SELECT: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial: rationale and design

Comparison between metabolic-associated fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: From nomenclature to clinical outcomes

As a result of the obesity epidemic, Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and its complications have increased among millions of people. Consequently, a group of experts recommended changing the term NAFLD to an inclusive terminology more reflective of the underlying pathogenesis; metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD). This new term of MAFLD has its own disease epidemiology and clinical outcomes prompting efforts in studying its differences from NAFLD. This article discusses the rationale behind the nomenclature change, the main differences, and its clinical implications.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Investigation of Selenium Supplementation in Women at Elevated Risk for Breast Cancer: Lessons for Re-Emergent Interest in Selenium and Cancer

Damage to cellular macromolecules such as DNA and lipid, induced via reactive oxygen species, and indicators of cell proliferation potential such as insulin-like growth factor (IGF) metabolic status are intermediate biomarkers of breast cancer risk. Based on reports that selenium status can affect these markers, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind experiment was conducted to investigate the potential of selenium supplementation to modulate breast cancer risk. Using a placebo tablet or a tablet containing 200 μg selenium provided as high-selenium yeast daily for one year, concentrations of the biomarkers in blood or urine were assessed at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of intervention. The selenium intervention used in this study is presumed to mediate its effect via the induction of glutathione peroxidase activity and the consequential impact of the active form of this protein on oxidative damage. We found no evidence to support this hypothesis or to indicate that systemic IGF metabolic status was affected. Critical knowledge gaps must be addressed for the resurgence of interest in selenium and cancer to garner clinical relevance. Those knowledge gaps include the identification of a specific, high-affinity selenium metabolite and the cellular target(s) to which it binds, and the demonstration that the cellular determinant that the selenium metabolite binds plays a critical role in the initiation, promotion, or progression of a specific type of cancer.

Design of the ANal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research study (ANCHOR study): A randomized study to prevent anal cancer among persons living with HIV

It is well established that persons living with HIV (PLWH) have highly elevated rates of anal HSIL and anal cancer compared with those who are not living with HIV. The 5-year risk of anal cancer following anal HSIL has been reported to be as high as 14.1% among PLWH compared with 3.2% among those who are not living with HIV. To address these concerns, the AIDS Malignancy Consortium completed a large-scale, randomized trial to compare strategies for the prevention of anal cancer among PLWH with anal HSIL. The objective of the study was to determine whether treating anal HSIL was effective in reducing the incidence of anal cancer in PLWH compared with active monitoring. This paper describes the design of the ANal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research Study (ANCHOR) with respect to estimating the anal cancer event rate in this high risk population.

Prostate cancer chemoprevention by natural agents: Clinical evidence and potential implications

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in American men. Due to its long latency period, PCa is considered as an ideal cancer type for chemopreventive interventions. Chemopreventive agents include various natural or synthetic agents that prevent or delay cancer development, progression and/or recurrence. Pre-clinical studies suggest that many natural products and dietary agents have chemopreventive properties. However, a limited number of these agents have been tested in clinical trials, with varying success. In this review, we have discussed the available clinical studies regarding the efficacy of natural chemopreventive agents against PCa, including tea polyphenols, selenium, soy proteins, vitamins and resveratrol. We have also provided a discussion on the clinical challenges and opportunities for the potential use of chemopreventive agents against PCa. Based on available literature, it appears that the variable outcomes of the chemopreventive clinical studies necessitate a need for additional studies with more rigorous designs and methodical interpretations in order to measure the potential of the natural agents against PCa.

