4.6 Review

Testosterone and prostate cancer: An historical perspective on a modern myth

Journal

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages 935-939

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.06.034

Keywords

testosterone; prostate cancer; hypogonadism; castration; history; risk; testosterone replacement therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To review the historical origins and current evidence for the belief that testosterone (T) causes prostate cancer (pCA) growth. Methods: Review of the historical literature regarding T administration and pCA, as well as more recent studies investigating the relationship of T and pCA. Results: In 1941 Huggins and Hodges reported that marked reductions in T by castration or estrogen treatment caused metastatic pCA to regress, and administration of exogenous T caused pCA to grow. Remarkably, this latter conclusion was based on results from only one patient. Multiple subsequent reports revealed no pCA progression with T administration, and some men even experienced subjective improvement, such as resolution of bone pain. More recent data have shown no apparent increase in pCA rates in clinical trials of T supplementation in normal men or men at increased risk for pCA, no relationship of pCA risk with serum T levels in multiple longitudinal studies, and no reduced risk of pCA in men with low T. The apparent paradox in which castration causes pCA to regress yet higher T fails to cause pCA to grow is resolved by a saturation model, in which maximal stimulation of pCA is reached at relatively low levels of T. Conclusions: This historical perspective reveals that there is not now-nor has there ever been-a scientific basis for the belief that T causes pCA to grow. Discarding this modern myth will allow exploration of alternative hypotheses regarding the relationship of T and pCA that may be clinically and scientifically rewarding. (c) 2006 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available