Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: Significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials.

BACKGROUND: Tapinarof cream 1% once daily (QD), a topical aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, downregulates pro-inflammatory Th2 cytokines, upregulates skin-barrier components, and reduces oxidative stress. OBJECTIVE: To assess tapinarof efficacy and safety in adults and children down to 2 years of age with atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: Eight hundred and thirteen patients were randomized to tapinarof or vehicle QD in two 8-week phase 3 trials. RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint, Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of 0 or 1 and ≥2-grade improvement from baseline at Week 8, was met with statistical significance in both trials: 45.4% versus 13.9% and 46.4% versus 18.0% (tapinarof vs vehicle; both P < .0001). Significantly superior Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 (EASI75) responses were also observed with tapinarof versus vehicle at Week 8: 55.8% versus 22.9% and 59.1% versus 21.2% (both P < .0001). Rapid improvements in patient-reported pruritus were also significant with tapinarof versus vehicle. Common adverse events (≥5%) of folliculitis, headache, and nasopharyngitis were mostly mild or moderate, with lower discontinuations due to adverse events in the tapinarof groups than with vehicle. LIMITATIONS: Long-term efficacy was not assessed. CONCLUSION: Tapinarof demonstrated highly significant efficacy and favorable safety and tolerability in a diverse population of patients with AD down to 2 years of age.

Tapinarof Cream 1% for Extensive Plaque Psoriasis: A Maximal Use Trial on Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics.

BACKGROUND: Tapinarof is a novel topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulating agent in development for the treatment of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, open-label trial assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of tapinarof cream 1% once daily (QD) under maximal use conditions in extensive plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Adults with a baseline Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of ≥ 3 and body surface area (BSA) involvement ≥ 20% received tapinarof cream 1% QD for 29 days. Safety and tolerability assessments included adverse events (AEs) and local tolerability scales. PK parameters were calculated using non-compartmental analysis. Efficacy assessments included change in PGA, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, and %BSA affected. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled. Common AEs were folliculitis, headache, back pain, and pruritus (none led to discontinuation). Tapinarof plasma exposure was low, with the majority of concentrations being below detectable limits. At day 29, 14 patients (73.7%) had a ≥ 1-grade improvement in PGA score and six patients (31.6%) had a ≥ 2-grade improvement; four patients (21.1%) achieved treatment success (PGA 0 or 1 and ≥ 2-grade improvement). CONCLUSION: Tapinarof cream 1% QD was well tolerated, with limited systemic exposure and significant efficacy at 4 weeks in patients with extensive plaque psoriasis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04042103.

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30-50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. FINDINGS: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68-0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

A randomised, double-blind study comparing the addition of bicalutamide with or without dutasteride to GnRH analogue therapy in men with non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bicalutamide blocks androgen action and is frequently used in men with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). By reducing intracellular dihydrotestosterone, dutasteride (dual 5-alpha reductase inhibitor) could increase the effectiveness of bicalutamide in this setting. The objective of the study is therefore to prospectively evaluate dutasteride plus bicalutamide in men with asymptomatic, non-metastatic CRPC with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA). METHODS: Prostate cancer patients with rising PSA whilst on first-line androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were randomised (1:1) in a double-blind trial to receive bicalutamide 50mg plus placebo or bicalutamide 50mg plus dutasteride 3.5mg once daily for 18 months. Randomisation was stratified by centre; treatment assignments were generated using GlaxoSmithKline's RandAll System. Subjects who completed 18 months could participate in the 2-year extension. Central laboratory and study sites/monitors remained treatment-blinded. Primary end-point was time to disease progression (TDP) up to 42 months (defined as PSA progression from baseline or nadir, radiographic disease progression, death from prostate cancer or receipt of rescue medication). FINDINGS: There was no statistically significant difference in TDP in 127 men treated with bicalutamide/dutasteride (n=62) compared with bicalutamide/placebo (n=65) (hazard ratio (HR)=0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61, 1.46]; p=0.79). The estimated median TDP was 425 days (95% CI 302, 858) in the bicalutamide/placebo group and 623 days (95% CI 369, 730) in the bicalutamide/dutasteride group. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups for any secondary efficacy end-points, including time to treatment failure or PSA response. In the multivariate analysis, age, non-White race, higher baseline testosterone and lower baseline PSA were associated with longer TDP. Adverse events were comparable between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: In men with non-metastatic CRPC, adding dutasteride to bicalutamide did not significantly prolong TDP. Prospective data are provided concerning the common practice of using bicalutamide in this setting.

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.

Exact likelihood ratio and score confidence intervals for the binomial proportion.

