Leslie G. Ford

Effect of Selenium and Vitamin E on Risk of Prostate Cancer and Other Cancers: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)

CONTEXT Secondary analyses of 2 randomized controlled trials and supportive epidemiologic and preclinical data indicated the potential of selenium and vitamin E for preventing prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE To determine whether selenium, vitamin E, or both could prevent prostate cancer and other diseases with little or no toxicity in relatively healthy men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized, placebo-controlled trial (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial [SELECT]) of 35,533 men from 427 participating sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico randomly assigned to 4 groups (selenium, vitamin E, selenium + vitamin E, and placebo) in a double-blind fashion between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Baseline eligibility included age 50 years or older (African American men) or 55 years or older (all other men), a serum prostate-specific antigen level of 4 ng/mL or less, and a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer. INTERVENTIONS Oral selenium (200 microg/d from L-selenomethionine) and matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-alpha-tocopheryl acetate) and matched selenium placebo, selenium + vitamin E, or placebo + placebo for a planned follow-up of minimum of 7 years and a maximum of 12 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Prostate cancer and prespecified secondary outcomes, including lung, colorectal, and overall primary cancer. RESULTS As of October 23, 2008, median overall follow-up was 5.46 years (range, 4.17-7.33 years). Hazard ratios (99% confidence intervals [CIs]) for prostate cancer were 1.13 (99% CI, 0.95-1.35; n = 473) for vitamin E, 1.04 (99% CI, 0.87-1.24; n = 432) for selenium, and 1.05 (99% CI, 0.88-1.25; n = 437) for selenium + vitamin E vs 1.00 (n = 416) for placebo. There were no significant differences (all P>.15) in any other prespecified cancer end points. There were statistically nonsignificant increased risks of prostate cancer in the vitamin E group (P = .06) and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the selenium group (relative risk, 1.07; 99% CI, 0.94-1.22; P = .16) but not in the selenium + vitamin E group. CONCLUSION Selenium or vitamin E, alone or in combination at the doses and formulations used, did not prevent prostate cancer in this population of relatively healthy men. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00006392.

Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).

CONTEXT The initial report of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) found no reduction in risk of prostate cancer with either selenium or vitamin E supplements but a statistically nonsignificant increase in prostate cancer risk with vitamin E. Longer follow-up and more prostate cancer events provide further insight into the relationship of vitamin E and prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE To determine the long-term effect of vitamin E and selenium on risk of prostate cancer in relatively healthy men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 35,533 men from 427 study sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico were randomized between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Eligibility criteria included a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 4.0 ng/mL or less, a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer, and age 50 years or older for black men and 55 years or older for all others. The primary analysis included 34,887 men who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: 8752 to receive selenium; 8737, vitamin E; 8702, both agents, and 8696, placebo. Analysis reflect the final data collected by the study sites on their participants through July 5, 2011. INTERVENTIONS Oral selenium (200 μg/d from L-selenomethionine) with matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate) with matched selenium placebo, both agents, or both matched placebos for a planned follow-up of a minimum of 7 and maximum of 12 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Prostate cancer incidence. RESULTS This report includes 54,464 additional person-years of follow-up and 521 additional cases of prostate cancer since the primary report. Compared with the placebo (referent group) in which 529 men developed prostate cancer, 620 men in the vitamin E group developed prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 99% CI, 1.004-1.36, P = .008); as did 575 in the selenium group (HR, 1.09; 99% CI, 0.93-1.27; P = .18), and 555 in the selenium plus vitamin E group (HR, 1.05; 99% CI, 0.89-1.22, P = .46). Compared with placebo, the absolute increase in risk of prostate cancer per 1000 person-years was 1.6 for vitamin E, 0.8 for selenium, and 0.4 for the combination. CONCLUSION Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00006392.

Update of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial: Preventing breast cancer

The selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM) tamoxifen became the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved agent for reducing breast cancer risk but did not gain wide acceptance for prevention, largely because it increased endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. The FDA approved the SERM raloxifene for breast cancer risk reduction following its demonstrated effectiveness in preventing invasive breast cancer in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR). Raloxifene caused less toxicity (versus tamoxifen), including reduced thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer. In this report, we present an updated analysis with an 81-month median follow-up. STAR women were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/d) or raloxifene (60 mg/d) for 5 years. The risk ratio (RR; raloxifene:tamoxifen) for invasive breast cancer was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.47) and for noninvasive disease, 1.22 (95% CI, 0.95–1.59). Compared with initial results, the RRs widened for invasive and narrowed for noninvasive breast cancer. Toxicity RRs (raloxifene:tamoxifen) were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.36–0.83; P = 0.003) for endometrial cancer (this difference was not significant in the initial results), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.12–0.29) for uterine hyperplasia, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.60–0.93) for thromboembolic events. There were no significant mortality differences. Long-term raloxifene retained 76% of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in preventing invasive disease and grew closer over time to tamoxifen in preventing noninvasive disease, with far less toxicity (e.g., highly significantly less endometrial cancer). These results have important public health implications and clarify that both raloxifene and tamoxifen are good preventive choices for postmenopausal women with elevated risk for breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res; 3(6); 696–706. ©2010 AACR.

