Testosterone Recovery for Relugolix Versus Leuprolide in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Results from the Phase 3 HERO Study.

BACKGROUND: In the HERO study, relugolix demonstrated sustained testosterone suppression superior to that of leuprolide acetate (97% vs 89%; difference 7.9% [95% confidence interval, 4.1-12%; p < 0.001]). OBJECTIVE: To analyze testosterone recovery in a prespecified subset of men from the HERO study not indicated to continue androgen deprivation therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men (N = 934) were randomized (2:1) to receive relugolix 120 mg orally daily or leuprolide acetate injections every 12 wk for 48 wk. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Testosterone recovery was assessed in 184 men who completed 48 wk of treatment. During the 90-d recovery period, assessments included time to testosterone recovery (>280 ng/dl; ≥80% of baseline testosterone), serum levels of prostate-specific antigen and pituitary hormones, and adverse events. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The cumulative incidence rate of testosterone recovery to >280 ng/dl at 90 d following drug discontinuation was significantly higher in the relugolix cohort (n = 137) than in the leuprolide acetate cohort (n = 47; 54% vs 3.2%; nominal p = 0.002). The median time to testosterone recovery was faster following relugolix treatment than with leuprolide acetate treatment (86.0 d vs 112.0 d). Compared with leuprolide acetate, more men treated with relugolix achieved ≥80% of baseline testosterone levels (39% vs 2.1%). Men ≤65 yr and those with baseline testosterone greater than the median had a higher incident rate of testosterone recovery. Adverse events were generally similar between treatment groups. One limitation is the short testosterone recovery follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Oral relugolix had faster and more complete recovery of testosterone to normal levels after treatment discontinuation than leuprolide acetate in a subset of men from the HERO study. The clinical implications of a faster testosterone recovery with relugolix may be significant for men being treated with androgen deprivation therapy and influence treatment decisions. PATIENT SUMMARY: The male hormone testosterone is reduced during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Reduced testosterone levels cause side effects, impacting patient quality of life. When treatment is stopped, the side effects lessen over time as the levels of testosterone come back to pretreatment range (testosterone recovery). In this study, we found that the time to testosterone recovery was faster with relugolix than with leuprolide acetate.

Prospective Trial of Water Vapor Thermal Therapy for Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Subjects with a Large Prostate: 6- and 12-month Outcomes.

Background: Current guidelines recommend Rezum water vapor thermal therapy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for prostate glands ranging in volume from 30 to 80 cm3. Few prospective studies have specifically evaluated the use of Rezum for larger prostates. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of water vapor thermal therapy in patients with a prostate gland >80 cm3 and ≤150 cm3. Design setting and participants: In this prospective, single-arm study at seven centers in the USA, subjects were males aged >50 yr with symptomatic BPH and prostate volume of >80 cm3 and ≤150 cm3. Intervention: Rezum was used to deliver sterile water vapor via a transurethral approach to ablate targeted areas of prostate tissue. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary efficacy outcome was response to therapy, defined on a per-patient basis as a ≥30% improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) from baseline to 6 mo. The primary safety outcome was a composite of serious device-related safety events. Secondary outcomes included catheterization for device-related retention. IPSS outcomes over time were analyzed via generalized estimating equations. Results and limitations: Among 47 eligible patients, prostate volume ranged from 80.8 to 148.1 cm3. All patients completed 6-mo follow-up, and 40/47completed 12-mo follow-up. At 6 mo, 83% were treatment responders according to the primary efficacy endpoint. The mean IPSS improvement at 6 mo was 11.9 ± 7.5 points, reflecting significant improvement. The primary safety outcome was met, with no occurrence of device-related composite safety events. The study is limited by the nonrandomized design and early termination, unrelated to safety or effectiveness. Conclusions: Our results are consistent with previous findings for prostate glands of up to 80 cm3, and indicate the safety and efficacy of Rezum for BPH in patients with a larger prostate. Patient summary: Rezum therapy, in which water vapor is used to treat targeted areas of the prostate, is currently recommended for patients with benign enlargement of the prostate and a prostate size of up to 80 cm3. We found that this treatment was also effective and safe in patients with a larger prostate of 80-150 cm3.

