Search

BACKGROUND: The European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown significant reductions in prostate cancer mortality after 9 years and 11 years of follow-up, but screening is controversial because of adverse events such as overdiagnosis. We provide updated results of mortality from prostate cancer with follow-up to 2010, with analyses truncated at 9, 11, and 13 years. METHODS: ERSPC is a multicentre, randomised trial with a predefined centralised database, analysis plan, and core age group (55-69 years), which assesses prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in eight European countries. Eligible men aged 50-74 years were identified from population registries and randomly assigned by computer generated random numbers to screening or no intervention (control). Investigators were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was prostate cancer mortality in the core age group. Analysis was by intention to treat. We did a secondary analysis that corrected for selection bias due to non-participation. Only incidence and no mortality data at 9 years' follow-up are reported for the French centres. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN49127736. FINDINGS: With data truncated at 13 years of follow-up, 7408 prostate cancer cases were diagnosed in the intervention group and 6107 cases in the control group. The rate ratio of prostate cancer incidence between the intervention and control groups was 1·91 (95% CI 1·83-1·99) after 9 years (1·64 [1·58-1·69] including France), 1·66 (1·60-1·73) after 11 years, and 1·57 (1·51-1·62) after 13 years. The rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality was 0·85 (0·70-1·03) after 9 years, 0·78 (0·66-0·91) after 11 years, and 0·79 (0·69-0·91) at 13 years. The absolute risk reduction of death from prostate cancer at 13 years was 0·11 per 1000 person-years or 1·28 per 1000 men randomised, which is equivalent to one prostate cancer death averted per 781 (95% CI 490-1929) men invited for screening or one per 27 (17-66) additional prostate cancer detected. After adjustment for non-participation, the rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality in men screened was 0·73 (95% CI 0·61-0·88). INTERPRETATION: In this update the ERSPC confirms a substantial reduction in prostate cancer mortality attributable to testing of PSA, with a substantially increased absolute effect at 13 years compared with findings after 9 and 11 years. Despite our findings, further quantification of harms and their reduction are still considered a prerequisite for the introduction of populated-based screening. FUNDING: Each centre had its own funding responsibility., BACKGROUND: The European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown significant reductions in prostate cancer mortality after 9 years and 11 years of follow-up, but screening is controversial because of adverse events such as overdiagnosis. We provide updated results of mortality from prostate cancer with follow-up to 2010, with analyses truncated at 9, 11, and 13 years. METHODS: ERSPC is a multicentre, randomised trial with a predefined centralised database, analysis plan, and core age group (55-69 years), which assesses prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in eight European countries. Eligible men aged 50-74 years were identified from population registries and randomly assigned by computer generated random numbers to screening or no intervention (control). Investigators were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was prostate cancer mortality in the core age group. Analysis was by intention to treat. We did a secondary analysis that corrected for selection bias due to non-participation. Only incidence and no mortality data at 9 years' follow-up are reported for the French centres. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN49127736. FINDINGS: With data truncated at 13 years of follow-up, 7408 prostate cancer cases were diagnosed in the intervention group and 6107 cases in the control group. The rate ratio of prostate cancer incidence between the intervention and control groups was 1·91 (95% CI 1·83-1·99) after 9 years (1·64 [1·58-1·69] including France), 1·66 (1·60-1·73) after 11 years, and 1·57 (1·51-1·62) after 13 years. The rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality was 0·85 (0·70-1·03) after 9 years, 0·78 (0·66-0·91) after 11 years, and 0·79 (0·69-0·91) at 13 years. The absolute risk reduction of death from prostate cancer at 13 years was 0·11 per 1000 person-years or 1·28 per 1000 men randomised, which is equivalent to one prostate cancer death averted per 781 (95% CI 490-1929) men invited for screening or one per 27 (17-66) additional prostatecancer detected. After adjustment for non-participation, the rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality in men screened was 0·73 (95% CI 0·61-0·88). INTERPRETATION: In this update the ERSPC confirms a substantial reduction in prostate cancer mortality attributable to testing of PSA, with a substantially increased absolute effect at 13 years compared with findings after 9 and 11 years. Despite our findings, further quantification of harms and their reduction are still considered a prerequisite for the introduction of populated-based screening. FUNDING: Each centre had its own funding responsibility.

Smoking and bladder symptoms in women Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:643–8

Impact of obesity on urinary storage symptoms: results from the FINNO Study J Urol, julkaistu verkossa 23.10.2012

Objective: Anticoagulants, especially vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin, have been hypothesized to have antitumor properties, and use of VKAs has been associated with a lower prostate cancer (PCa) risk. This study estimated PCa risk among users of warfarin and other anticoagulants. Materials and methods: All anticoagulant use among 78,615 men during 1995–2009 was analyzed. Cox regression, adjusted for age, screening trial arm and use of other medications, with medication use as a time-dependent variable, was used to estimate PCa risk overall, and by tumor grade and stage. Results: In total, 6537 men were diagnosed with PCa during 1995–2009 (1210 among warfarin users). Compared to non-users, warfarin use was associated with an increased risk of PCa [multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.22]. This was limited to short-term, low-dose use, and was not observed in long-term use. A similar overall risk increase was observed for Gleason grade 7–10 PCa. Low-dose, short-term use of warfarin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic PCa. However, the increase in risk vanished with continued use. Compared to other anticoagulants, low-dose use of warfarin was associated with a slightly elevated overall PCa risk (HR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.00–1.43). The increase in risk disappeared in long-term, high-dose use. Conclusions: This study, which included a larger number of PCa cases with warfarin exposure than previous studies, does not support previous notions of decreased risk of PCa among warfarin users. A similar risk of PCa was found among warfarin users and the general population, and no difference in risk was found between warfarin and other anticoagulants.

