on one arm, and then summed and compared with the observed number of deaths.The difference between the observed and estimated treatment distributions (hormonal therapy, radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and active surveillance/watchful waiting) in the two arms ranged from -3.3% to 3.3%. These figures, which represent the part of the treatment differences between arms that cannot be explained by clinicopathological differences, are small compared with the observed differences between arms that ranged between 7.2% and 10.1%. The difference between the observed and estimated numbers of PC deaths among men with PC was 0.05% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.1%, 0.2%) when applying the CA model to the SA, had the two groups received identical primary treatment, given their clinical characteristics. When instead applying the SA model to the CA, the difference was, as expected, very similar-0.01% (95% CI -0.3%, 0.2%). Consistency of the results of the models demonstrates the robustness of the modeling approach. As the observed difference between trial arms was 4.2%, our findings suggest that differential treatment explains only a trivial proportion of the main findings of ERSPC. A limitation of the study is that only data on primary treatment were available.Use of prostate-specific antigen remains the predominant explanation for the reduction in PC mortality seen in the ERSPC trial and is not attributable to differential treatment between trial arms.This study shows that prostate cancer deaths in the European screening trial (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) were prevented because men were diagnosed and treated earlier through prostate-specific antigen screening, and not because of different, or better, treatment in the screening arm compared with the control arm.
|
|
| 9. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid, 1982, et al.
(author)
-
No excess mortality after prostate biopsy: results from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.
- 2011
-
In: BJU international. - 1464-410X. ; 107:12, s. 1912-1917
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Study Type - Harm (RCT)
Level of Evidence 1b OBJECTIVES: To assess possible excess mortality associated with prostate biopsy among screening participants of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From three centres in the ERSPC (Finland, The Netherlands and Sweden) 50 194 screened men aged 50.2-78.4 years were prospectively followed. A cohort of 12 959 first-time screening-positive men (i.e. with biopsy indication) was compared with another cohort of 37 235 first-time screening-negative men. Overall mortality rates (i.e. other cause than prostate cancer mortality) were calculated and the 120-day and 1-year cumulative mortality were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, with a log-rank test for statistical significance. Incidence rate ratios (RR) and statistical significance were evaluated using Poisson regression analyses, adjusting for age, total PSA level, screening centre and whether a biopsy indication was present, or whether a biopsy was actually performed or not. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in cumulative 120-day other cause mortality between the two groups of men: 0.24% (95% CI, 0.17-0.34) for screening-positive men vs 0.24% (95% CI, 0.20-0.30) for screening-negative men (P= 0.96). This implied no excess mortality for screening-positive men. Screening-positive men who were not biopsied (n= 1238) had a more than fourfold risk of other cause mortality during the first 120 days compared to screening-negative men: RR, 4.52 (95% CI, 2.63-7.74) (P < 0.001), adjusted for age, whereas men who were actually biopsied (n= 11 721) had half the risk: RR, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.23-0.73) (P= 0.002), adjusted for age. Only 14/31 (45%) of the screening-positive men who died within 120 days were biopsied and none died as an obvious complication to the biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate biopsy is not associated with excess mortality and fatal complications appear to be very rare.
|
|
| 10. |
- Christensen, G Bryce, et al.
(author)
-
Genome-wide linkage analysis of 1,233 prostate cancer pedigrees from the International Consortium for prostate cancer Genetics using novel sumLINK and sumLOD analyses.
- 2010
-
In: The Prostate. - : Wiley. - 0270-4137 .- 1097-0045. ; 70, s. 735-744
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is generally believed to have a strong inherited component, but the search for susceptibility genes has been hindered by the effects of genetic heterogeneity. The recently developed sumLINK and sumLOD statistics are powerful tools for linkage analysis in the presence of heterogeneity. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of 1,233 PC pedigrees from the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG) using two novel statistics, the sumLINK and sumLOD. For both statistics, dominant and recessive genetic models were considered. False discovery rate (FDR) analysis was conducted to assess the effects of multiple testing. RESULTS: Our analysis identified significant linkage evidence at chromosome 22q12, confirming previous findings by the initial conventional analyses of the same ICPCG data. Twelve other regions were identified with genome-wide suggestive evidence for linkage. Seven regions (1q23, 5q11, 5q35, 6p21, 8q12, 11q13, 20p11-q11) are near loci previously identified in the initial ICPCG pooled data analysis or the subset of aggressive PC pedigrees. Three other regions (1p12, 8p23, 19q13) confirm loci reported by others, and two (2p24, 6q27) are novel susceptibility loci. FDR testing indicates that over 70% of these results are likely true positive findings. Statistical recombinant mapping narrowed regions to an average of 9 cM. CONCLUSIONS: Our results represent genomic regions with the greatest consistency of positive linkage evidence across a very large collection of high-risk PC pedigrees using new statistical tests that deal powerfully with heterogeneity. These regions are excellent candidates for further study to identify PC predisposition genes. Prostate (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
|
|