Many methods are available for computing a confidence interval for the binomial parameter, and these methods differ in their operating characteristics. It has been suggested in the literature that the use of the exact likelihood ratio (LR) confidence interval for the binomial proportion should be considered. This paper provides an evaluation of the operating characteristics of the two-sided exact LR and exact score confidence intervals for the binomial proportion and compares these results to those for three other methods that also strictly maintain nominal coverage: Clopper-Pearson, Blaker, and Casella. In addition, the operating characteristics of the two-sided exact LR method and exact score method are compared with those of the corresponding asymptotic methods to investigate the adequacy of the asymptotic approximation.

The REDUCE Follow-Up Study: low rate of new prostate cancer diagnoses observed during a 2-year, observational, followup study of men who participated in the REDUCE trial.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of the REDUCE (REduction by DUtasteride of prostate Cancer Events) Follow-Up Study was to collect data on the occurrence of newly diagnosed prostate cancers for 2 years beyond the 4-year REDUCE study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 4-year REDUCE study evaluated prostate cancer risk reduction in men taking dutasteride. This 2-year observational study followed men from REDUCE with a clinic visit shortly after study conclusion and with up to 2 annual telephone calls during which patient reported data were collected regarding prostate cancer events, chronic medication use, prostate specific antigen levels and serious adverse events. No study drug was provided and all biopsies during the 2-year followup were performed for cause. The primary objective was to collect data on the occurrence of new biopsy detectable prostate cancers. Secondary end points included assessment of Gleason score and serious adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 2,751 men enrolled in the followup study with numbers similar to those of the REDUCE former treatment groups (placebo and dutasteride). Few new prostate cancers were detected during the 2-year followup period in either former treatment group. A greater number of cancers were detected in the former dutasteride group than in the former placebo group (14 vs 7 cases). No Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancers were detected in either former treatment group based on central pathology review. No new safety issues were identified during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Two years of followup of the REDUCE study cohort demonstrated a low rate of new prostate cancer diagnoses in the former placebo and dutasteride treated groups. No new Gleason 8-10 cancers were detected.

Usefulness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise as a marker of prostate cancer in men treated with dutasteride: lessons from the REDUCE study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if dutasteride-treated men can be monitored safely and adequately for prostate cancer based on data from the Reduction by Dutasteride in Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) study. To analyse whether the use of treatment-specific criteria for repeat biopsy maintains the usefulness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level for detecting high grade cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The REDUCE study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation of whether dutasteride (0.5 mg/day) reduced the risk of biopsy-detectable prostate cancer in men with a previous negative biopsy. The usefulness of PSA was evaluated using biopsy thresholds defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in the placebo group and any rise in PSA from nadir (the lowest PSA level achieved while in the study) in the dutasteride group. The number of cancers detected on biopsy in the absence of increased/suspicious PSA level as well as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for high grade prostate cancer detection were analysed by treatment group. Prostate cancer pathological characteristics were compared between men who did and did not meet biopsy thresholds. RESULTS: Of 8231 men randomized, 3305 (dutasteride) and 3424 (placebo) underwent at least one prostate biopsy during the study and were included in the analysis. If only men meeting biopsy thresholds underwent biopsy, 25% (47/191) of Gleason 7 and 24% (7/29) of Gleason 8-10 cancers would have been missed in the dutasteride group, and 37% (78/209) of Gleason 7 and 22% (4/18) Gleason 8-10 cancers would have been missed in the placebo group. In both groups, the incidence of Gleason 7 and Gleason 8-10 cancers generally increased with greater rises in PSA. Sensitivity of PSA kinetics was higher and specificity was lower for the detection of Gleason 7-10 cancers in men treated with dutasteride vs placebo. Men with Gleason 7 and Gleason 8-10 cancer meeting biopsy thresholds had greater numbers of positive cores, percent core involvement, and biopsy cancer volume vs men not meeting thresholds. CONCLUSION: Using treatment-specific biopsy thresholds, the present study shows that the ability of PSA kinetics to detect high grade prostate cancer is maintained with dutasteride compared with placebo in men with a previous negative biopsy. The sensitivity of PSA kinetics with dutasteride was similar to (Gleason 8-10) or higher than (Gleason 7-10) the placebo group; however, biopsy decisions based on a single increased PSA measurement from nadir in the dutasteride group resulted in a lower specificity compared with using a comparable biopsy threshold in the placebo group, indicating the importance of confirmation of PSA measurements.

Biopsy misidentification identified by DNA profiling in a large multicenter trial.