Selective oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis of individual participant data

Summary Background Tamoxifen and raloxifene reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at elevated risk of disease, but the duration of the effect is unknown. We assessed the effectiveness of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) on breast cancer incidence. Methods We did a meta-analysis with individual participant data from nine prevention trials comparing four selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; tamoxifen, raloxifene, arzoxifene, and lasofoxifene) with placebo, or in one study with tamoxifen. Our primary endpoint was incidence of all breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ) during a 10 year follow-up period. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results We analysed data for 83 399 women with 306 617 women-years of follow-up. Median follow-up was 65 months (IQR 54–93). Overall, we noted a 38% reduction (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·56–0·69) in breast cancer incidence, and 42 women would need to be treated to prevent one breast cancer event in the first 10 years of follow-up. The reduction was larger in the first 5 years of follow-up than in years 5–10 (42%, HR 0·58, 0·51–0·66; p<0·0001 vs 25%, 0·75, 0·61–0·93; p=0·007), but we noted no heterogeneity between time periods. Thromboembolic events were significantly increased with all SERMs (odds ratio 1·73, 95% CI 1·47–2·05; p<0·0001). We recorded a significant reduction of 34% in vertebral fractures (0·66, 0·59–0·73), but only a small effect for non-vertebral fractures (0·93, 0·87–0·99). Interpretation For all SERMs, incidence of invasive oestrogen (ER)-positive breast cancer was reduced both during treatment and for at least 5 years after completion. Similar to other preventive interventions, careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to identify women who are most likely to benefit from these drugs. Funding Cancer Research UK.

Use of Pharmacologic Interventions for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE To update the 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer (BC) risk reduction. METHODS A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses published from June 2007 through June 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Collaboration Library. Primary outcome of interest was BC incidence (invasive and noninvasive). Secondary outcomes included BC mortality, adverse events, and net health benefits. Guideline recommendations were revised based on an Update Committees review of the literature. RESULTS Nineteen articles met the selection criteria. Six chemoprevention agents were identified: tamoxifen, raloxifene, arzoxifene, lasofoxifene, exemestane, and anastrozole. RECOMMENDATIONS In women at increased risk of BC age ≥ 35 years, tamoxifen (20 mg per day for 5 years) should be discussed as an option to reduce the risk of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive BC. In postmenopausal women, raloxifene (60 mg per day for 5 years) and exemestane (25 mg per day for 5 years) should also be discussed as options for BC risk reduction. Those at increased BC risk are defined as individuals with a 5-year projected absolute risk of BC ≥ 1.66% (based on the National Cancer Institute BC Risk Assessment Tool or an equivalent measure) or women diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ. Use of other selective ER modulators or other aromatase inhibitors to lower BC risk is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. Health care providers are encouraged to discuss the option of chemoprevention among women at increased BC risk. The discussion should include the specific risks and benefits associated with each chemopreventive agent.

Estimates of benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population

Accumulating evidence supports an effect of aspirin in reducing cancer incidence and mortality. Our analyses show that prophylactic aspirin use for a minimum of 5 years at doses between 75 and 325 mg/day appears to have favourable benefit–harm profile; longer use is likely to have greater benefits. Further research is needed to determine the optimum dose and duration of use.BACKGROUND Accumulating evidence supports an effect of aspirin in reducing overall cancer incidence and mortality in the general population. We reviewed current data and assessed the benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population. METHODS The effect of aspirin for site-specific cancer incidence and mortality, cardiovascular events was collated from the most recent systematic reviews. Studies identified through systematic Medline search provided data regarding harmful effects of aspirin and baseline rates of harms like gastrointestinal bleeding and peptic ulcer. RESULTS The effects of aspirin on cancer are not apparent until at least 3 years after the start of use, and some benefits are sustained for several years after cessation in long-term users. No differences between low and standard doses of aspirin are observed, but there were no direct comparisons. Higher doses do not appear to confer additional benefit but increase toxicities. Excess bleeding is the most important harm associated with aspirin use, and its risk and fatality rate increases with age. For average-risk individuals aged 50-65 years taking aspirin for 10 years, there would be a relative reduction of between 7% (women) and 9% (men) in the number of cancer, myocardial infarction or stroke events over a 15-year period and an overall 4% relative reduction in all deaths over a 20-year period. CONCLUSIONS Prophylactic aspirin use for a minimum of 5 years at doses between 75 and 325mg/day appears to have favourable benefit-harm profile; longer use is likely to have greater benefits. Further research is needed to determine the optimum dose and duration of use, to identify individuals at increased risk of bleeding, and to test effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening-eradication before starting aspirin prophylaxis.