Development and evaluation of the MiCheck® Prostate test for clinically significant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need to identify patients with an elevated PSA who would benefit from prostate biopsy due to the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSCaP). We have previously reported the development of the MiCheck® Test for clinically significant prostate cancer. Here, we report MiCheck's further development and incorporation of the Roche Cobas standard clinical chemistry analyzer. OBJECTIVES: To further develop and adapt the MiCheck® Prostate test so it can be performed using a standard clinical chemistry analyzer and characterize its performance using the MiCheck-01 clinical trial sample set. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: About 358 patient samples from the MiCheck-01 US clinical trial were used for the development of the MiCheck® Prostate test. These consisted of 46 controls, 137 non-CaP, 62 non-CSCaP, and 113 CSCaP. METHODS: Serum analyte concentrations for cellular growth factors were determined using custom-made Luminex-based R&D Systems multi-analyte kits. Analytes that can also be measured using standard chemistry analyzers were examined for their ability to contribute to an algorithm with high sensitivity for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Samples were then re-measured using a Roche Cobas analyzer for development of the final algorithm. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Logistic regression modeling with Monte Carlo cross-validation was used to identify Human Epidydimal Protein 4 (HE4) as an analyte able to significantly improve the algorithm specificity at 95% sensitivity. A final model was developed using analyte measurements from the Cobas analzyer. RESULTS: The MiCheck® logistic regression model was developed and consisted of PSA, %free PSA, DRE, and HE4. The model differentiated clinically significant cancer from no cancer or not-clinically significant cancer with AUC of 0.85, sensitivity of 95%, and specificity of 50%. Applying the MiCheck® test to all evaluable 358 patients from the MiCheck-01 study demonstrated that up to 50% of unnecessary biopsies could be avoided while delaying diagnosis of only 5.3% of Gleason Score (GS) ≥3+4 cancers, 1.8% of GS≥4+3 cancers and no cancers of GS 8 to 10. CONCLUSIONS: The MiCheck® Prostate test identifies clinically significant prostate cancer with high sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV). It can be performed in a clinical laboratory using a Roche Cobas clinical chemistry analyzer. The MiCheck® Prostate test could assist in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies with a marginal number of patients experiencing a delayed diagnosis.

A comparison of prostate health index, total PSA, %free PSA, and proPSA in a contemporary US population-The MiCheck-01 prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients are presenting with aggressive prostate cancer (CaP); therefore, there exists a need to optimally identify these patients pre-biopsy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of total prostate specific antigen (PSA), %free PSA, and prostate health index (PHI) to differentiate between patients without CaP, with non-aggressive (Gleason 3 + 3, non-AgCaP) and with aggressive (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4, AgCaP) in a contemporary US population. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Serum samples were collected from 332 US patients scheduled for biopsy due to an elevated age-adjusted PSA. Site and Central biopsy pathologic assessment were performed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Testing of PSA, free PSA, proPSA, and PHI was performed along with central pathology review. Test performance using logistic regression analysis for differentiating CaP from non-CaP as well as non-AgCaP from AgCaP was evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Central pathology review resulted in 32 upgrades including 14 Gleason 3 + 3 scores being upgraded to AgCaP with final distribution of 148 no-CaP, 64 non-AgCaP, and 120 AgCaP patients. Receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis of the different tests showed that PHI performed best at differentiating CaP from no-CaP subjects (area under the receiver operator curve 0.79). In contrast, the different tests were essentially equivalent in differentiating AgCaP vs. non-AgCaP. CONCLUSIONS: In this recent US study of prebiopsy patients we observed a high proportion of AgCaP patients consistent with previous studies in contemporary US populations. Central Gleason review is recommended for multi-institutional studies comparing biomarkers. PHI was superior to PSA, free PSA, %free PSA, and proPSA in detecting CaP in this population but was not superior at differentiating AgCaP from non-AgCaP.

