"Hotline" report on finasteride for prevention of prostate cancer

In response to a recent New York Times article that questions why currently available medications designed to treat and prevent some cancers are being ignored, ECRI Institute, an independent nonprofit organization, is offering a roadmap to the evidence on Finasteride for Prevention of Prostate Cancer for free download.

The November 13, 2009, New York Times article, "Drugs to Deter Some Cancers Are Not Taken," was the most e-mailed article of the day from the Times and stimulated hundreds of comments on the publication's Web site. There is no simple answer about whether or which patients should take finasteride.

Medical decision makers in hospitals, health systems, public and private payer organizations, as well as medical journalists who are trying to clarify issues for themselves and for the public may benefit from consulting research references that form the evidence base for finasteride, one of the drugs discussed in the article. As a service to these constituencies, ECRI Institute is providing free access to its Hotline summary of resources and references.

"The summary of published literature and the perspectives we offer are drawn from the abstracts of key evidence sources," says Jeffrey C. Lerner, Ph.D., president and CEO, ECRI Institute. "We believe they are an excellent starting point for healthcare professionals, journalists, and the public to decide which complete reports to consult in forming and conveying their perspectives. In other words, this is a guide to the evidence literature."

The Hotline Response, Finasteride for Prevention of Prostate Cancer, was assembled by ECRI Institute's Evidence-based Practice Center staff of research analysts. The report, a component of ECRI Institute's subscription-based membership program, Health Technology Assessment Information Service(TM), is being distributed at no charge as a public service. The document is referred to as a "Hotline" report because it is a rapid response examination of research abstracts as opposed to a full quantitative and qualitative assessment of that evidence.