The Effect of Difluoromethylornithine on Decreasing Prostate Size and Polyamines in Men: Results of a Year-Long Phase IIb Randomized Placebo-Controlled Chemoprevention Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a major health issue, and prevention of prostate cancer and/or its progression will yield benefits for men. Difluoromethylornithine (DFMO) is an antiproliferative agent, inhibiting ornithine decarboxylase, the first enzyme in the polyamine pathway, and has been studied as a therapeutic and chemopreventive agent. The prostate has high levels of tissue polyamines and has shown sensitivity to DFMO both in vitro and in vivo. METHODS: Eighty-one men participated in a 1-year randomized trial of placebo or DFMO. Prostate volume determination and biopsy of the prostate for histology and polyamine content were done at baseline and after 12 months. Other biomarker variables were assessed, including total and free prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen doubling time. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, men receiving DFMO had a smaller increase in prostate volume (0.14 cm(3)) than those on placebo (2.95 cm(3); P = 0.0301) at 1 year. In addition, DFMO caused a 60.8% reduction of prostate putrescine levels compared with a 139.5% increase in the placebo arm (P = 0.0014). Stratification by ornithine decarboxylase genotype showed that DFMO reduced prostate volume (P = 0.029) and putrescine levels (P = 0.0053) in the AA + GA group but not in the GG group. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. There was no clinical ototoxicity, with one subclinical grade 2 hearing decline on audiogram. CONCLUSION: In this randomized placebo-controlled trial, DFMO induced a decrease of prostate putrescine levels and rate of prostate growth. The potential of this compound for prostate cancer or hyperplasia should be further studied.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".