Selenium for preventing cancer

BACKGROUND

This review is the third update of the Cochrane review "Selenium for preventing cancer". Selenium is a naturally occurring element with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To gather and present evidence needed to address two research questions:1. What is the aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans?2. Describe the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid, 2013 to January 2017, week 4), and Embase (2013 to 2017, week 6), as well as searches of clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies that enrolled adult participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed random-effects (RE) meta-analyses when two or more RCTs were available for a specific outcome. We conducted RE meta-analyses when five or more observational studies were available for a specific outcome. We assessed risk of bias in RCTs and in observational studies using Cochrane's risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. We considered in the primary analysis data pooled from RCTs with low risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 83 studies in this updated review: two additional RCTs (10 in total) and a few additional trial reports for previously included studies. RCTs involved 27,232 participants allocated to either selenium supplements or placebo. For analyses of RCTs with low risk of bias, the summary risk ratio (RR) for any cancer incidence was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10; 3 studies, 19,475 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for estimated cancer mortality was 1.02 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.30; 1 study, 17,444 participants). For the most frequently investigated site-specific cancers, investigators provided little evidence of any effect of selenium supplementation. Two RCTs with 19,009 participants indicated that colorectal cancer was unaffected by selenium administration (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43), as were non-melanoma skin cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants), lung cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), breast cancer (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 9.55; 1 study, 802 participants), bladder cancer (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.52; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), and prostate cancer (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 4 studies, 18,942 participants). Certainty of the evidence was high for all of these cancer sites, except for breast cancer, which was of moderate certainty owing to imprecision, and non-melanoma skin cancer, which we judged as moderate certainty owing to high heterogeneity. RCTs with low risk of bias suggested increased melanoma risk.Results for most outcomes were similar when we included all RCTs in the meta-analysis, regardless of risk of bias. Selenium supplementation did not reduce overall cancer incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 5 studies, 21,860 participants) nor mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 2 studies, 18,698 participants). Summary RRs for site-specific cancers showed limited changes compared with estimates from high-quality studies alone, except for liver cancer, for which results were reversed.In the largest trial, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial, selenium supplementation increased risks of alopecia and dermatitis, and for participants with highest background selenium status, supplementation also increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. RCTs showed a slightly increased risk of type 2 diabetes associated with supplementation. A hypothesis generated by the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial - that individuals with low blood selenium levels could reduce their risk of cancer (particularly prostate cancer) by increasing selenium intake - has not been confirmed. As RCT participants have been overwhelmingly male (88%), we could not assess the potential influence of sex or gender.We included 15 additional observational cohort studies (70 in total; over 2,360,000 participants). We found that lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 7 studies, 76,239 participants) and lower cancer mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97; 7 studies, 183,863 participants) were associated with the highest category of selenium exposure compared with the lowest. Cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.14, 4 studies, 29,365 men) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, 2 studies, 18,244 women). Data show a decrease in risk of site-specific cancers for stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancers. However, these studies have major weaknesses due to study design, exposure misclassification, and potential unmeasured confounding due to lifestyle or nutritional factors covarying with selenium exposure beyond those taken into account in multi-variable analyses. In addition, no evidence of a dose-response relation between selenium status and cancer risk emerged. Certainty of evidence was very low for each outcome. Some studies suggested that genetic factors might modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk - an issue that merits further investigation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Well-designed and well-conducted RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of selenium supplements in reducing cancer risk (high certainty of evidence). Some RCTs have raised concerns by reporting a higher incidence of high-grade prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes in participants with selenium supplementation. No clear evidence of an influence of baseline participant selenium status on outcomes has emerged in these studies.Observational longitudinal studies have shown an inverse association between selenium exposure and risk of some cancer types, but null and direct relations have also been reported, and no systematic pattern suggesting dose-response relations has emerged. These studies suffer from limitations inherent to the observational design, including exposure misclassification and unmeasured confounding.Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing selenium intake through diet or supplementation prevents cancer in humans. However, more research is needed to assess whether selenium may modify the risk of cancer in individuals with a specific genetic background or nutritional status, and to investigate possible differential effects of various forms of selenium.

Minority recruitment to the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)

Background Previous large chemoprevention studies have not recruited significant numbers of minorities. The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) is a large phase III study evaluating the impact of selenium and vitamin E on the clinical incidence of prostate cancer. Over 400 SELECT study sites in the USA, Canada, and Puerto Rico recruited men to this trial. The SELECT recruitment goal was 24% minorities, with 20% black, 3% Hispanic, and 1% Asian participants. The goal for black participants was set at 20% because of their proportion in the United States population and their prevalence of prostate cancer.

Methods The minority recruitment strategies in SELECT were to: 1) consider minority recruitment during site selection; 2) expand the eligibility criteria by lowering the age criterion for black men and including men with controlled co-morbid illnesses; 3) develop a national infrastructure; 4) give additional funds to sites with the potential to increase black enrollment; and 5) provide resources to maximize free media opportunities to promote SELECT.

Results SELECT recruitment began in August 2001 and was intended to last five years, but concluded two years ahead of schedule in June 2004. Of the 35 534 participants enrolled, 21% were minorities, with 15% black, 5% Hispanic, and 1% Asian.