PURPOSE: The Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) prostate cancer risk reduction study randomly assigned 8,231 men to dutasteride or placebo for 4 years. Protocol-mandated biopsies were obtained after 2 and 4 years. After the discovery of three cases of biopsy sample misidentification in the first 2 years, all protocol-mandated biopsy samples were DNA tested to verify biopsy identity. METHODS: Biopsy and blood DNA profiling was performed retrospectively for the year 2 scheduled biopsies and prospectively for the year 4 scheduled biopsies. Toward the end of year 2, multiple changes were made to improve sample handling and chain of custody. RESULTS: Of the 6,458 year 2 and 4,777 year 4 biopsies, 26 biopsies reflecting 13 sample handling errors at year 2 (0.4%) and one biopsy reflecting one sample handling error at year 4 (0.02%) were confirmed to be mismatched to the patient for whom they were originally submitted. Of 6,733 reference blood samples profiled, 31 (0.5%) were found to be mismatched to the patient's verified identity profile. Sample identification errors occurred at local research sites and central laboratories. CONCLUSION: Biopsy misidentification is a potential problem in clinical laboratories and clinical trials. Until now, biopsy misidentification has not been studied in the setting of a large, multinational clinical trial. In the REDUCE study, process improvement initiatives halfway through the trial dramatically reduced biopsy mismatches. The potential for biopsy mismatches in clinical trials and clinical practice is an under-recognized problem that requires rigorous attention to details of chain of custody and consideration of more widespread DNA identity testing.

The effect of dutasteride on the usefulness of prostate specific antigen for the diagnosis of high grade and clinically relevant prostate cancer in men with a previous negative biopsy: results from the REDUCE study.

PURPOSE: We assessed whether dutasteride enhances the usefulness of total prostate specific antigen for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 4-year REDUCE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 0.5 mg dutasteride daily for prostate cancer risk reduction in men with a prostate specific antigen of 2.5 to 10.0 ng/ml and a negative prostate biopsy. Specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values of prostate specific antigen for the diagnosis of prostate cancer were assessed. RESULTS: Final prostate specific antigen before biopsy and change from month 6 to final prostate specific antigen performed better for the diagnosis of Gleason score 7-10 tumors in men who received dutasteride vs placebo as assessed by the area under the ROC curves (0.700 vs 0.650, p = 0.0491; and 0.699 vs 0.593, p = 0.0001, respectively). Increases in prostate specific antigen were associated with a higher likelihood of biopsy detectable, Gleason score 7-10 and clinically significant (modified Epstein criteria) prostate cancer. Percentage decreases in prostate specific antigen from baseline to month 6 in the dutasteride arm did not predict prostate cancer overall or Gleason score 7-10 cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In men with a previously negative prostate biopsy, prostate specific antigen performed better during the 4-year study as a marker of prostate cancer in men who received dutasteride vs placebo. The degree of prostate specific antigen increase after 6 months was a better indicator of clinically significant cancer in the dutasteride arm than in the placebo arm. Conversely, the initial decrease in prostate specific antigen in men taking dutasteride did not predict the likelihood of prostate cancer.

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.)

The relationship between prostate inflammation and lower urinary tract symptoms: examination of baseline data from the REDUCE trial.

OBJECTIVE: The ongoing REDUCE trial is a 4-yr, phase 3, placebo-controlled study to determine if daily dutasteride 0.5mg reduces the risk of biopsy detectable prostate cancer. Prostate biopsies performed in all men prior to entry were centrally reviewed, thus allowing an examination of the relationship between inflammatory changes and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). METHODS: Eligible men were aged 50-75 yr, with serum prostate-specific antigen >or=2.5 ng/ml and or=3.0 ng/ml and 60 yr) and an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)<25 (or <20 if already on alpha-blocker therapy). Acute prostatitis was an exclusion criterion. For a given individual, inflammation was assessed across all cores and the amount of inflammation scored as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2), or marked (3). LUTS was assessed with the use of the IPSS. The relationship between inflammation scores (averaged over all cores) and total IPSS; grouped IPSS (0-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-15, 16-19, >/=20); and irritative, obstructive, and nocturia subscores was determined by Spearman rank correlations. The relative contribution of inflammation, age, and body mass index was then examined with the use of linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Data were available for 8224 men. Statistically significant but relatively weak correlations were found between average and maximum chronic inflammation and IPSS variables (correlation coefficients, 0.057 and 0.036, respectively; p < 0.001 for total IPSS). Both age and average chronic inflammation were significant in the linear regression after adjustment for other covariates; for both variables, more severe inflammation was associated with higher IPSS scores. CONCLUSIONS: In the REDUCE population, there is evidence of a relationship between the degree of LUTS and the degree of chronic inflammation. Study entry criteria that selected older men and decreased enrolment of men with a greater degree of inflammation and LUTS may have limited the strength of this relationship. The impact of baseline prostate inflammation on progression of LUTS and/or associated complications will be determined during 4-yr longitudinal follow-up.

Examination of the relationship between symptoms of prostatitis and histological inflammation: baseline data from the REDUCE chemoprevention trial.

