scholarly journals Biases in Recommendations for and Acceptance of Prostate Biopsy Significantly Affect Assessment of Prostate Cancer Risk Factors: Results From Two Large Randomized Clinical Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (36) ◽  
pp. 4338-4344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Tangen ◽  
Phyllis J. Goodman ◽  
Cathee Till ◽  
Jeannette M. Schenk ◽  
M. Scott Lucia ◽  
...  

Purpose To identify factors related to who undergoes a prostate biopsy in a screened population and to estimate the impact of biopsy verification on risk factor–prostate cancer associations. Patients and Methods Men who were screened regularly from the placebo arms of two large prostate cancer prevention trials (Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial [PCPT] and Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial [SELECT]) were examined to define incident prostate cancer cohorts. Because PCPT had an end-of-study biopsy, prostate cancer cases were categorized by a preceding prostate-specific antigen/digital rectal examination prompt (yes/no) and noncases by biopsy-proven negative status (yes v no). We estimated the association of risk factors (age, ethnicity, family history, body mass index, medication use) with prostate cancer and quantified differences in risk associations across cohorts. Results Men 60 to 69 years of age, those with benign prostatic hyperplasia, and those with a family history of prostate cancer were more likely, and those with a higher body mass index (≥ 25), diabetes, or a smoking history were less likely, to undergo biopsy, adjusting for age and longitudinal prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Medication use, education, and marital status also influenced who underwent biopsy. Some risk factor estimates for prostate cancer varied substantially across cohorts. Black ( v other ethnicities) had odds ratios (ORs) that varied from 1.20 for SELECT (community screening standards, epidemiologic-like cohort) to 1.83 for PCPT (end-of-study biopsy supplemented with imputed end points). Statin use in SELECT provided an OR of 0.65 and statin use in in PCPT provided an OR of 0.99, a relative difference of 34%. Conclusion Among screened men enrolled in prostate cancer prevention trials, differences in risk factor estimates for prostate cancer likely underestimate the magnitude of bias found in other cohorts with varying screening and biopsy recommendations and acceptance. Risk factors for prostate cancer derived from epidemiologic studies not only may be erroneous but may lead to misdirected research efforts.

2001 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian L. Neuhouser ◽  
Alan R. Kristal ◽  
Ruth E. Patterson ◽  
Phyllis J. Goodman ◽  
Ian M. Thompson

Cancer ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 119 (16) ◽  
pp. 3007-3011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Daniel D. Sjoberg ◽  
Donna P. Ankerst ◽  
Catherine M. Tangen ◽  
Phyllis J. Goodman ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (32) ◽  
pp. 8161-8164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian M. Thompson ◽  
Catherine M. Tangen ◽  
Eric A. Klein ◽  
Scott M. Lippman

One randomized, prospective clinical trial for chemoprevention of prostate cancer has been completed, and two additional trials are ongoing. The investment, time, and effort for these trials are substantial. We reviewed the outcomes of these trials to address the value of the investment. The outcomes of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (testing finasteride) and the design of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT; testing vitamin E and selenium) trial as well as the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) trial (testing dutasteride) were reviewed. From a public health standpoint, there is tremendous potential for benefit from large-scale cancer prevention trials. Because of the volume of data that are collected, potential discoveries related to the biology of the disease are substantial. Translational scientific efforts are direct outgrowths of these studies. Prospective, randomized chemoprevention trials for prostate and other cancers are expensive and require long periods of time to conduct, yet the rewards are on a par with the investment.


2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fadi Abu-Shahin ◽  
William Stone ◽  
Victoria Ramsauer ◽  
Koyamangalath Krishnan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document