Development and evaluation of the MiCheck test for aggressive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: A clinical need exists for a biomarker test to accurately delineate aggressive prostate cancer (AgCaP), and thus better assist clinicians and patients decision-making on whether to proceed to prostate biopsy. OBJECTIVES: To develop a blood test for AgCaP and compare to PSA, %free PSA, proPSA, and prostate health index (PHI) tests. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient samples from the MiCheck-01 trial were used for development of the MiCheck test. METHODS: Serum analyte concentrations for cellular growth factors were determined using a custom-made Luminex-based R&D Systems multianalyte kit. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Bayesian model averaging and random forest approaches were used to identify clinical factors and growth factors able to distinguish between men with AgCaP (Gleason Score [GS] ≥3+4) from those with non-AgCaP (GS 3+3). Logistic regression and Monte Carlo cross-validation identified variable combinations in order to able to maximize differentiation of AgCaP from non-AgCaP. RESULTS: The MiCheck logistic regression model was developed and comprises the following variables: serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), patient age, Digital Rectal Exam (DRE) status, Leptin, IL-7, vascular endothelial growth factor, and Glypican-1. The model differentiated AgCaP from non-AgCaP with an area under the curve of 0.83 and was superior to PSA, %free PSA and PHI in all patient groups, regardless of PSA range. Applying the MiCheck test to all evaluable biopsy patients from the MiCheck-01 study demonstrated that up to 30% of biopsies could be avoided while delaying diagnosis of only 6.8% of GS ≥3+4 cancers, 5% of GS ≥4+3 cancers and no cancers of GS 8 or higher. CONCLUSIONS: The MiCheck test outperforms PSA, %free PSA and PHI tests in differentiating AgCaP vs. non-AgCaP patients. The MiCheck test could result in a significant number of biopsies being avoided with a low number of patients experiencing a delayed diagnosis.

The Oral Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist Relugolix as Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy to External Beam Radiotherapy in Patients with Localised Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Randomised, Open-label, Parallel-group Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment option to prolong survival for patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, was evaluated in this clinical setting in comparison with degarelix, an injectable GnRH antagonist. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of relugolix to achieve and maintain castration. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase 2 open-label study was conducted in 103 intermediate-risk PCa patients undergoing primary EBRT and neoadjuvant/adjuvant ADT between June 2014 and December 2015. INTERVENTION: Patients randomly assigned (3:2) to 24-wk treatment with either daily oral relugolix or 4-wk subcutaneous depot degarelix (reference control). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the rate of effective castration (testosterone <1.73nmol/l) in relugolix patients between 4 and 24 wk of treatment. Secondary endpoints included rate of profound castration (testosterone <0.7nmol/l), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, quality of life (QoL) assessed using the Aging Males' Symptoms scale, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (30-item EORTC core questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-C30] and 25-item EORTC prostate cancer module [EORTC QLQ-PR25]) questionnaires, and safety. No formal statistical comparisons with degarelix were planned. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Castration rates during treatment were 95% and 82% with relugolix and 89% and 68% with degarelix for 1.73 and 0.7nmol/l thresholds, respectively. Median time to castration in the relugolix arm was 4 d. During treatment, PSA levels and prostate volumes were reduced in both groups. Three months after discontinuing treatment, 52% of men on relugolix and 16% on degarelix experienced testosterone recovery (statistical significance of differences not tested). Mean and median QoL scores improved following treatment discontinuation. The most common adverse event was hot flush (relugolix 57%; degarelix 61%). Lack of blinding was a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Relugolix achieved testosterone suppression to castrate levels within days and maintained it over 24 wk with a safety profile consistent with its mechanism of action. PATIENT SUMMARY: Oral once-daily relugolix may be a novel oral alternative to injectable androgen deprivation therapies.

Prospective evaluation of fexapotide triflutate injection treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: 4-year results.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to determine the safety and efficacy of fexapotide triflutate (FT) 2.5 mg and 15 mg for the treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer. METHODS: Prospective randomized transrectal intraprostatic single injection FT 2.5 mg (n = 49), FT 15 mg (n = 48) and control active surveillance (AS) (n = 49) groups were compared in 146 patients at 28 U.S. sites, with elective AS crossover (n = 18) to FT after first follow-up biopsy at 45 days. Patients were followed for 5 years including biopsies (baseline, 45 days, and 18, 36, and 54 months thereafter), and urological evaluations with PSA every 6 months. Patients with Gleason grade increase or who elected surgical or radiotherapeutic intervention exited the study and were cumulatively included in the data analysis. Percentage of normal biopsies in baseline focus quadrant, tumor grades, and volumes; and outcomes including Gleason grade in entire prostate as well as treated prostate lobe, interventions associated with Gleason grade increase and total incidence of interventions were assessed. RESULTS: Significantly improved long-term clinical outcomes were found after 4-year follow-up, with percentages of patients progressing to interventions with and without Gleason grade increase significantly reduced by FT single treatment. Results in the FT 15-mg group were superior to the FT 2.5-mg dose group. There were no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs). CONCLUSIONS: FT showed statistically significant long-term efficacy in the treatment of Grade Group 1 patients regarding clinical and pathological progression. FT 15 mg showed superior results to FT 2.5 mg. There were no drug-related SAEs; FT injection was well tolerated.

