Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors usage and prostate cancer: a match-paired analysis

Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibitor Use in Robot Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Patients Is Associated with Reduced Risk of Death: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of 1,058 Patients

PURPOSE

We investigated whether the use of a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor (PDE5i) after robot assited radical prostatectomy has a survival benefit over non-use patients because there are controversial results on the association between PDE5i use and survival outcomes for prostate cancer patients in literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed a retrospective, matched, large-sample cohort study of 5,545 patients who underwent robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) during 2013-2021 in a single institute. The exclusion criteria was patients who were aged >70 years at surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification grade 4 or 5, history of other malignancies, patients who started PDE5i 6 months after survery and patients with follow up period less than 24 months after surgery. Among the 1,843 included patients, 1,298 were PDE5i users, and 545 were PDE5i non-users. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) of PDE5i users (n=529) with non-users (n=529) by adjusting for the variables of age, Gleason grade group, pathological T stage, preoperative ASA physical status grade, and International Index of Erectile Function score.

RESULTS

There were no significant difference in patient characteristics according to PSM. Kaplan-Meier curve revealed the difference of overall survival for PDE5i users and non-users (clustered log-rank test p<0.05). In a stratified Cox regression analysis, PDE5i use after RARP was associated with improved overall survival and reduced risk of death (hazard ratio 0.43; confidence interval 0.24-0.79; p=0.007). The limitation of this study was that the indication for the prescription of PDE5i was not given.

CONCLUSIONS

PDE5i administration after RARP were associated with overall survival of patients with prostate cancer. A further randomized control trial may reveal whether routine use of PDE5i after prostatectomy can improve survival of prostate cancer patient.

How do phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors affect cancer? A focus on glioblastoma multiforme

Since the discovery of phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) enzyme overexpression in the central nervous system (CNS) malignancies, investigations have explored the potential capacity of current PDE5 inhibitor drugs for repositioning in the treatment of brain tumors, notably glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). It has now been recognized that these drugs increase brain tumors permeability and enhance standard chemotherapeutics effectiveness. More importantly, studies have highlighted the promising antitumor functions of PDE5 inhibitors, e.g., triggering apoptosis, suppressing tumor cell growth and invasion, and reversing tumor microenvironment (TME) immunosuppression in the brain. However, contradictory reports have suggested a pro-oncogenic role for neuronal cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), indicating the beneficial function of PDE5 in the brain of GBM patients. Unfortunately, due to the inconsistent preclinical findings, only a few clinical trials are evaluating the therapeutic value of PDE5 inhibitors in GBM treatment. Accordingly, additional studies should be conducted to shed light on the precise effect of PDE5 inhibitors in GBM biology regarding the existing molecular heterogeneities among individuals. Here, we highlighted and discussed the previously investigated mechanisms underlying the impacts of PDE5 inhibitors in cancers, focusing on GBM to provide an overview of current knowledge necessary for future studies.

Effect of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors on prostate cancer risk and biochemical recurrence after prostate cancer treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Recent studies have examined the impact of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is) use on the risk of prostate cancer, and biochemical recurrence (BCR) in prostate cancer patients, but the results were inconsistent. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the associations with all published studies. Databases (PubMed, Web of Science and MEDLINE) were retrieved to identify relevant studies which explored the impact of PDE5-Is use on the risk of prostate cancer, and BCR in prostate cancer patients. The summary results along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Nine articles were eligible for the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed that PDE5-Is use was not related to the increased risk of prostate cancer (odds ratio (OR), 0.71; 95% CI, 0.40-1.29). Moreover, PDE5-Is use was not linked to BCR risk in prostate cancer patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy (relative risk (RR), 1.09; 95% CI, 0.89-1.34). The heterogeneity test suggested moderate heterogeneity across studies. PDE5-Is use does not influence the risk of prostate cancer, and BCR in prostate cancer patients. More well-designed studies are warranted to confirm the findings of our analyses.

Association between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and prostate cancer: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

We aim to assess the effect of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5I) on prostate cancer risk as well on biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

METHOD

We performed a research using the following keywords "Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors" and "Prostate cancer". Only trials examining the effect of PDE5I on prostate cancer risk and recurrence after radical prostatectomy were included.

RESULTS

Seventeen preclinical trials and seven clinical trials were included. Preclinical studies demonstrate a pivotal role for PDE5I as a modulator of apoptosis preventing prostate carcinogenesis. The clinical benefit of PDE5I was not demonstrated. PDE5I use was not associated with decreased prostate cancer diagnosis in two retrospective cohort studies. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy was not lower (nor higher) in patients taking PDE5I in three retrospective case match studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on this review, a change in our practice regarding pharmacological reeducation after radical prostatectomy is not justified.