PURPOSE: Symptoms of abacterial chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome are considered to be associated with prostate inflammation. The ongoing Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events trial is a 4-year, phase III, placebo controlled study to determine whether 0.5 mg dutasteride daily decreases the risk of biopsy detectable prostate cancer. All men underwent biopsy before study entry, allowing review of the relationship between histological prostate inflammation and prostatitis symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible men were 50 to 75 years old with serum prostate specific antigen 2.5 ng/ml or greater and 10 ng/ml or less (ages 50 to 60 years), or 3.0 ng/ml or greater and 10 ng/ml or less (older than 60 years), and an International Prostate Symptom Score of less than 25 (or less than 20 if already on alpha-blocker therapy). Acute prostatitis was an exclusion criterion. The National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index was used to assess prostatitis-like symptoms. Spearman rank correlations were used to assess the relationship between acute and chronic inflammation, and Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index scores for the pain, urinary symptoms and quality of life domains as well as average pain, total score and prostatitis-like symptoms. RESULTS: Data were available on 5,597 patients. The distribution of inflammation status was similar for those with and without chronic prostatitis-like symptoms. Significant correlations were found between average chronic inflammation, and total Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index score and subscores for urinary symptoms and quality of life but the magnitude of these correlations was small. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of clinically meaningful association was found between prostatitis-like pain symptoms and histological inflammation in the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events population, suggesting that the view that symptoms of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome and prostate inflammation are associated needs further scrutiny.

Delay in the progression of low-risk prostate cancer: rationale and design of the Reduction by Dutasteride of Clinical Progression Events in Expectant Management (REDEEM) trial.

PURPOSE: Men with prostate cancer may live as long as men their age without prostate cancer. Those with low-risk disease may benefit from expectant management, which actively monitors disease progression. Dutasteride, a dual 5alpha-reductase inhibitor (5ARI), may delay prostate cancer progression or extend the time to initiation of more aggressive therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Reduction by Dutasteride of Clinical Progression Events in Expectant Management (REDEEM) trial will evaluate whether dutasteride decreases time to prostate cancer progression. Three hundred candidates for expectant management with biopsy-proven, low-risk, localized prostate cancer will receive dutasteride 0.5 mg/day or placebo for 3 years. Eligible men are between 50 and 80 years of age, have clinical stage T1c-T2a prostate cancer, a Gleason score of less than or equal to 6, and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than or equal to 10 ng/mL. Entry biopsy of at least 10 cores had to be performed within 6 months of screening and will be repeated at 1.5 and 3 years. Men will complete questionnaires to measure symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and anxiety. Because PSA is an important monitoring tool in expectant management that may impact patients' comfort levels, actual PSA values will be provided to physicians and subjects. Time-to-disease progression (primary therapy for prostate cancer or pathologic progression), positive cores, change in Gleason score, and QOL assessments will be compared between groups. RESULTS: The trial completed recruitment of 302 subjects in March 2007. The study will be completed in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The REDEEM study will evaluate the potential for dutasteride to delay disease progression in men with low-risk, localized prostate cancer. This study will better define which patients with prostate cancer can be managed with less invasive and potentially less debilitating therapy.

The dual 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor dutasteride induces atrophic changes and decreases relative cancer volume in human prostate.

OBJECTIVES: To perform the first evaluation of the effects of the 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor class of drugs on cancer histopathologic features at radical prostatectomy in a placebo-controlled multicenter trial. METHODS: We analyzed prostatectomy slides in a blinded manner from 17 men treated with dutasteride, an inhibitor of types 1 and 2 isoenzymes of 5-alpha-reductase, and 18 men treated with placebo for 5 to 11 weeks before radical prostatectomy. The histopathologic features of benign epithelium, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and cancer were recorded, and the treatment effect was scored. Digital imaging analysis was used to measure the stroma/epithelium ratio and epithelial height, as well as the nuclear area in cancer. RESULTS: In benign epithelium, treatment caused distinctive cytoarchitectural changes of atrophy and a decrease in the epithelial height (P = 0.053). The peripheral zone showed the most marked response to treatment. In cancer tissue, the tumor volume was significantly lower in the dutasteride-treated men than in the placebo-treated men (mean 15% versus 24%, respectively, P = 0.025), the percentage of atrophic epithelium was increased (P = 0.041), and the stroma/gland ratio was doubled (P = 0.046). The treatment alteration effect score was doubled (P = 0.055) and did not correlate with any Gleason score changes. CONCLUSIONS: After short-term dutasteride treatment, benign epithelium showed involution and epithelial shrinkage, and prostate cancer tissue demonstrated a decrease in epithelium relative to stroma. These findings indicate that dutasteride induces significant phenotypic alterations in both the benign and the neoplastic prostate, supportive of a chemopreventive or chemoactive role.