Conclusions Careful planning, recruitment of large numbers of clinical centers and adequate resources accomplished by the combined efforts of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), SELECT Recruitment and Adherence Committee (RAC), SELECT Minority and Medically Underserved Subcommittee (MMUS), and the local SELECT sites resulted in attainment of the estimated sample size ahead of schedule and recruitment of the largest percentage of black participants ever randomized to a cancer prevention trial.

A Population-Based Survey of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Men Recently Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer

Purpose:To determine prevalence and patterns of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among men recently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Study Design:Men, diagnosed with prostate cancer over a 10-month period in British Columbia, Canada, were randomly selected to obtain a population-based sample. Methods:Surveys, addressing patient demographics, types of CAM therapies, and CAM information resources utilized, reasons for use, and disclosure to physician(s), were mailed to 1108 men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. A 42% response rate was obtained. Results:Thirty-nine percent of patients used CAM therapies with the most common being herbal supplements (saw palmetto), vitamins (vitamin E), and minerals (selenium). The most common reasons given for choosing to use CAM therapies were to (1) boost the immune system and (2) prevent recurrence. The majority of men (58%) had told their physician(s) about their CAM use, but few utilized either their family physician (15%) or their oncologist (7%) as sources of CAM information. CAM users most commonly consulted friends or family (39%) or the Internet (19%) for information about CAM. CAM users were more likely than nonusers to delay (9%) or decline (4%) conventional treatment. Respondents who had never used CAM had typically never thought about it or did not have enough information about the treatments. Conclusions:More than one third of recently diagnosed prostate cancer patients utilize some form of CAM therapy, and the majority disclose their use to their physician(s). However, they tend to rely on anecdotal information for their CAM decision making. Dissemination of reliable CAM information is one key to helping men navigate this difficult arena.

Selenium and vitamin E for prostate cancer--justifications for the SELECT study

There are several studies that relate oxidative damage as possible mechanism for many cancers. Many studies have also shown that anti-oxidants like selenium and vitamin E decrease the risk for prostate cancer. The main objective of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) study was to look for the benefits of selenium and vitamin E supplementation on prostate cancer. The study had a large sample size, stringent experimental conditions, very long duration, standardized laboratories for biochemical analyses and other factors that contribute to high external validity. The SELECT study failed to show any significant risk reduction for prostate cancers ascribable to selenium and vitamin E supplementations. Because of these conflicting results, many researchers argue about the methods used, supplementations administered (selenium and vitamin E) and indicators used for assessing levels of supplementations. We reviewed many epidemiological studies, clinical trials, and pre-clinical studies. With corroborative evidences we justify that SELECT study has a sound methodology and rationale. In lieu of the contrary results of the select study, researchers should focus on the probable mechanisms for these contrary findings and continue their search for newer and effective agents for prevention of prostate cancer.

Selenium and chronic diseases: a nutritional genomics perspective

Mechanistic data have revealed a key role for selenium (Se) and selenoproteins in biological pathways known to be altered in multifactorial diseases, such as cellular maintenance, response to oxidative stress and correct protein folding. Although epidemiological studies indicate that low Se intake is linked to increased risk for various chronic diseases, supplementation trials have given confusing outcomes, suggesting that additional genetic factors could affect the relationship between Se and health. Genetic data support this hypothesis, as risk for several chronic diseases, in particular cancer, was linked to a number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) altering Se metabolism, selenoprotein synthesis or activity. Interactions between SNPs in selenoprotein genes, SNPs in related molecular pathways and biomarkers of Se status were found to further modulate the genetic risk carried by the SNPs. Taken together, nutritional genomics approaches uncovered the potential implication of some selenoproteins as well as the influence of complex interactions between genetic variants and Se status in the aetiology of several chronic diseases. This review discusses the results from these genetic associations in the context of selenoprotein functions and epidemiological investigations and emphasises the need to assess in future studies the combined contribution of Se status, environmental stress, and multiple or individual SNPs to disease risk.

Effects of selenium supplementation on glucose homeostasis, inflammation, and oxidative stress in gestational diabetes: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To our knowledge, no reports are available indicating the effects of selenium supplementation on metabolic parameters, inflammatory factors, and oxidative stress in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The aim of this study was to assess the effects of selenium supplementation on metabolic status in pregnant women with GDM who were not on oral hypoglycemic agents.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was performed with 70 women with GDM. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 200 μg selenium supplements as tablet (n = 35) or placebo (n = 35) for 6 wk from weeks 24 to 28 of gestation. Fasting plasma samples were taken at study baseline and after 6 wk of intervention to quantify related variables.

