Modeling and analysis of Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancers in the REDUCE study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore explanations for the numerical imbalance of biopsy-detected Gleason 8-10 prostate cancers (PCa) diagnosed in years 3-4 in the dutasteride and placebo groups of the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) study. METHODS: REDUCE was a 4-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of dutasteride (0.5 mg/d) vs placebo for PCa risk reduction. We modeled the incidence of Gleason 8-10 cancer and used logistic regression analysis to evaluate the effects of baseline predictors of PCa, as well as post-baseline prostate volume at the time of biopsy, on PCa diagnosis. We compared needle biopsy Gleason scores with corresponding surgery Gleason scores. All statistical tests conducted were 2-sided. RESULTS: Had there been a scheduled biopsy occurring only at year 4, we estimated a similar incidence of Gleason 8-10 PCa in the dutasteride (n = 45) and placebo (n = 46) groups. Two biopsy Gleason 7 cancers in the placebo group (n = 150) were upgraded to Gleason 8-10 cancer on prostatectomy, and no patients in the dutasteride group (n = 111) were upgraded. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated the effect of prostate volume on Gleason 8-10 cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Although modeling of REDUCE data showed a similar incidence of Gleason 8-10 cancer in the dutasteride and placebo groups at year 4, an association between dutasteride and Gleason 8-10 cancer cannot be definitely excluded. It is likely that several biases, notably study design and prostate size at the time of biopsy, contributed to the numerical imbalance in Gleason 8-10 cancers observed between the treatment groups in years 3-4.

Comparison of Classic and International Society of Urological Pathology 2005 Modified Gleason grading using needle biopsies from the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) trial.

CONTEXT: Use of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2005 modified Gleason score may result in higher scores compared with the classic Gleason scoring system. OBJECTIVE: To compare scores derived using the 2 scoring systems. DESIGN: On-study and for-cause biopsies were centrally reviewed and assigned a classic Gleason score in the Reduction by Dutasteride of prostate Cancer Events trial. Positive biopsies were reviewed by an independent pathologist in a secondary review using the ISUP 2005 modified Gleason score. The independent pathologist also recorded a classic Gleason score. RESULTS: In total, 1482/1507 (98%) positive biopsy results were independently reviewed. Scores assigned by the 2 pathologists (classic versus modified) agreed in 83% (1230 of 1481) of cases; 99% (1471 of 1481) of cancers were within ±1 of their previous score. Of discordant cases, similar numbers of biopsies were upgraded and downgraded in the secondary review, with minor differences in the score distributions. Interobserver agreement was good, with κ values ranging from 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.67) to 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76). The overall number of high-grade tumors (Gleason score 8-10; n = 48) remained constant between reviews, with 3 fewer cases in the placebo group (n = 16) and 3 more in the dutasteride group (n = 32) in the secondary review. When comparing the independent pathologist's modified scores versus the classic, 17 of 1481 cancers (1.1%) were upgraded (including 9 of 17 upgrades [53%] to high-grade tumors). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed similar score distributions between the classic and modified Gleason scoring systems. The differences seen between the 2 pathologists' scores likely reflect differences in interpretation rather than the scoring system chosen.

Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: In this 4-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, we compared dutasteride, at a dose of 0.5 mg daily, with placebo. Men were eligible for inclusion in the study if they were 50 to 75 years of age, had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 2.5 to 10.0 ng per milliliter, and had had one negative prostate biopsy (6 to 12 cores) within 6 months before enrollment. Subjects underwent a 10-core transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy at 2 and 4 years. RESULTS: Among 6729 men who underwent a biopsy or prostate surgery, cancer was detected in 659 of the 3305 men in the dutasteride group, as compared with 858 of the 3424 men in the placebo group, representing a relative risk reduction with dutasteride of 22.8% (95% confidence interval, 15.2 to 29.8) over the 4-year study period (P<0.001). Overall, in years 1 through 4, among the 6706 men who underwent a needle biopsy, there were 220 tumors with a Gleason score of 7 to 10 among 3299 men in the dutasteride group and 233 among 3407 men in the placebo group (P=0.81). During years 3 and 4, there were 12 tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 in the dutasteride group, as compared with only 1 in the placebo group (P=0.003). Dutasteride therapy, as compared with placebo, resulted in a reduction in the rate of acute urinary retention (1.6% vs. 6.7%, a 77.3% relative reduction). The incidence of adverse events was similar to that in studies of dutasteride therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia, except that in our study, as compared with previous studies, the relative incidence of the composite category of cardiac failure was higher in the dutasteride group than in the placebo group (0.7% [30 men] vs. 0.4% [16 men], P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Over the course of the 4-year study period, dutasteride reduced the risk of incident prostate cancer detected on biopsy and improved the outcomes related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00056407.)