Phyllis J. Goodman

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.

Obesity, diabetes, and risk of prostate cancer: Results from the prostate cancer prevention trial

Studies on the relationship between obesity and prostate cancer incidence are inconsistent. In part, this inconsistency may be due to a differential effect of obesity on low-grade and high-grade cancer or confounding of the association of obesity with prostate cancer risk by diabetes. We investigated the associations of obesity and diabetes with low-grade and high-grade prostate cancer risk. Data were from 10,258 participants (1,936 prostate cancers) in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial who all had cancer presence or absence determined by prostate biopsy. Multiple logistic regression was used to model the risk of total prostate cancer, and polytomous logistic regression was used to model the risk of low-grade and high-grade prostate cancer. Compared with men with body mass index < 25, obese men (body mass index ≥30) had an 18% [odds ratio (OR), 0.82; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.69-0.98] decreased risk of low-grade prostate cancer (Gleason <7) and a 29% (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.67) increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason ≥7) or, alternatively, a 78% (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.10-2.87) increased risk defining high-grade cancer as Gleason sum 8 to 10. Diabetes was associated with a 47% (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83) reduced risk of low-grade prostate cancer and a 28% (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94) reduced risk of high-grade prostate cancer. Associations of obesity or diabetes with cancer risk were not substantially changed by mutually statistical controlling for each other. Obesity increases the risk of high-grade but decreases the risk of low-grade prostate cancer, and this relationship is independent of the lower risk for prostate cancer among men with diabetes. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(10):1977–83)

SELECT: THE NEXT PROSTATE CANCER PREVENTION TRIAL

Purpose: Growing evidence implies that selenium and vitamin E may decrease the risk of prostate cancer. The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) is a randomized prospective double-blind study designed to determine whether selenium and vitamin E decrease the risk of prostate cancer in healthy men.Materials and Methods: The preclinical and epidemiological evidence regarding chemoprevention with selenium and vitamin E were reviewed. Secondary analyses from randomized trials of the 2 agents were included in the current analysis. Data from these analyses as well as evidence from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial were used to develop the SELECT schema.Results: Preclinical, epidemiological and phase III data imply that selenium and vitamin E have potential efficacy for prostate cancer prevention. The experience of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial shows the interest and dedication of healthy men to long-term studies of cancer prevention. A total of 32,400 men are planned to be randomized...

Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial

BACKGROUND Studies of dietary ω-3 fatty acid intake and prostate cancer risk are inconsistent; however, recent large prospective studies have found increased risk of prostate cancer among men with high blood concentrations of long-chain ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids ([LCω-3PUFA] 20:5ω3; 22:5ω3; 22:6ω3]. This case-cohort study examines associations between plasma phospholipid fatty acids and prostate cancer risk among participants in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial. METHODS Case subjects were 834 men diagnosed with prostate cancer, of which 156 had high-grade cancer. The subcohort consisted of 1393 men selected randomly at baseline and from within strata frequency matched to case subjects on age and race. Proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between fatty acids and prostate cancer risk overall and by grade. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Compared with men in the lowest quartiles of LCω-3PUFA, men in the highest quartile had increased risks for low-grade (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.93), high-grade (HR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.94), and total prostate cancer (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.88). Associations were similar for individual long-chain ω-3 fatty acids. Higher linoleic acid (ω-6) was associated with reduced risks of low-grade (HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.99) and total prostate cancer (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.59 to 1.01); however, there was no dose response. CONCLUSIONS This study confirms previous reports of increased prostate cancer risk among men with high blood concentrations of LCω-3PUFA. The consistency of these findings suggests that these fatty acids are involved in prostate tumorigenesis. Recommendations to increase LCω-3PUFA intake should consider its potential risks.

Finasteride Does Not Increase the Risk of High-grade Prostate Cancer: A Bias-adjusted Modeling Approach

Finasteride taken for 7 years in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) reduced the risk of prostate cancer by 25%, but with an apparent increased risk of high-grade disease. Subsequent analyses found that finasteride biases toward improved prostate cancer detection and accuracy in prostate cancer grading at biopsy. In our first analysis of the present study, we accounted for these biases in estimating the effect of finasteride on the risk of overall and high-grade prostate cancer. This analysis used PCPT data that included 3-month longer collection of endpoints than in the original report with observed prostate cancer rates of 22.9% (4.8% with high grade; placebo) versus 16.6% (5.8% with high grade; finasteride). Based on these updated results, the bias-adjusted prostate cancer rates are estimated to be 21.1% (4.2% high grade; placebo) and 14.7% (4.8% high grade; finasteride), a 30% risk reduction in prostate cancer [relative risk (RR), 0.70; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.64-0.76; P < 0.0001] and a nonsignificant 14% increase in high-grade cancer (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.96-1.35; P = 0.12) with finasteride. We then estimated rates of high-grade prostate cancer based on an analysis that incorporated grading information from radical prostatectomies in 500 subjects diagnosed with cancer. The resulting estimates were high-grade cancer rates of 8.2% (placebo) versus 6.0% (finasteride), a 27% risk reduction (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96; P = 0.02) with finasteride. Our third analysis examined the impact of biopsy sensitivity on the relative risk of high-grade prostate cancer and found that differential sensitivity of biopsy between the treatment arms can have a significant impact on risk ratio estimates. These collective results suggest that the observed, unadjusted higher risk of high-grade disease with finasteride seems to have been due to facilitated diagnosis resulting primarily from increased biopsy sensitivity with finasteride. Therefore, men undergoing regular prostate cancer screening or who express an interest in cancer prevention should be informed of the opportunity to take finasteride for preventing prostate cancer.