RESULTS

Selenium supplementation, compared with placebo, resulted in a significant reduction in fasting plasma glucose (-10.5 ± 11.9 versus +4.5 ± 12.9 mg/dL; P < 0.001), serum insulin levels (-1.98 ± 11.25 versus +5.26 ± 9.33 μIU/mL; P = 0.005), homeostasis model of assessment (HOMA)-insulin resistance (-0.84 ± 2.76 versus +1.47 ± 2.46; P < 0.001) and a significant increase in quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (+0.008 ± 0.03 versus -0.01 ± 0.01; P = 0.009). Additionally, a significant decrease in serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels (-791.8 ± 2271.8 versus +500.5 ± 2563.3 ng/mL; P = 0.02) was seen after the administration of selenium supplements compared with placebo. Additionally, we observed a significant elevation in plasma glutathione (+52.14 ± 58.31 versus -39.93 ± 153.52 μmol/L; P = 0.002) and a significant reduction in plasma malondialdehyde levels (-0.01 ± 0.36 versus +0.67 ± 1.90 μmol/L; P = 0.04) after consumption of selenium supplements compared with placebo. We did not find any significant effect of taking selenium supplements on HOMA β-cell function, lipid profiles, plasma nitric oxide, or total antioxidant capacity concentrations.

CONCLUSION

Selenium supplementation in pregnant women with GDM demonstrated beneficial effects on glucose metabolism, hs-CRP levels, and biomarkers of oxidative stress.

Multilevel modeling and value of information in clinical trial decision support

Background

Clinical trials are the main method for evaluating safety and efficacy of medical interventions and have produced many advances in improving human health. The Women’s Health Initiative overturned a half-century of harmful practice in hormone therapy, the National Lung Screening Trial identified the first successful lung cancer screening tool and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial overturned decades-long assumptions. While some trials identify unforeseen safety issues or harms, many fail to demonstrate efficacy. Large trials require substantial resources; to ensure reliable outcomes, we must seek ways to improve the predictive information used as the basis of trials.

Results

Here we demonstrate a modeling framework for linking knowledge of underlying biological mechanism to evaluate the expectation of trial outcomes. Key features include the ability to propagate uncertainty in biological mechanism to uncertainty in trial outcome and mechanisms for identifying knowledge gaps most responsible for unexpected outcomes. The framework was used to model the effect of selenium supplementation for prostate cancer prevention and parallels the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial that showed no efficacy despite suggestive data from secondary endpoints in the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer trial and found increased incidence of high-grade prostate cancer in certain subgroups.

Conclusion

Using machine learning methods, we identified the parameters of the model that are most predictive of trial outcome and found that the top four are directly related to the rates of reactions producing methylselenol and transporting extracellular selenium into the cell as selenide. This modeling process demonstrates how the approach can be used in advance of a large clinical trial to identify the best targets for conducting further research to reduce the uncertainty in the trial outcome.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12918-014-0140-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Retention of black and white participants in the selenium and vitamin E cancer prevention trial (SWOG-coordinated intergroup study S0000)

BACKGROUND

Disproportionally low retention of minority populations can adversely affect the generalizability of clinical research trials. We determine the overall retention rates for White and Black participants from the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) and explore participant and site characteristics associated with retention failure (study disengagement) for these groups.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of 28,118 White (age ≥55), and 4,322 Black (age ≥ 50) SELECT participants used multivariate Cox regression to estimate overall retention rates and to calculate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Blacks had higher age-adjusted risk of disengagement than Whites (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.77-2.08). Among Black participants, those ages 50 to 54 were at three times the risk of disengagement than those ≥65 years of age (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 2.41-5.41). Blacks age ≥65 had 1.6 times the risk of disengagement than Whites age ≥65 (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.38-1.87). By 6 years after randomization, 84% of Whites and 69% of Blacks remained engaged in the study. Current smoking status was an independent risk factor for study disengagement for both White and Black participants. For both groups, sites whose staffs missed SELECT training sessions or who received SELECT Retention and Adherence grants were associated with increased and decreased disengagement risks, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SELECT retention was disproportionately lower for Blacks than for Whites.

IMPACT

The observed difference in retention rates for Blacks and Whites and factors identified by race for study disengagement in SELECT may inform retention efforts for future long-term, cancer prevention trials.