Discovery of the Long Interspersed Nuclear Element-1 activation product [Open Reading Frame-1 (ORF1) protein] in human blood.

Long Interspersed Nuclear Element 1 is the only autonomous mobile DNA capable of self-propagation, and is an environmental biomarker that is activated upon an environmental trigger. We have developed an ELISA method to detect and measure Open Reading Frame-1 (ORF1) and have applied it to interrogate serum samples from men with equivocal prostate specific antigen (PSA) results. Polyclonal antibodies were developed using the first 14-amino acid peptide of N-terminal-ORF1 protein. Remnant serum samples from a total of 53 men, ages>50 yr, were analyzed for immunoreactive ORF1 (iORF1) and PSA concentrations; outcomes for the non-biopsied and biopsied groups were also recorded. The dynamic range of the ELISA was between (CV): 2.0 (14%) to 30 ng/mL (1.2%). The total imprecision (within-run/inter-day) was: QC3 = 2.7%/21%, QC6 = 1.1%/18%, and QC20 = 0.33%/11%. The median iORF1 concentration in the non-biopsy group was 14.7 ng/mL (Q1 - Q3: 10.5 - Q3:18.4), which was significantly lower than the Biopsy group at 25.0 ng/mL (Q1 - Q3: 20.0-33.1), P-value = .003. In conclusion, we have developed a competitive ELISA and discovered the presence of iORF1 in serum, which could be used to advance future studies involving ORF1 measurement from blood. In addition, iORF1 may be a complement with the PSA screen to better detect prostate cancer.

Fexapotide triflutate: results of long-term safety and efficacy trials of a novel injectable therapy for symptomatic prostate enlargement.

PURPOSE: These studies were undertaken to determine if fexapotide triflutate 2.5 mg transrectal injectable (FT) has significant long-term (LT) safety and efficacy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: Two placebo controlled double-blind randomized parallel group trials with 995 BPH patients at 72 sites treated 3:2 FT:placebo, with open-label FT crossover (CO) re-injection in 2 trials n = 344 and long-term follow-up (LF) 2-6.75 years (mean 3.58 years, median 3.67 years; FT re-injection CO mean 4.27 years, median 4.42 years) were evaluated. 12 months post-treatment patients elected no further treatment, approved oral medications, FT, or interventional treatment. Primary endpoint variable was change in Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months and at LF. CO primary co-endpoints were 3-year incidence of (1) surgery for BPH in FT treated CO patients versus patients crossed over to oral BPH medications and (2) surgery or acute urinary retention in FT-treated CO placebo patients versus placebo patients crossed over to oral BPH medications. 28 CO secondary endpoints assessed surgical and symptomatic outcomes in FT reinjected patients versus conventional BPH medication CO and control subgroups at 2 and 3 years. RESULTS: FT injection had no significant safety differences from placebo. LF IPSS change from baseline was higher in FT treated patients compared to placebo (median FT group improvement - 5.2 versus placebo - 3.0, p < 0.0001). LF incidence of AUR (1.08% p = 0.0058) and prostate cancer (PCa) (1.1% p = 0.0116) were both reduced in FT treated patients. LF incidence of intervention for BPH was reduced in the FT group versus oral BPH medications (8.08% versus 27.85% at 3 years, p < 0.0001). LF incidence of intervention or AUR in placebo CO group with FT versus placebo CO group with oral medications was reduced (6.07% versus 33.3% at 3 years, p < 0.0001). 28/28 secondary efficacy endpoints were reached in LF CO re-injection studies. CONCLUSIONS: FT 2.5 mg is a safe and effective transrectal injectable for LT treatment of BPH. FT treated patients also had reduced need for BPH intervention, and reduced incidence of PCa and AUR.

