David G. Bostwick

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.)

Bone formation in the embryo, and during adult fracture repair and remodeling, involves the progeny of a small number of cells called mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). These cells continuously replicate themselves, while a portion become committed to mesenchymal cell lineages such as bone, cartilage, tendon, ligament, and muscle. The differentiation of these cells, within each lineage, is a complex multistep pathway involving discrete cellular transitions much like that which occurs during hematopoiesis. Progression from one stage to the next depends on the presence of specific bioactive factors, nutrients, and other environmental cues whose exquisitely controlled contributions orchestrate the entire differentiation phenomenon. An understanding of the cellular and molecular events of osteogenic differentiation of MSCs provides the foundation for the emergence of a new therapeutic technology for cell therapy. The isolation and in vitro mitotic expansion of autologous human MSCs will support the development of novel protocols for the treatment of many clinically challenging conditions. For example, local bone defects can be repaired through site-directed delivery of MSCs in an appropriate carrier vehicle. Generalized conditions, such as osteoporosis, may be treatable by systemic administration of culture-expanded autologous MSCs or through biopharmaceutical regimens based on the discovery of critical regulatory molecules in the differentiation process. With this in mind, we can begin to explore therapeutic options that have never before been available.

BACKGROUND: Prostate specific membrane antigen (PSM) is a membrane-bound antigen that is highly specific for benign and malignant prostate epithelial cells. Its expression in high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) has not been compared with that in prostate carcinoma. METHODS: The authors performed an immunohistochemical study of representative sections from 184 radical prostatectomies from previously untreated patients with pathologic stage T2N0M0 adenocarcinoma treated at the Mayo Clinic between 1987 and 1991. Affinity-purified monoclonal antibody 7E11-5.3 directed against PSM was employed at a concentration of 20 microg/mL overnight. For comparison, serial sections in each case were stained with prostate specific antigen (PSA). Staining for all antibodies was performed using the streptavidin-biotin method. For each case, the percentage of immunoreactive cells in benign epithelium, PIN, and adenocarcinoma was estimated in increments of 10%. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify the risk of carcinoma recurrence according to the number of immunoreactive PIN or cancer cells for PSM and PSA; the date of radical prostatectomy was used as the starting time, and serum PSA (biochemical) failure or clinical failure was the event. PSA biochemical failure was defined as serum PSA > 0.2 ng/mL at least 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Intense cytoplasmic immunoreactivity for PSM was observed in the benign and neoplastic epithelial cells in all cases (100% of cases staining). The number of cells staining was lower in benign epithelium and PIN than in adenocarcinoma (69.5+/-17.3% [range, 20-90%] vs. 77.9+/-13.2% [range, 30-100%] vs. 80.2+/-13.7% [range, 30-100%], respectively). With rare exceptions, basal cells were negative, and there was no immunoreactivity of the prostate stroma, urothelium, or vasculature. Adenocarcinoma gave the most intense and extensive staining, and the highest grades of adenocarcinoma (Gleason primary patterns 4 and 5) showed staining in virtually every cell; there was greater heterogeneity of staining in lower grades of adenocarcinoma. By contrast, PSA immunoreactivity was more intense and extensive in benign epithelium than in PIN and adenocarcinoma. The number of immunoreactive PIN or cancer cells for PSM and PSA was not predictive of PSA biochemical or clinical failure as defined in this study. CONCLUSIONS: PSM was expressed in all cases of prostate adenocarcinoma, with the greatest extent and intensity observed in the highest grades. The expression increased incrementally from benign epithelium to high grade PIN or adenocarcinoma. Conversely, PSA showed the greatest staining in benign epithelium, with decreased expression incrementally from benign epithelium to high grade PIN or adenocarcinoma. Expression of PSM is clinically useful for the identification of prostate epithelium, particularly PIN or adenocarcinoma, and its expression is regulated independent of PSA. The number of PSM immunoreactive cells was not predictive of recurrence, most likely because of the presence of abundant immunoreactivity in most cases, or because of differential expression in primary and metastatic disease.

Prostate cancer has the highest prevalence of any nonskin cancer in the human body, with similar likelihood of neoplastic foci found within the prostates of men around the world regardless of diet, occupation, lifestyle, or other factors. Essentially all men with circulating androgens will develop microscopic prostate cancer if they live long enough. This review is a contemporary and comprehensive, literature-based analysis of the putative risk factors for human prostate cancer, and the results were presented at a multidisciplinary consensus conference held in Crystal City, Virginia, in the fall of 2002. The objectives were to evaluate known environmental factors and mechanisms of prostatic carcinogenesis and to identify existing data gaps and future research needs. The review is divided into four sections, including 1) epidemiology (endogenous factors [family history, hormones, race, aging and oxidative stress] and exogenous factors [diet, environmental agents, occupation and other factors, including lifestyle factors]); 2) animal and cell culture models for prediction of human risk (rodent models, transgenic models, mouse reconstitution models, severe combined immunodeficiency syndrome mouse models, canine models, xenograft models, and cell culture models); 3) biomarkers in prostate cancer, most of which have been tested only as predictive factors for patient outcome after treatment rather than as risk factors; and 4) genotoxic and nongenotoxic mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The authors conclude that most of the data regarding risk relies, of necessity, on epidemiologic studies, but animal and cell culture models offer promise in confirming some important findings. The current understanding of biomarkers of disease and risk factors is limited. An understanding of the risk factors for prostate cancer has practical importance for public health research and policy, genetic and nutritional education and chemoprevention, and prevention strategies.