[Selenium supplementation trials for cancer prevention and the subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: selenium and vitamin E cancer prevention trial and after]

The essential trace element selenium has long been considered to exhibit cancer-preventive, antidiabetic and insulin-mimetic properties. However, recent epidemiological studies have indicated that supranutritional selenium intake and high plasma selenium levels are not necessarily preventive against cancer, and are possible risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus. The results of the SELECT, Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial, in which it is hypothesized that the supplementations with selenium and/or vitamin E decrease the prostate cancer incidence among healthy men in the U.S., showed that the supplementation did not prevent the development of prostate cancer and that the incidence of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus increased among the selenium-supplemented participants. The Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (NPC) trial showed a decreased risk of prostate cancer among participants taking 200 μg of selenium daily for 7.7 years. However, the results of the NPC trial also showed an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the participants with plasma selenium levels in the top tertile at the start of the study. Recently, the association of serum selenium with adipocytokines, such as TNF-α, VCAM-1, leptin, FABP-4, and MCP-1, has been observed. Selenoprotein P has been reported to associated with adiponectin, which suggests new roles of selenoprotein P in cellular energy metabolism, possibly leading to the increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and also the development of cancer. Further studies are required to elucidate the relationship between selenium and adipocytokines and the role of selenoprotein P in the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus and cancer at high levels of selenium.

Selenium for preventing cancer

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of the first Cochrane publication on selenium for preventing cancer (Dennert 2011).Selenium is a metalloid with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancers.

OBJECTIVES

Two research questions were addressed in this review: What is the evidence for:1. an aetiological relation between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans? and2. the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans?

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to February 2013 week 1), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 6), CancerLit (February 2004) and CCMed (February 2011). As MEDLINE now includes the journals indexed in CancerLit, no further searches were conducted in this database after 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective observational studies (cohort studies including sub-cohort controlled studies and nested case-control studies) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthy adult participants (18 years of age and older).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For observational studies, we conducted random effects meta-analyses when five or more studies were retrieved for a specific outcome. For RCTs, we performed random effects meta-analyses when two or more studies were available. The risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using forms adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort and case-control studies; the criteria specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias in RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 55 prospective observational studies (including more than 1,100,000 participants) and eight RCTs (with a total of 44,743 participants). For the observational studies, we found lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.91, N = 8) and cancer mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93, N = 6) associated with higher selenium exposure. Gender-specific subgroup analysis provided no clear evidence of different effects in men and women (P value 0.47), although cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05, N = 6) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, N = 2). The most pronounced decreases in risk of site-specific cancers were seen for stomach, bladder and prostate cancers. However, these findings have limitations due to study design, quality and heterogeneity that complicate interpretation of the summary statistics. Some studies suggested that genetic factors may modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk-a hypothesis that deserves further investigation.In RCTs, we found no clear evidence that selenium supplementation reduced the risk of any cancer (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17, two studies, N = 4765) or cancer-related mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32, two studies, N = 18,698), and this finding was confirmed when the analysis was restricted to studies with low risk of bias. The effect on prostate cancer was imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14, four studies, N = 19,110), and when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of bias, the interventions showed no effect (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14, three studies, N = 18,183). The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer was increased (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17, three studies, N = 1900). Results of two trials-the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial (NPCT) and the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial (SELECT)-also raised concerns about possible increased risk of type 2 diabetes, alopecia and dermatitis due to selenium supplements. An early hypothesis generated by NPCT that individuals with the lowest blood selenium levels at baseline could reduce their risk of cancer, particularly of prostate cancer, by increasing selenium intake has not been confirmed by subsequent trials. As the RCT participants were overwhelmingly male (94%), gender differences could not be systematically assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although an inverse association between selenium exposure and the risk of some types of cancer was found in some observational studies, this cannot be taken as evidence of a causal relation, and these results should be interpreted with caution. These studies have many limitations, including issues with assessment of exposure to selenium and to its various chemical forms, heterogeneity, confounding and other biases. Conflicting results including inverse, null and direct associations have been reported for some cancer types.RCTs assessing the effects of selenium supplementation on cancer risk have yielded inconsistent results, although the most recent studies, characterised by a low risk of bias, found no beneficial effect on cancer risk, more specifically on risk of prostate cancer, as well as little evidence of any influence of baseline selenium status. Rather, some trials suggest harmful effects of selenium exposure. To date, no convincing evidence suggests that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in humans.

