Search

Background: We leveraged two trials to test the hypothesis of an inflammation-prostate cancer link prospectively in men without indication for biopsy.Methods: Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) participants who had an end-of-study biopsy performed per protocol that was negative for cancer and who subsequently enrolled in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) were eligible. We selected all 100 cases and sampled 200 frequency-matched controls and used PCPT end-of-study biopsies as "baseline." Five men with PSA > 4 ng/mL at end-of-study biopsy were excluded. Tissue was located for 92 cases and 193 controls. We visually assessed inflammation in benign tissue. We estimated ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using logistic regression adjusting for age and race.Results: Mean time between biopsy and diagnosis was 5.9 years. In men previously in the PCPT placebo arm, 78.1% of cases (N = 41) and 68.2% of controls (N = 85) had at least one baseline biopsy core (∼5 evaluated per man) with inflammation. The odds of prostate cancer (N = 41 cases) appeared to increase with increasing mean percentage of tissue area with inflammation, a trend that was statistically significant for Gleason sum 0-

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.

BackgroundChronic inflammation is hypothesized to influence prostate cancer development, although a definitive link has not been established.MethodsProstate cancer cases (N = 191) detected on a for-cause (clinically indicated) or end-of-study (protocol directed) biopsy, and frequency-matched controls (N = 209), defined as negative for cancer on an end-of-study biopsy, were sampled from the placebo arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. Inflammation prevalence and extent in benign areas of biopsy cores were visually assessed using digital images of hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections. Logistic regression was used to estimate associations.ResultsOf note, 86.2% of cases and 78.2% of controls had at least one biopsy core (of three assessed) with inflammation in benign areas, most of which was chronic. Men who had at least one biopsy core with inflammation had 1.78 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-3.06] times the odds of prostate cancer compared with men who had zero cores with inflammation. The association was stronger for high-grade disease (Gleason sum 7-10, N = 94; OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.06-4.71). These patterns were present when restricting to cases and controls in whom intraprostatic inflammation was the least likely to have influenced biopsy recommendation because their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was low (

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., Introduction In the United States, prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers afflicting aging men (1, 2). Autopsy studies hint that as many as 59% of men aged [...]

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.

This article reviews progress in chemopreventive drug development, especially data and concepts that are new since the 2002 AACR report on treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia. Molecular biomarker expressions involved in mechanisms of carcinogenesis and genetic progression models of intraepithelial neoplasia are discussed and analyzed for how they can inform mechanism-based, molecularly targeted drug development as well as risk stratification, cohort selection, and end-point selection for clinical trials. We outline the concept of augmenting the risk, mechanistic, and disease data from histopathologic intraepithelial neoplasia assessments with molecular biomarker data. Updates of work in 10 clinical target organ sites include new data on molecular progression, significant completed trials, new agents of interest, and promising directions for future clinical studies. This overview concludes with strategies for accelerating chemopreventive drug development, such as integrating the best science into chemopreventive strategies and regulatory policy, providing incentives for industry to accelerate preventive drugs, fostering multisector cooperation in sharing clinical samples and data, and creating public-private partnerships to foster new regulatory policies and public education.

Precancer or intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN) is a noninvasive lesion that has genetic abnormalities, loss of cellular control functions, and some phenotypic characteristics of invasive cancer and that predicts for a substantial likelihood of developing invasive cancer. The AACR Task Force on the Treatment and Prevention of IEN has delineated the relationship between IEN and cancer risk as well as the clinical benefit that can be derived from reducing IEN burden. Although several effective endoscopic and surgical treatments for IEN have become standard medical practice, these interventions can confer morbidity and do not treat the entire epithelial field at risk. The incidence of many epithelial cancers is continuing to rise, the number of individuals at risk is increasing with the aging population, and the rapid advancement of imaging and molecular diagnostics is bringing to light precancers that were heretofore clinically silent. There is therefore an urgent need to rapidly develop new treatment and prevention agents for IEN. The AACR IEN Task Force recommends focusing on established precancers as the target for new agent development because of the close association between dysplasia and invasive cancer and because a convincing reduction in IEN burden provides patient benefit by reducing cancer risk and/or by decreasing the need for invasive interventions. The IEN Task Force proposes several clinical trial designs that provide practical and feasible approaches to the rapid development of new agents to treat and prevent precancer.

