4.6 Article

Safety and efficacy of exisulind for treatment of recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 166, Issue 3, Pages 882-886

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65856-9

Keywords

apoptosis; prostatic neoplasms; prostate-specific antigen; prostatectomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of exisulind for delaying disease progression in men with increasing prostate specific antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: A total of 96 men with increasing PSA after radical prostatectomy were randomized to receive placebo (49) or 250 mg. exisulind twice daily (47) for 12 months. The primary efficacy parameter was the difference in change from baseline PSA between the placebo and exisulind groups. The PSA doubling time was also evaluated before and during study. A subgroup analysis classified patients based on the risk of developing metastatic disease. Results: Compared with placebo, exisulind significantly suppressed the increase in PSA in all patients (p = 0.017). The results were also statistically significant in men at high risk for metastasis (p = 0.0003) and those who could not be classified according to risk (p = 0.0009). In addition, median PSA doubling time was lengthened in high risk patients on exisulind (2.12 month increase) compared with those on placebo (3.37 month decrease, p = 0.048). Exisulind was well tolerated. Conclusions: Exisulind inhibited the increase in PSA overall and prolonged PSA doubling time in high risk patients compared with placebo. These results suggest that Exisulind has the potential to extend the time from biochemical recurrence to the need for androgen deprivation therapy. Exisulind was well tolerated in this patient population. Our results support further study of Exisulind in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer.

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