A randomized controlled Alzheimer's disease prevention trial's evolution into an exposure trial: the PREADViSE Trial

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the ongoing prevention of Alzheimer's disease (AD) by vitamin E and selenium (PREADViSE) trial as an ancillary study to SELECT (a large prostate cancer prevention trial) and to present the blinded results of the first year as an exposure study.

DESIGN

PREADViSE was designed as a double blind randomized controlled trial (RCT).

SETTING

SELECT terminated after median of 5.5 years of exposure to supplements due to a futility analysis. Both trials then converted into an exposure study.

PARTICIPANTS

In the randomized component PREADViSE enrolled 7,547 men age 62 or older (60 if African American). Once the trial terminated 4,246 of these men volunteered for the exposure study. Demographics were similar for both groups with exposure volunteers having baseline mean age 67.3 ± 5.2 years, 15.3 ± 2.4 years of education, 9.8% African Americans, and 22.0% reporting a family history of dementia.

INTERVENTION

In the RCT men were randomly assigned to either daily doses of 400 IU of vitamin E or placebo and 200 µg of selenium or placebo using a 2x2 factorial structure.

MEASUREMENTS

In the RCT, participants completed the memory impairment screen (MIS), and if they failed, underwent a longer screening (based on an expanded Consortium to Establish a Registry in AD [CERAD] battery). CERAD failure resulted in visits to their clinician for medical examination with records of these examinations forwarded to the PREADViSE center for further review. In the exposure study, men are contacted by telephone and complete the telephone version of the memory impairment screen (MIS-T) screen. If they fail the MIS-T, a modified telephone interview of cognitive status (TICS-M) exam is given. A failed TICS-M exam also leads to a visit to their clinician for an in-depth examination and forwarding of records for a centralized consensus diagnosis by expert clinicians. A subgroup of the men who pass the MIS-T also take the TICS-M exam for validation purposes.

RESULTS

While this ancillary trial was open to all 427 SELECT clinical sites, only 130 (30.0%) of the sites chose to participate in PREADViSE. Staff turnover at the sites presented challenges when training persons unfamiliar with cognitive testing procedures to conduct the memory screens. In the RCT few participants (1.6%) failed the MIS screen and among those who passed this screen a significant practice effect was encountered. In the exposure study 3,581 men were reached by phone in year 1, 15.7% could not be reached after 5 calls, and of those contacted 6.0% refused the screen even after consenting to the procedures at their clinical site. Most notable is that the failure rate for the MIS-T increased fourfold to 7.2%. Of the 257 men who took the TICS-M, 84.0% failed and were asked to contact their physicians for a more detailed memory assessment, and approximately half of these had some form of dementia or cognitive impairment. Several of these dementia cases are not AD.

CONCLUSION

Partnering with SELECT led to an AD prevention trial conducted at a very reasonable cost by taking advantage of the experience and efficient clinical trial management found in a cancer cooperative group (Southwest Oncology Group or SWOG). Once unblinded, the RCT and exposure study data have the potential to yield new information on long term exposure to antioxidant supplements under controlled conditions.

Selenium and prostate cancer prevention: insights from the selenium and vitamin E cancer prevention trial (SELECT)

The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) was conducted to assess the efficacy of selenium and vitamin E alone, and in combination, on the incidence of prostate cancer. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial design clinical trial found that neither selenium nor vitamin E reduced the incidence of prostate cancer after seven years and that vitamin E was associated with a 17% increased risk of prostate cancer compared to placebo. The null result was surprising given the strong preclinical and clinical evidence suggesting chemopreventive activity of selenium. Potential explanations for the null findings include the agent formulation and dose, the characteristics of the cohort, and the study design. It is likely that only specific subpopulations may benefit from selenium supplementation; therefore, future studies should consider the baseline selenium status of the participants, age of the cohort, and genotype of specific selenoproteins, among other characteristics, in order to determine the activity of selenium in cancer prevention.

Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases

BACKGROUND

Our systematic review has demonstrated that antioxidant supplements may increase mortality. We have now updated this review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2011. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all primary and secondary prevention randomised clinical trials on antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors extracted data. Random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were conducted. Risk of bias was considered in order to minimise the risk of systematic errors. Trial sequential analyses were conducted to minimise the risk of random errors. Random-effects model meta-regression analyses were performed to assess sources of intertrial heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-eight randomised trials with 296,707 participants were included. Fifty-six trials including 244,056 participants had low risk of bias. Twenty-six trials included 215,900 healthy participants. Fifty-two trials included 80,807 participants with various diseases in a stable phase. The mean age was 63 years (range 18 to 103 years). The mean proportion of women was 46%. Of the 78 trials, 46 used the parallel-group design, 30 the factorial design, and 2 the cross-over design. All antioxidants were administered orally, either alone or in combination with vitamins, minerals, or other interventions. The duration of supplementation varied from 28 days to 12 years (mean duration 3 years; median duration 2 years). Overall, the antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on mortality in a random-effects model meta-analysis (21,484 dead/183,749 (11.7%) versus 11,479 dead/112,958 (10.2%); 78 trials, relative risk (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.05) but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05). Heterogeneity was low with an I(2)- of 12%. In meta-regression analysis, the risk of bias and type of antioxidant supplement were the only significant predictors of intertrial heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis did not find a significant difference in the estimated intervention effect in the primary prevention and the secondary prevention trials. In the 56 trials with a low risk of bias, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (18,833 dead/146,320 (12.9%) versus 10,320 dead/97,736 (10.6%); RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07). This effect was confirmed by trial sequential analysis. Excluding factorial trials with potential confounding showed that 38 trials with low risk of bias demonstrated a significant increase in mortality (2822 dead/26,903 (10.5%) versus 2473 dead/26,052 (9.5%); RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15). In trials with low risk of bias, beta-carotene (13,202 dead/96,003 (13.8%) versus 8556 dead/77,003 (11.1%); 26 trials, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09) and vitamin E (11,689 dead/97,523 (12.0%) versus 7561 dead/73,721 (10.3%); 46 trials, RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05) significantly increased mortality, whereas vitamin A (3444 dead/24,596 (14.0%) versus 2249 dead/16,548 (13.6%); 12 trials, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18), vitamin C (3637 dead/36,659 (9.9%) versus 2717 dead/29,283 (9.3%); 29 trials, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.07), and selenium (2670 dead/39,779 (6.7%) versus 1468 dead/22,961 (6.4%); 17 trials, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) did not significantly affect mortality. In univariate meta-regression analysis, the dose of vitamin A was significantly associated with increased mortality (RR 1.0006, 95% CI 1.0002 to 1.001, P = 0.002).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Beta-carotene and vitamin E seem to increase mortality, and so may higher doses of vitamin A. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered as medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.

Ethnic differences in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

It is recognised that the risk of prostate cancer is higher in black men than in white men worldwide. Recent studies suggest that a number of genetic mutations in black men predispose them to this disease; hence, race as well as environmental factors such as diet and migration are thought to be the determining factors.

METHODS

This review compares data from the United States (US), which suggest that African-American men have a 60% higher risk for developing prostate cancer with poorer prognosis in comparison with their white counterparts, with similar studies carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) and also in African and Caribbean countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies from the United States and the United Kingdom came to significantly different conclusions, and this has implications for policy development, awareness raising among black men in each country and clinical practice.

Strategies for prostate cancer prevention: Review of the literature

The goal of primary chemoprevention is to decrease the incidence of a given cancer, simultaneously reducing treatment-related adverse events, cost of treatment of the disease and mortality. Prostate cancer is an attractive and appropriate target for primary prevention because of its high incidence and prevalence, increased disease-related mortality, long latency and molecular pathogenesis and epidemiological data indicating that modifiable environmental factors may decrease risk. Various agents have been suggested to prevent prostate cancer and many clinical trials are currently on. Ultimately the adoption of a preventive strategy hinges on its potential benefits weighed against the potential risks of the specific agents used. This article is aimed to examine the experimental and epidemiological data spanning a period of 1998 to 2007, demonstrating the chemopreventive activity, safety and toxicity of various nutritional elements and other agents that can help prevent prostate cancer and/or slow disease progression.

Selenium for preventing cancer

BACKGROUND

Selenium is a trace element essential to humans. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancers.

OBJECTIVES

Two research questions were addressed in this review: What is the evidence for1. an aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in women and men?2. the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in women and men?