A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The 4Kscore combines measurement of four kallikreins in blood with clinical information as a measure of the probability of significant (Gleason ≥7) prostate cancer (PCa) before prostate biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To perform the first prospective evaluation of the 4Kscore in predicting Gleason ≥7 PCa in the USA. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective enrollment of 1012 men scheduled for prostate biopsy, regardless of prostate-specific antigen level or clinical findings, was conducted at 26 US urology centers between October 2013 and April 2014. INTERVENTION: The 4Kscore. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was Gleason ≥7 PCa on prostate biopsy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, risk calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were determined, along with comparisons of probability cutoffs for reducing the number of biopsies and their impact on delaying diagnosis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Gleason ≥7 PCa was found in 231 (23%) of the 1012 patients. The 4Kscore showed excellent calibration and demonstrated higher discrimination (AUC 0.82) and net benefit compared to a modified Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 model and standard of care (biopsy for all men) according to DCA. A possible reduction of 30-58% in the number biopsies was identified with delayed diagnosis in only 1.3-4.7% of Gleason ≥7 PCa cases, depending on the threshold used for biopsy. Pathological assessment was performed according to the standard of care at each site without centralized review. CONCLUSION: The 4Kscore showed excellent diagnostic performance in detecting significant PCa. It is a useful tool in selecting men who have significant disease and are most likely to benefit from a prostate biopsy from men with no cancer or indolent cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: The 4Kscore provides each patient with an accurate and personalized measure of the risk of Gleason ≥7 cancer to aid in decision-making regarding the need for prostate biopsy.

Selective estrogen receptor alpha agonist GTx-758 decreases testosterone with reduced side effects of androgen deprivation therapy in men with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: A need remains for new therapeutic approaches for men with advanced prostate cancer, particularly earlier in the disease course. OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of an oral selective estrogen receptor α agonist (GTx-758) to lower testosterone concentrations compared with leuprolide while minimizing estrogen deficiency-related side effects of androgen-deprivation therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Hormone-naive advanced prostate cancer patients were randomized to oral GTx-758 1000 mg/d, 2000 mg/d, or leuprolide depot. INTERVENTION: GTx-758 and leuprolide. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving total testosterone ≤ 50 ng/dl by day 60. Secondary end points included serum free testosterone, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), sex hormone-binding globulin, hot flashes, bone turnover markers, and insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 levels. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 159 randomized patients, leuprolide reduced total testosterone to ≤ 50 ng/dl in a greater proportion of patients than GTx-758 by day 60 (43.4%, 63.6%, and 88.2% of subjects receiving GTx-758 1000 mg [p<0.001], GTx-758 2000 mg [p=0.004], and leuprolide, respectively). GTx-758 reduced free testosterone and PSA earlier and to a greater degree than leuprolide. GTx-758 led to fewer hot flashes, decreases in bone turnover markers, and alterations in IGF-1 compared with leuprolide. A higher incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) was seen with GTx-758 (4.1%) compared with leuprolide (0.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Although leuprolide reduced total testosterone to ≤ 50 ng/dl in a greater proportion of patients compared with GTx-758, GTx-758 was superior in lowering free testosterone and PSA. GTx-758 reduced estrogen deficiency side effects of hot flashes, bone loss, and insulin resistance but with a higher incidence of VTEs. PATIENT SUMMARY: This paper reports findings that leuprolide lowered total testosterone more than GTx-758 but that GTx-758 lowered free testosterone and prostate-specific antigen more than leuprolide. GTx-758 also reduced estrogen deficiency side effects, albeit at a higher rate of vascular events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01615120.

