Lori M. Minasian

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.

Combination Targeted Therapy With Sorafenib and Bevacizumab Results in Enhanced Toxicity and Antitumor Activity

PURPOSE Sorafenib inhibits Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeted against VEGF. We hypothesized that the complementary inhibition of VEGF signaling would have synergistic therapeutic effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients had advanced solid tumors, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1, and good end-organ function. A phase I dose-escalation trial of sorafenib and bevacizumab was initiated at below-recommended single-agent doses because of possible overlapping toxicity: sorafenib 200 mg orally twice daily and bevacizumab intravenously at 5 mg/kg (dose level [DL] 1) or 10 mg/kg (DL2) every 2 weeks. Additional patients were enrolled at the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS Thirty-nine patients were treated. DL1 was the MTD and administered in cohort 2 (N = 27). Dose-limiting toxicity in DL2 was grade 3 proteinuria and thrombocytopenia. Adverse events included hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, transaminitis, and fatigue. Partial responses (PRs) were seen in six (43%) of 13 patients with ovarian cancer (response duration range, 4 to 22+ months) and one of three patients with renal cell cancer (response duration, 14 months). PR or disease stabilization >or= 4 months (median, 6 months; range, 4 to 22+ months) was seen in 22 (59%) of 37 assessable patients. The majority (74%) required sorafenib dose reduction to 200 mg/d at a median of four cycles (range, one to 12 cycles). CONCLUSION Combination therapy with sorafenib and bevacizumab has promising clinical activity, especially in patients with ovarian cancer. The rapidity and frequency of sorafenib dose reductions indicates that sorafenib at 200 mg twice daily with bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks may not be tolerable long term, and alternate sorafenib dosing schedules should be explored.

Interferon alfa-2a in advanced renal cell carcinoma: treatment results and survival in 159 patients with long-term follow-up.

PURPOSE Three trials were conducted to define the efficacy and toxicity of interferon alfa-2a in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS Prospectively, 159 patients were treated with interferon alfa-2a. In the first trial, 42 patients received 50 x 10(6) U/m2 intramuscularly three times per week. In the second trial, 64 patients received gradually escalating doses of interferon alfa-2a from 3 to 36 x 10(6) U subcutaneously administered daily. The third trial was randomized; 25 patients received daily interferon alfa-2a alone and 28 were treated with daily interferon alfa-2a and 0.15 mg/kg vinblastine every 3 weeks. RESULTS The overall response proportion was 10% (two complete and 14 partial responses). The median response duration was 12.2 months. The median survival duration was 11.4 months, with 3% of patients alive at 5 or more years. A univariate statistical analysis showed that a Karnofsky performance status > or = 80, prior nephrectomy, and interval from diagnosis to treatment of longer than 365 days were significant prognostic factors for survival. In a multivariate analysis, only prior nephrectomy and Karnofsky performance status > or = 80 were shown to be independent predictors of survival. CONCLUSION Interferon alfa-2a had minimal antitumor activity in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and long-term survival was achieved in a small proportion of patients. The need for continued investigation and the identification of more effective therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma is evident from the poor overall survival rate observed in these 159 patients. The investigation of new agents and of interferon alfa-2a in combination with other agents remains a priority.

Goserelin for ovarian protection during breast-cancer adjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND Ovarian failure is a common toxic effect of chemotherapy. Studies of the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to protect ovarian function have shown mixed results and lack data on pregnancy outcomes. METHODS We randomly assigned 257 premenopausal women with operable hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer to receive standard chemotherapy with the GnRH agonist goserelin (goserelin group) or standard chemotherapy without goserelin (chemotherapy-alone group). The primary study end point was the rate of ovarian failure at 2 years, with ovarian failure defined as the absence of menses in the preceding 6 months and levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in the postmenopausal range. Rates were compared with the use of conditional logistic regression. Secondary end points included pregnancy outcomes and disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS At baseline, 218 patients were eligible and could be evaluated. Among 135 with complete primary end-point data, the ovarian failure rate was 8% in the goserelin group and 22% in the chemotherapy-alone group (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09 to 0.97; two-sided P=0.04). Owing to missing primary end-point data, sensitivity analyses were performed, and the results were consistent with the main findings. Missing data did not differ according to treatment group or according to the stratification factors of age and planned chemotherapy regimen. Among the 218 patients who could be evaluated, pregnancy occurred in more women in the goserelin group than in the chemotherapy-alone group (21% vs. 11%, P=0.03); women in the goserelin group also had improved disease-free survival (P=0.04) and overall survival (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS Although missing data weaken interpretation of the findings, administration of goserelin with chemotherapy appeared to protect against ovarian failure, reducing the risk of early menopause and improving prospects for fertility. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; POEMS/S0230 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00068601.).

Development of the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

The standard approach for documenting symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical trials involves investigator reporting using the National Cancer Institutes (NCIs) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Because this approach underdetects symptomatic AEs, the NCI issued two contracts to create a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement system as a companion to the CTCAE, called the PRO-CTCAE. This Commentary describes development of the PRO-CTCAE by a group of multidisciplinary investigators and patient representatives and provides an overview of qualitative and quantitative studies of its measurement properties. A systematic evaluation of all 790 AEs listed in the CTCAE identified 78 appropriate for patient self-reporting. For each of these, a PRO-CTCAE plain language term in English and one to three items characterizing the frequency, severity, and/or activity interference of the AE were created, rendering a library of 124 PRO-CTCAE items. These items were refined in a cognitive interviewing study among patients on active cancer treatment with diverse educational, racial, and geographic backgrounds. Favorable measurement properties of the items, including construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and between-mode equivalence, were determined prospectively in a demographically diverse population of patients receiving treatments for many different tumor types. A software platform was built to administer PRO-CTCAE items to clinical trial participants via the internet or telephone interactive voice response and was refined through usability testing. Work is ongoing to translate the PRO-CTCAE into multiple languages and to determine the optimal approach for integrating the PRO-CTCAE into clinical trial workflow and AE analyses. It is envisioned that the PRO-CTCAE will enhance the precision and patient-centeredness of adverse event reporting in cancer clinical research.

