Search

Prostate cancer exerts a greater toll on African American men than on White men of European descent (hereafter referred to as European American men): the disparity in incidence and mortality is greater than that of any other common cancer. The disproportionate impact of prostate cancer on Black men has been attributed to the genetics of African ancestry, to diet and lifestyle risk factors, and to unequal access to quality health care. In this Review, all of these influences are considered in the context of the evolving understanding that chronic or recurrent inflammatory processes drive prostatic carcinogenesis. Studies of inherited susceptibility highlight the contributions of genes involved in prostate cell and tissue repair (BRCA1/2, ATM) and regeneration (HOXB13 and MYC). Social determinants of health appear to accentuate these genetic influences by fueling prostate inflammation and associated cell and genome damage. Molecular characterization of the prostate cancers that arise in Black versus White men further implicates this inflammatory microenvironment in disease behavior. Yet, when Black and White men with similar grade and stage of prostate cancer are treated equally, they exhibit equivalent outcomes. The central role of prostate inflammation in prostate cancer development and progression augments the impact of the social determinants of health on disease pathogenesis. And, when coupled with poorer access to high-quality treatment, these inequities result in a disparate burden of prostate cancer on African American men.

BackgroundA 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.MethodsProstate 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 hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections. Logistic regression was used for statistical analysis.ResultsIn 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 with placebo arm). Overall, the odds of prostate cancer did not differ by prevalence [OR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval (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 inflammation in either cases or controls.ConclusionThe prevalence of intraprostatic inflammation was higher in the finasteride than placebo arm of the PCPT, with no association with higher-grade prostate cancer.ImpactFinasteride 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.

PurposeCyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is a potential pharmacologic target for the prevention of various malignancies, including prostate cancer. We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial to examine the effect of celecoxib on drug-specific biomarkers from prostate tissue obtained at prostatectomy.Patients and methodsPatients with localized prostate cancer and Gleason sum > or = 7, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > or = 15 ng/mL, clinical stage T2b or greater, or any combination with greater than 45% risk of capsular penetration were randomly assigned to celecoxib 400 mg by mouth twice daily or placebo for 4 to 6 weeks before prostatectomy. The primary end point was the difference in prostatic prostaglandin levels between the two groups. Secondary end points were differences in COX-1 and -2 expressions; oxidized DNA bases; and markers of proliferation, apoptosis and angiogenesis. Tissue celecoxib concentrations also were measured. Tertiary end points were drug safety and compliance.ResultsSeventy-three patients consented, and 64 were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. There were no treatment differences in any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Multivariable regression revealed that tumor tissue had significantly lower COX-2 expression than benign prostatic tissue (P = .01) and significantly higher levels of the proliferation marker Ki-67 (P < .0001). Celecoxib was measurable in prostate tissue of patients on treatment, demonstrating that celecoxib reached its target. Celecoxib was safe and resulted in only grade 1 toxicities.ConclusionTreatment with 4 to 6 weeks of celecoxib had no effect on intermediate biomarkers of prostate carcinogenesis, despite the achievement of measurable tissue levels. We caution against using celecoxib 400 mg twice daily as a preventive agent for prostate cancer in additional studies.