PCA3 molecular urine test as a predictor of repeat prostate biopsy outcome in men with previous negative biopsies: a prospective multicenter clinical study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the clinical usefulness of the PROGENSA® PCA3 Assay for predicting repeat prostate biopsy outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with at least 1 prior negative prostate biopsy who were scheduled for repeat prostate biopsy based on best clinical judgment were enrolled at 14 centers. Whole blood and post-digital rectal examination urine samples were collected before extended template transrectal biopsy with 12 or more cores. Urinary PCA3 scores and biopsy outcomes were assessed by logistic regression analysis, which also included age, race, serum prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, family history of prostate cancer and the number of previous negative biopsy sessions. RESULTS: A total of 466 men were included in study and prostate cancer was identified in 21.9%. A PCA3 score cutoff of 25 yielded 77.5% sensitivity, 57.1% specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of 90% and 33.6%, respectively. On multivariable logistic regression men with a PCA3 score of less than 25 were 4.56 times as likely to have a negative repeat biopsy as men with a score of 25 or greater. PCA3 score significantly increased the predictive accuracy of the logistic regression model. At 90% sensitivity adding the PCA3 score to the model increased specificity, and positive and negative predictive values by 22.6%, 6.4% and 7.1%, respectively, relative to the model without the PCA3 score. CONCLUSIONS: The PCA3 score supplements serum prostate specific antigen and other clinical information to provide more accurate prediction of repeat biopsy outcome. Thus, it provides clinicians and patients with independent, clinically useful information to make more informed repeat biopsy decisions.

Efficacy of solifenacin for overactive bladder symptoms, symptom bother, and health-related quality of life in patients by duration of self-reported symptoms: a secondary analysis of the VIBRANT study.

In this post-hoc analysis of data from patients with overactive bladder (OAB) in VIBRANT patients receiving solifenacin showed statistically significantly greater improvement versus placebo in most outcome measures regardless of OAB symptom duration (less than five years and five years or longer).

Evaluation of an experimental urodynamic platform to identify treatment effects: a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study in patients with overactive bladder.

AIMS: To evaluate a urodynamic platform designed to identify treatment effects in small numbers of patients after a short duration of treatment using a medication with known efficacy in overactive bladder (OAB). METHODS: Twenty women with OAB were randomized in a crossover study with 7-day treatment periods with either tolterodine 4 mg long-acting (LA) or placebo and 7-day washout. Patients underwent urodynamic study (UDS) at baseline, 4-hr post-dose on Day 1 (PD1) and 4 hr post-dose on Day 7 (PD7) in each treatment period. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in volume at maximum cystometric capacity (MCC) at PD7. As a result of dosing errors, some patients allocated to tolterodine in Period 1 mistakenly received placebo on Day 7. The data from the time points at which patients were dosed incorrectly were excluded from the per protocol (PP) analysis. RESULTS: The PP and intent to treat (ITT) mean increase in volume at MCC on PD7 for tolterodine compared with placebo was 28.9% (P = 0.038, one-sided) and 23.2% (P = 0.008, one-sided), respectively. The PD7 mean increase in volume at first desire to void was 36.5% (P = 0.054, PP) and 40.3% (P = 0.008, ITT). No volume endpoint at PD1 was statistically significant. Of all the endpoints, MCC was the least variable. CONCLUSIONS: This crossover design was able to detect a clinically meaningful and statistically significant treatment effect consistent with the previous reports of tolterodine. Despite multiple urodynamics per patient, the study was able to recruit quickly. This model is valuable for evaluating therapeutic effects for existing and novel treatments for OAB.

Combination of vacuum erection device and PDE5 inhibitors as salvage therapy in PDE5 inhibitor nonresponders with erectile dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) have improved treatment options for erectile dysfunction (ED). In case of unresponsiveness to PDE5i, alternative therapies are considered. AIM: To evaluate whether combination of vacuum erection device (VED) and PDE5i is effective as salvage therapy in subjects with ED in whom PDE5i alone failed. METHODS: From September 2007 to May 2008, we evaluated 69 men (aged 36-82 years) in whom PDE5i treatment at the highest recommended dose, with at least 4-6 attempts at intercourse during a 3 months period, had failed. The clinical efficacy of combination therapy was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) questionnaire, Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP)-2, SEP-3, and Global Patient Assessment Scale (GPAS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on IIEF-5, SEP-2, SEP-3, and GPAS before and after combination therapy were measured. RESULTS: After 4 weeks of combination therapy, the mean IIEF-5 score increased significantly over baseline from 9.0 to 17.6 (P < 0.001). Of the 34 subjects with a SEP-2 response of "no" at baseline, 27 (79%) responded "yes" after combination therapy (P < 0.001). Of the 50 subjects with a SEP-3 response of "no" at baseline, 35 (70%) responded "yes" after combination therapy (P < 0.001). Furthermore, of the 42 subjects with a GPAS response of "not at all" or "slightly" improved at baseline, 31 (74%) responded "moderately" or "greatly" improved after combination therapy (P < 0.001). One subject (1.5%) experienced device-related intermittent penile pain, which resolved after 4 days without any action. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant improvements over baseline were seen in IIEF-5, SEP-2, SEP-3, and GPAS measures following 4 weeks of combination therapy of PDE5i and VED. This study supports the use of PDE5i with VED in men in whom PDE5i alone failed. This combination therapy may be offered to patients not satisfied with PDE5i alone before being switched to more invasive alternatives.