The Role of Obesity in Cancer Survival and Recurrence

Obesity and components of energy imbalance, that is, excessive energy intake and suboptimal levels of physical activity, are established risk factors for cancer incidence. Accumulating evidence suggests that these factors also may be important after the diagnosis of cancer and influence the course of disease, as well as overall health, well-being, and survival. Lifestyle and medical interventions that effectively modify these factors could potentially be harnessed as a means of cancer control. However, for such interventions to be maximally effective and sustainable, broad sweeping scientific discoveries ranging from molecular and cellular advances, to developments in delivering interventions on both individual and societal levels are needed. This review summarizes key discussion topics that were addressed in a recent Institute of Medicine Workshop entitled, “The Role of Obesity in Cancer Survival and Recurrence”; discussions included (i) mechanisms associated with obesity and energy balance that influence cancer progression; (ii) complexities of studying and interpreting energy balance in relation to cancer recurrence and survival; (iii) associations between obesity and cancer risk, recurrence, and mortality; (iv) interventions that promote weight loss, increased physical activity, and negative energy balance as a means of cancer control; and (v) future directions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(8); 1244–59. ©2012 AACR.

Determinants of implementation effectiveness: adapting a framework for complex innovations.

Many innovations in the health sector are complex, requiring coordinated use by multiple organizational members to achieve benefits. Often, complex innovations are adopted with great anticipation only to fail during implementation. The health services literature provides limited conceptual guidance to researchers and practitioners about implementation of complex innovations. In the present study, we adapt an organizational framework of innovation implementation developed and validated in a manufacturing setting and explore the extent to which it aptly characterizes implementation in health sector organizations. Through comparative case studies of four cancer clinical research networks, we illustrate how this conceptual framework captures key determinants of the implementation of new programs in cancer prevention and control (CP/C) research and helps explain observed differences in implementation effectiveness. Key determinants include management support and innovation-values fit, which contribute to an organizational “climate” for implementation. We explore the implications for researchers and managers.

Prospective, Observational Study of Pain and Analgesic Prescribing in Medical Oncology Outpatients With Breast, Colorectal, Lung, or Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE Pain is prevalent among patients with cancer, yet pain management patterns in outpatient oncology are poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 3,123 ambulatory patients with invasive cancer of the breast, prostate, colon/rectum, or lung were enrolled onto this prospective study regardless of phase of care or stage of disease. At initial assessment and 4 to 5 weeks later, patients completed a 25-item measure of pain, functional interference, and other symptoms. Providers recorded analgesic prescribing. The pain management index was calculated to assess treatment adequacy. RESULTS Of the 3,023 patients we identified to be at risk for pain, 2,026 (67%) reported having pain or requiring analgesics at initial assessment; of these 2,026 patients, 670 (33%) were receiving inadequate analgesic prescribing. We found no difference in treatment adequacy between the initial and follow-up visits. Multivariable analysis revealed that the odds of a non-Hispanic white patient having inadequate pain treatment were approximately half those of a minority patient after adjusting for other explanatory variables (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.70; P = .002). Other significant predictors of inadequate pain treatment were having a good performance status, being treated at a minority treatment site, and having nonadvanced disease without concurrent treatment. CONCLUSION Most outpatients with common solid tumors must confront issues related to pain and the use of analgesics. There is significant disparity in pain treatment adequacy, with the odds of undertreatment twice as high for minority patients. These findings persist over 1 month of follow-up, highlighting the complexity of these problems.

Recommended Patient-Reported Core Set of Symptoms to Measure in Adult Cancer Treatment Trials

BACKGROUND The National Cancer Institutes Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee held a clinical trials planning meeting (September 2011) to identify a core symptom set to be assessed across oncology trials for the purposes of better understanding treatment efficacy and toxicity and to facilitate cross-study comparisons. We report the results of an evidence-synthesis and consensus-building effort that culminated in recommendations for core symptoms to be measured in adult cancer clinical trials that include a patient-reported outcome (PRO). METHODS We used a data-driven, consensus-building process. A panel of experts, including patient representatives, conducted a systematic review of the literature (2001-2011) and analyzed six large datasets. Results were reviewed at a multistakeholder meeting, and a final set was derived emphasizing symptom prevalence across diverse cancer populations, impact on health outcomes and quality of life, and attribution to either disease or anticancer treatment. RESULTS We recommend that a core set of 12 symptoms--specifically fatigue, insomnia, pain, anorexia (appetite loss), dyspnea, cognitive problems, anxiety (includes worry), nausea, depression (includes sadness), sensory neuropathy, constipation, and diarrhea--be considered for inclusion in clinical trials where a PRO is measured. Inclusion of symptoms and other patient-reported endpoints should be well justified, hypothesis driven, and meaningful to patients. CONCLUSIONS This core set will promote consistent assessment of common and clinically relevant disease- and treatment-related symptoms across cancer trials. As such, it provides a foundation to support data harmonization and continued efforts to enhance measurement of patient-centered outcomes in cancer clinical trials and observational studies.