Prostate cancer chemoprevention represents a relatively new and promising strategy for reducing the immense public health burden of this devastating cancer of men in the United States and Western societies. Chemoprevention is defined as the administration of agents (drugs, biologics, and natural products) that modulate (inhibit) one or more steps in the multistage carcinogenesis process culminating in invasive adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In 2000, there were an estimated 170,000 new cases of prostate cancer and 31,000 deaths in the United States. During the past decade, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) organized the chemoprevention research program and began testing the first generation of promising agents (eg, 4-(hydroxy)-fenretinide [4-HPR], difluoromethylornithine [DFMO], antiandrogens) in high-risk cohorts and launched the first-large scale US phase 3 primary prevention trial, known as Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT-1), in 18,000 average-risk men (age more than 55 years and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] less than 3 ng/mL) treated for 7 years with finasteride or placebo. In the summer of 1998, the NCI Prostate Cancer Progress Review Group (PRG) Report to the director of NCI was published in response to the leadership of the prostate cancer advocacy community in conjunction with Congress. To further elucidate and address critical issues identified in this report and to develop a research agenda for the newly created Prostate and Urologic Cancer Research Group in the Division of Cancer Prevention at NCI, the NCI organized the workshop "New Clinical Trial Strategies for Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention." The major objectives were to promote understanding and cooperation among the NCI, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academia, pharmaceutical industry, and the public regarding new opportunities for clinical prevention trials for prostate cancer. The workshop was divided into three concurrent breakout panels and a fourth joint integrative panel. The workshop addressed multiple key areas identified in the PRG report in the following panels: (1) Molecular Targets and Promising Agents in Clinical Development; (2) Intermediate Endpoint Biomarkers for Prevention Trials; (3) High-Risk Study Populations for Prevention Trials, and (4) Preventive Clinical Trial Designs and Regulatory Issues. Expert panelists were drawn from leading academic, pharmaceutical, and government scientists in basic research and clinical investigation. Key pharmaceutical, biotechnology, academic, and National Institutes of Health scientists presented overviews of their new agents and products in clinical development (representing the next generation of promising agents). Senior FDA physicians from the Center for Drugs and Center for Biologics presented on current standards for new drug and biologic approval for chemoprevention efficacy. Some of the key topics included recent advances in the state of knowledge of promising agents in the clinic based on molecular targets as well as bottlenecks in drug development for pharmaceutical sponsors; strategic modulable biomarkers that can serve as primary endpoints in phase 1/2 trials to assess preventive efficacy; high-risk cohorts with precancer (high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia) and representative clinical trial designs that are ready for immediate translation into efficient prevention trials, such as Bayesian sequential monitoring for early assessment of biologic activity and factorial designs for assessment of multiagent combinations. Finally, each expert panel generated recommendations for areas of future research emphasizing opportunities and infrastructure needs.

Many studies have shown that primary prostate cancers are multifocal [1-3] and are composed of multiple genetically distinct cancer cell clones [4-6]. Whether or not multiclonal primary prostate cancers typically give rise to multiclonal or monoclonal prostate cancer metastases is largely unknown, although studies at single chromosomal loci are consistent with the latter case. Here we show through a high-resolution genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism and copy number survey that most, if not all, metastatic prostate cancers have monoclonal origins and maintain a unique signature copy number pattern of the parent cancer cell while also accumulating a variable number of separate subclonally sustained changes. We find no relationship between anatomic site of metastasis [7] and genomic copy number change pattern. Taken together with past animal and cytogenetic studies of metastasise and recent single-locus genetic data in prostate and other metastatic cancers [8-10] these data indicate that despite common genomic heterogeneity in primary cancers, most metastatic cancers arise from a single precursor cancer cell. This study establishes that genomic archeology of multiple anatomically separate metastatic cancers in individuals can be used to define the salient genomic features of a parent cancer clone of proven lethal metastatic phenotype., We isolated DNA from 94 anatomically separate cancer sites in 30 men who died from metastatic prostate cancer (Fig. 1a) and analyzed it by chromosomal metaphase-based comparative genomic hybridization (cCGH), [...]