Objective: Anticoagulants, especially vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin, have been hypothesized to have antitumor properties, and use of VKAs has been associated with a lower prostate cancer (PCa) risk. This study estimated PCa risk among users of warfarin and other anticoagulants. Materials and methods: All anticoagulant use among 78,615 men during 1995–2009 was analyzed. Cox regression, adjusted for age, screening trial arm and use of other medications, with medication use as a time-dependent variable, was used to estimate PCa risk overall, and by tumor grade and stage. Results: In total, 6537 men were diagnosed with PCa during 1995–2009 (1210 among warfarin users). Compared to non-users, warfarin use was associated with an increased risk of PCa [multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.22]. This was limited to short-term, low-dose use, and was not observed in long-term use. A similar overall risk increase was observed for Gleason grade 7–10 PCa. Low-dose, short-term use of warfarin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic PCa. However, the increase in risk vanished with continued use. Compared to other anticoagulants, low-dose use of warfarin was associated with a slightly elevated overall PCa risk (HR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.00–1.43). The increase in risk disappeared in long-term, high-dose use. Conclusions: This study, which included a larger number of PCa cases with warfarin exposure than previous studies, does not support previous notions of decreased risk of PCa among warfarin users. A similar risk of PCa was found among warfarin users and the general population, and no difference in risk was found between warfarin and other anticoagulants.

Incidence and remission of nocturia: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Urol, julkaistu verkossa 19.2.2016

Purpose: We assessed whether dutasteride enhances the usefulness of total prostate specific antigen for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: The 4-year REDUCE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 0.5 mg dutasteride daily for prostate cancer risk reduction in men with a prostate specific antigen of 2.5 to 10.0 ng/ml and a negative prostate biopsy. Specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values of prostate specific antigen for the diagnosis of prostate cancer were assessed. Results: Final prostate specific antigen before biopsy and change from month 6 to final prostate specific antigen performed better for the diagnosis of Gleason score 7-10 tumors in men who received dutasteride vs placebo as assessed by the area under the ROC curves (0.700 vs 0.650, p = 0.0491; and 0.699 vs 0.593, p = 0.0001, respectively). Increases in prostate specific antigen were associated with a higher likelihood of biopsy detectable, Gleason score 7-10 and clinically significant (modified Epstein criteria) prostate cancer. Percentage decreases in prostate specific antigen from baseline to month 6 in the dutasteride arm did not predict prostate cancer overall or Gleason score 7-10 cancer. Conclusions: In men with a previously negative prostate biopsy, prostate specific antigen performed better during the 4-year study as a marker of prostate cancer in men who received dutasteride vs placebo. The degree of prostate specific antigen increase after 6 months was a better indicator of clinically significant cancer in the dutasteride arm than in the placebo arm. Conversely, the initial decrease in prostate specific antigen in men taking dutasteride did not predict the likelihood of prostate cancer.

Background: Silodosin is a new selective therapy with a high pharmacologic selectivity for the (alpha 1A)-adrenoreceptor. Objective: Our aim was to test silodosin's superiority to placebo and noninferiority to tamsulosin and discuss the findings in the context of a comprehensive literature review of the new compound silodosin. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a multicenter double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel group study. A total of 1228 men >= 50 yr of age with an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >= 13 and a urine maximum flow rate (Q(max)) > 4 and = 25% and an increase of >= 30% from baseline, respectively. Results and limitations: The change from baseline in the IPSS total score with silodosin and tamsulosin was significantly superior to that with placebo (p < 0.001): difference active placebo of -2.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.2, -1.4) with silodosin and -2.0 (95% CI, -2.9, -1.1) with tamsulosin. Responder rates according to total IPSS were significantly higher (p < 0.001) with silodosin (66.8%) and tamsulosin (65.4%) than with placebo (50.8%). Active treatments were also superior to placebo in the IPSS storage and voiding subscore analyses, as well as in QoL due to urinary symptoms. Of note, only silodosin significantly reduced nocturia versus placebo (the change from baseline was -0.9, -0.8, and -0.7 for silodosin, tamsulosin, and placebo, respectively; p = 0.013 for silodosin vs placebo). An increase in Q(max) was observed in all groups. The adjusted mean change from baseline to end point was 3.77 ml/s for silodosin, 3.53 ml/s for tamsulosin, and 2.93 ml/s for placebo, but the change for silodosin and tamsulosin was not statistically significant versus placebo because of a particularly high placebo response (silodosin vs placebo: p = 0.089; tamsulosin vs placebo: p = 0.221). At end point, the percentage of responders by Q(max) was 46.6%, 46.5%, and 40.5% in the silodosin, tamsulosin, and placebo treatment groups, respectively. This difference was not statistically significantly (p = 0.155 silodosin vs placebo and p = 0.141 tamsulosin vs placebo). Active treatments were well tolerated, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events were low in all groups (2.1%, 1.0%, and 1.6% with silodosin, tamsulosin, and placebo, respectively). The most frequent adverse event with silodosin was a reduced or absent ejaculation during orgasm (14%), a reversible effect as a consequence of the potent and selective (alpha 1A)-adrenoreceptor antagonism of the drug. The incidence was higher than that observed with tamsulosin (2%); however, only 1.3% of silodosin-treated patients discontinued treatment due to this adverse event. Conclusions: Silodosin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for the relief of both voiding and storage symptoms in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction thought to be associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Its overall efficacy is not inferior to tamsulosin. Only silodosin showed a significant effect on nocturia over placebo. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00359905. (C) 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.