The Division of Cancer Prevention and Control convened an external advisory board that recognized where things were headed. If you look at autopsy data on older men, almost everybody has prostate cancer; PSA testing was going to find all these cancers. The real concern was that we were going to overwhelm the medical system with prostate cancer detection, so the decision was made to run a prevention trial.
That led to the rollout of the PCPT. I was the principal investigator of that study, and we randomly assigned men to finasteride or placebo. Because there were so many confounders around detection, we built a biopsy into the end of the study, which ended up revolutionizing how prostate cancer is managed.
What did the PCPT ultimately show, including that early signal around high-grade disease?
The short story is there was a 24.8% [95% CI, 18.6%-30.6%; P < .001] reduction in the risk of prostate cancer [over a 7-year period].1 More high-grade cancer was detected in the finasteride arm, [and] it turned out that the increased detection of high-grade cancer occurred because a man on finasteride has a better opportunity for prostate cancer detection. A smaller prostate improves sampling on biopsy, improves the performance of the PSA test, and has a small positive impact on the performance of digital rectal examination. The study wasn't powered for mortality, but there were fewer prostate cancer[–related] deaths among men who had taken finasteride. That's the basis for a lot of this [research].
5-ARIs in Prostate Cancer: Key Takeaways
- In the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, finasteride reduced the risk of prostate cancer by 24.8% (95% CI, 18.6%-30.6%; P < .001) over 7 years.
- The benefit persisted through 18 to 20 years of follow-up, translating into fewer prostate cancer deaths, despite the trial not being powered for mortality.
- The benefit-risk calculus favors many surveillance candidates, but toxicities need discussion. 5-ARIs carry risks of sexual toxicity and gynecomastia that warrant patient counseling.
How does this connect to the evolution of active surveillance as a management strategy?
Some smaller studies then looked at what happened in men on active surveillance. When PSA testing first rolled out, virtually every man diagnosed with prostate cancer was treated. Then a few urologists recognized the risk of overtreatment.
We know that if 80% of men will have prostate cancer and 2% of men will die from it, there's a severe risk of overtreatment. It's no surprise now that active surveillance is standard of care for low-risk prostate cancer.
Given that PCPT data were reported in 2003, what is driving your interest in revisiting this now?
I practiced urologic oncology for about 46 years, and as you [treat] patients with prostate cancer, what breaks your heart is a patient who dies from the disease; someone who presents with metastatic disease, or [someone] whose cancer is high-grade from the start, no matter what you do, still dies. The other thing that breaks your heart is complications, because we know the majority of patients treated for prostate cancer may not benefit from that treatment. That's very clear from the randomized trials: Those patients are either treated for disease that was destined never to cause problems, or they're treated and still die from the disease.
We know that over half of men placed on active surveillance are ultimately treated, and that's when you see complications. Some of those complications can be catastrophic: radiation cystitis, for example. I've had patients this year who needed radical cystectomy for complications of radiation, along with patients left incontinent or with erectile dysfunction that completely changed their lives.
What safety concerns with 5-ARIs should be discussed with patients?
There's a potential risk of sexual toxicity, [including] decreased libido and erectile difficulty. That risk is small but clearly present; for some, it happens right away, and in clinical practice, you never really know for certain whether it's attributable to the drug. There's a clear potential impact on sexual function, and 5-ARIs reduce ejaculate volume because the prostate shrinks.
There's also a small risk of gynecomastia, because blocking the conversion of testosterone to DHT raises testosterone levels, and testosterone is partly metabolized to estrogen, so estrogen levels rise too, with a small effect on breast tissue that can be substantial in some individuals. Gynecomastia is a fairly common condition in aging men generally, which is reflected in our PCPT data. There's a meaningful background rate of gynecomastia even on placebo, with somewhat more in men on finasteride, but the absolute risk isn't very high.
What benefits might 5-ARIs offer beyond the cancer-related effects?