Chemoprevention of Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE Due to the public health impact of prostate cancer including the burden of screening and treatment, there is significant public interest in the potential prevention of this disease. We review the most recent results of large scale randomized clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS We review the potential agents, their hypothesized mechanisms of action and challenges for the design of chemoprevention trials, including the 3 large scale trials SELECT (testing selenium and vitamin E), PCPT (testing finasteride) and REDUCE (testing dutasteride). RESULTS The initial results of SELECT have now been reported and demonstrate no impact of selenium or vitamin E on the risk of prostate cancer. The REDUCE trial results should be available within the year. The results of the PCPT demonstrate a significant (measured relative risk reduction of 24.8%) reduction in the risk of prostate cancer. The initial observation of an excess risk of high grade disease appears to be related to improved detection of cancer and high grade cancer related to the improved sensitivity of prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination and prostate biopsy for cancer and high grade cancer detection. Modeling studies suggest that with finasteride the risk of high grade cancer is unchanged or reduced. Sexual dysfunction and gynecomastia were observed but the rates were low. CONCLUSIONS Recommendations for the prevention of prostate cancer must be based on outcomes of well designed randomized trials. Men undergoing prostate cancer screening should be informed of the potential for the reduction in risk with finasteride.

SELECT: the selenium and vitamin E cancer prevention trial.

PURPOSE Growing evidence suggests that both selenium and vitamin E may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. SELECT is a randomized, prospective, double-blind study designed to determine if selenium and vitamin E can reduce the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men. MATERIALS AND METHODS The preclinical and epidemiologic evidence regarding chemoprevention with selenium and vitamin E were reviewed. Secondary analyses from randomized trials of both agents were included in the analysis. Data from these analyses as well as evidence from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial were used to develop the schema of SELECT. RESULTS Preclinical, epidemiologic, and Phase III data suggest that both selenium and vitamin E have potential efficacy in prostate cancer prevention. The experience of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the rapid accrual of SELECT during its first year demonstrate the interest and dedication of healthy men to long-term studies of cancer prevention. A total of 32,400 men are planned to be randomized in SELECT. CONCLUSIONS SELECT is the second large-scale study of chemoprevention for prostate cancer. Enrollment began in 2001 with final results anticipated in 2013.

Baseline Selenium Status and Effects of Selenium and Vitamin E Supplementation on Prostate Cancer Risk

BACKGROUND The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial found no effect of selenium supplementation on prostate cancer (PCa) risk but a 17% increased risk from vitamin E supplementation. This case-cohort study investigates effects of selenium and vitamin E supplementation conditional upon baseline selenium status. METHODS There were 1739 total and 489 high-grade (Gleason 7-10) PCa cases and 3117 men in the randomly selected cohort. Proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effects of supplementation within quintiles of baseline toenail selenium. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios, and all statistical tests are two-sided. RESULTS Toenail selenium, in the absence of supplementation, was not associated with PCa risk. Selenium supplementation (combined selenium only and selenium + vitamin E arms) had no effect among men with low selenium status (<60th percentile of toenail selenium) but increased the risk of high-grade PCa among men with higher selenium status by 91% (P = .007). Vitamin E supplementation (alone) had no effect among men with high selenium status (≥40th percentile of toenail selenium) but increased the risks of total, low-grade, and high-grade PCa among men with lower selenium status (63%, P = .02; 46%, P = .09; 111%, P = .008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Selenium supplementation did not benefit men with low selenium status but increased the risk of high-grade PCa among men with high selenium status. Vitamin E increased the risk of PCa among men with low selenium status. Men should avoid selenium or vitamin E supplementation at doses that exceed recommended dietary intakes.

Diet, Supplement Use, and Prostate Cancer Risk: Results From the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial

The authors examined nutritional risk factors for prostate cancer among 9,559 participants in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (United States and Canada, 1994-2003). The presence or absence of cancer was determined by prostate biopsy, which was recommended during the trial because of an elevated prostate-specific antigen level or an abnormal digital rectal examination and was offered to all men at the trials end. Nutrient intake was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire and a structured supplement-use questionnaire. Cancer was detected in 1,703 men; 127 cancers were high-grade (Gleason score 8-10). There were no associations of any nutrient or supplement with prostate cancer risk overall. Risk of high-grade cancer was associated with high intake of polyunsaturated fats (quartile 4 vs. quartile 1: odds ratio = 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.33, 4.38). Dietary calcium was positively associated with low-grade cancer but inversely associated with high-grade cancer (for quartile 4 vs. quartile 1, odds ratios were 1.27 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.57) and 0.43 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.89), respectively). Neither dietary nor supplemental intakes of nutrients often suggested for prostate cancer prevention, including lycopene, long-chain n-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, vitamin E, and selenium, were significantly associated with cancer risk. High intake of n-6 fatty acids, through their effects on inflammation and oxidative stress, may increase prostate cancer risk.