Vardenafil in men with stable statin therapy and dyslipidemia.

INTRODUCTION: Phosphodiesterase type-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors have previously been evaluated for their efficacy and safety in various clinical trials in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) with or without associated comorbidities. AIM: This is the first prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a PDE-5 inhibitor (i.e., vardenafil) in an exclusive population of men with ED and dyslipidemia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three coprimary efficacy measurements (Sexual Encounter Performance [SEP]2, SEP3, International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function [IIEF-EF] domain scores) were used to assess the differential effect of vardenafil vs. placebo in this patient population. Adverse events (AEs) safety data were obtained to compare safety outcomes. METHODS: This 12-week of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in 59 U.S. centers. Patients received either on-demand, flexible-dose vardenafil 10 mg (titrated to 5 mg or 20 mg based upon efficacy and safety) or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 712 patients screened and entered into the study, 395 were randomized. Baseline demographics for the intent-to-treat population included: mean age, 54.4 years (+/-7.5 standard deviation [SD]); 76% Caucasian; mean body mass index (BMI), 31.7 kg/m(2) (+/-12.7 SD); 47% past/present smoker; and 42% severe ED. Aside from dyslipidemia, other comorbidities included hypertension, 61%; obesity (i.e., BMI >/= 30), 51%; and type 1 or 2 diabetes, 40%. During the 12-week treatment period, the least squares (LS) adjusted mean success rates in patients on vardenafil vs. placebo were: SEP2, 79.09% vs. 51.92%; and SEP3, 66.69% vs. 33.83% (P < 0.001). The LS adjusted mean IIEF-EF domain score for week 12 using LOCF was 21.99 in patients on vardenafil therapy vs. 14.83 in those on placebo (P < 0.001). The most commonly encountered AEs were headache and nasal congestion. CONCLUSIONS: Vardenafil was demonstrated to be safe and effective for managing ED in men with ED and associated dyslipidemia. The results of this study support the role of expanded research on outcomes related to effective ED treatment and aggressive lipid control.

Toremifene for the prevention of prostate cancer in men with high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: results of a double-blind, placebo controlled, phase IIB clinical trial.

PURPOSE: A randomized, double-blind, dose finding, placebo controlled, parallel group clinical study was done to determine the incidence of prostate cancer in men with high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia treated with toremifene. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 514 patients with high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and no evidence of prostate cancer on screening biopsy were randomized to 20, 40 or 60 mg toremifene, or placebo daily for 12 months. Patients underwent re-biopsy at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: The number of evaluable patients, that is those with 1 on study biopsy who were compliant, was 447. The cumulative risk of prostate cancer was decreased in patients on 20 mg toremifene compared with placebo (24.4% vs 31.2%, p <0.05). The annualized rate of prevention was 6.8 cancers per 100 men treated. In patients with no biopsy evidence of cancer at baseline and 6 months, the 12-month incidence of prostate cancer was decreased by 48.2% with 20 mg toremifene compared with placebo (9.1% vs 17.4%, p <0.05). The 20 mg dose was most effective but cumulative and 12-month incidences of prostate cancer were lower for each toremifene dose vs placebo with a cumulative risk of 29.2% and 28.1%, and a 12-month incidence of 14.3% and 13.0% for 40 and 60 mg, respectively. Gleason scores were similar across treatments. The overall incidence of drug related and serious adverse events did not differ between any of the toremifene groups and the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Toremifene decreased the incidence of prostate cancer by 1 year and had a tolerability profile comparable to that of placebo in a high risk population.