Metformin and Cancer Risk and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis taking into account Biases and Confounders

Previous meta-analyses have shown that the antidiabetic agent metformin is associated with reduced cancer incidence and mortality. However, this effect has not been consistently demonstrated in animal models and recent epidemiologic studies. We performed a meta-analysis with a focus on confounders and biases, including body mass index (BMI), study type, and time-related biases. We identified 71 articles published between January 1, 1966, and May 31, 2013, through Pubmed, ISI Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), Embase, and the Cochrane library that were related to metformin and cancer incidence or mortality. Study characteristics and outcomes were abstracted for each study that met inclusion criteria. We included estimates from 47 independent studies and 65,540 cancer cases in patients with diabetes. Overall cancer incidence was reduced by 31% [summary relative risk (SRR), 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52–0.90], although between-study heterogeneity was considerable (I2 = 88%). Cancer mortality was reduced by 34% (SRR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54–0.81; I2 = 21%). BMI-adjusted studies and studies without time-related biases also showed significant reduction in cancer incidence (SRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.96 with I2 = 76% and SRR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.89–0.91 with I2 = 56%, respectively), albeit with lesser magnitude (18% and 10% reduction, respectively). However, studies of cancer mortality and individual organ sites did not consistently show significant reductions across all types of analyses. Although these associations may not be causal, our results show that metformin may reduce cancer incidence and mortality in patients with diabetes However, the reduction seems to be of modest magnitude and not affecting all populations equally. Clinical trials are needed to determine if these observations apply to nondiabetic populations and to specific organ sites. Cancer Prev Res; 7(9); 867–85. ©2014 AACR.

Design of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT)

The PCPT is a chemoprevention trial of finasteride with a primary endpoint of biopsy-proven presence or absence of prostate cancer. A total of 18,000 healthy men, aged 55 years and older, will be randomized. Half will receive finasteride (5 mg/day) and half will receive placebo (one matching tablet per day) for 7 years. The trial is designed to have 92% power to detect a 25% reduction in period prevalence of biopsy-proven disease using a two-sided test with alpha = 0.05. The trial is complicated by the known impact of finasteride on the major screening test for prostate cancer, prostate specific antigen (PSA). This paper describes the PCPT design with reference to alternatives that were considered. The chosen design depends on five critical assumptions that must be monitored closely throughout the 9-year trial.

Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy in men and the worldwide burden of this disease is rising. Lifestyle modifications such as smoking cessation, exercise, and weight control offer opportunities to reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Early detection of prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial, but changes in the PSA threshold, frequency of screening, and the use of other biomarkers have the potential to minimise the overdiagnosis associated with PSA screening. Several new biomarkers for individuals with raised PSA concentrations or those diagnosed with prostate cancer are likely to identify individuals who can be spared aggressive treatment. Several pharmacological agents such as 5α-reductase inhibitors and aspirin could prevent development of prostate cancer. In this Review, we discuss the present evidence and research questions regarding prevention, early detection of prostate cancer, and management of men either at high risk of prostate cancer or diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer.

Pathologic Characteristics of Cancers Detected in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial: Implications for Prostate Cancer Detection and Chemoprevention

The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) showed a risk of prostate cancer at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <4.0 ng/mL and that prostate cancer risk is reduced by finasteride. A major concern about early detection by PSA and prevention by finasteride is that they may involve biologically inconsequential tumors. We reviewed the pathologic characteristics of prostate biopsies from men in the placebo and finasteride groups of the PCPT. We examined tumor pathology characteristics stratified by level of PSA for men in the placebo group who underwent radical prostatectomy. Seventy-five percent of all cancers and 62% of Gleason score ≤6 cancers in the PCPT met the biopsy criteria for clinically significant tumors. Surrogate measures for tumor volume (number of cores positive, percent cores positive, linear extent, and bilaterality) and risk of perineural invasion were lower in men who received finasteride. The PSA-associated risks of insignificant cancer were 51.7% (PSA, 0-1.0 ng/mL), 33.7% (1.1-2.5 ng/mL), 17.8% (2.6-4.0 ng/mL), and 11.7% (4.1-10 ng/mL). Conversely, the risks of high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) tumors for the same PSA strata were 15.6%, 37.9%, 49.1%, and 52.4%, respectively. These data highlight the dilemma of PSA when used for screening: Lower cutoff levels increase detection of insignificant disease, but cure is more likely, whereas higher cutoff levels make detection of significant cancer more likely, but cure is less likely. Therefore, the effectiveness of finasteride in preventing prostate cancer, including Gleason score ≤6 cancer, with meaningful rates of significant disease in the PCPT suggests that cutoff values for PSA screening should be individualized and that men undergoing screening should be informed of the opportunity to reduce their risk of disease with finasteride.