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched electronic databases and bibliographies of reviews and included publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective observational studies to answer research question (a) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to answer research question (b).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted random effects meta-analyses of epidemiological data when five or more studies were retrieved for a specific outcome. We made a narrative summary of data from RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 49 prospective observational studies and six RCTs. In epidemiologic data, we found a reduced cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.91) and mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83) with higher selenium exposure. Cancer risk was more pronouncedly reduced in men (incidence: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05) than in women (incidence: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77). These findings have potential limitations due to study design, quality and heterogeneity of the data, which complicated the interpretation of the summary statistics.The RCTs found no protective efficacy of selenium yeast supplementation against non-melanoma skin cancer or L-selenomethionine supplementation against prostate cancer. Study results for the prevention of liver cancer with selenium supplements were inconsistent and studies had an unclear risk of bias. The results of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial (NPCT) and SELECT raised concerns about possible harmful effects of selenium supplements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No reliable conclusions can be drawn regarding a causal relationship between low selenium exposure and an increased risk of cancer. Despite evidence for an inverse association between selenium exposure and the risk of some types of cancer, these results should be interpreted with care due to the potential limiting factors of heterogeneity and influences of unknown biases, confounding and effect modification.The effect of selenium supplementation from RCTs yielded inconsistent results. To date, there is no convincing evidence that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in men, women or children.

A nutrient approach to prostate cancer prevention: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)

The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) randomized 35,533 healthy men, >55 yr old (>50 yr if African American), with normal digital rectal exams and prostate specific antigens <4 ng/ml to 1) 200 μg/day l-selenomethionine, 2) 400 IU/day all-rac-alpha-tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E), 3) both supplements, or 4) placebo for 7 to 12 yr. The hypotheses underlying SELECT, that selenium and vitamin E individually and together decrease prostate cancer incidence, derived from epidemiologic and laboratory evidence and significant secondary endpoints in the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (selenium) and Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene (vitamin E) trials. In SELECT, prostate cancer incidence did not differ among the 4 arms: hazard ratios [99% confidence intervals (CIs)] for prostate cancer were 1.13 (99% CI = 0.95-1.35, P = 0.06; n = 473) for vitamin E, 1.04 (99% CI = 0.87-1.24, P = 0.62; n = 432) for selenium, and 1.05 (99% CI = 0.88-1.25, P = 0.52; n = 437) for selenium + vitamin E vs. 1.00 (n = 416) for placebo. Statistically nonsignificant increased risks of prostate cancer with vitamin E alone [relative risk (RR) = 1.13, P = 0.06) and newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes mellitus with selenium alone (RR = 1.07, P = 0.16) were observed. SELECT data show that neither selenium nor vitamin E, alone or together, in the doses and formulations used, prevented prostate cancer in this heterogeneous population of healthy men.

Association of selenium status and blood glutathione concentrations in blacks and whites

Selenium deficiency has been linked with increased cancer risk and, in some studies, selenium supplementation was protective against certain cancers. Previous studies have suggested that selenium chemoprevention may involve reduced oxidative stress through enhanced glutathione (GSH). Our objectives were to examine the relationships between selenium and GSH in the blood and the modifying effects of race and sex in free-living adults and individuals supplemented with selenium. Plasma selenium concentrations and free and bound GSH concentrations and γ-glutamyl cysteine ligase (GCL) activity in the blood were measured in 336 healthy adults (161 Blacks, 175 Whites). Plasma selenium and blood GSH were also measured in 36 healthy men from our previously conducted placebo-controlled trial of selenium-enriched yeast (247 μg/day for 9 mo). In free-living adults, selenium concentrations were associated with increased blood GSH concentration and GCL activity (P < 0.05). Further, selenium was significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks (P < 0.01). After 9 mo of supplementation, plasma selenium increased 114% in Whites and 50% in Blacks (P < 0.05), and blood GSH increased 35% in Whites (P < 0.05) but was unchanged in Blacks. These results indicate a direct association between selenium and GSH in the blood of both free-living and selenium-supplemented individuals, with race being an important modifying factor.

Translating research into evidence-based practice: the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program

The recent rapid acceleration of basic science is reshaping both our clinical research system and our healthcare delivery system. The pace and growing volume of medical discoveries are yielding exciting new opportunities, yet we continue to face old challenges to maintain research progress and effectively translate research into practice. The National Institutes of Health and individual government programs increasingly are emphasizing research agendas that involve evidence development, comparative-effectiveness research among heterogeneous populations, translational research, and accelerating the translation of research into evidence-based practice as well as building successful research networks to support these efforts. For more than 25 years, the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program has successfully extended research into the community and facilitated the translation of research into evidence-based practice. By describing its keys to success, this article provides practical guidance to cancer-focused, provider-based research networks as well as those in other disciplines.

Selenium: a double-edged sword for defense and offence in cancer

Selenium (Se) is an essential dietary component for animals including humans and is regarded as a protective agent against cancer. Although the mode of anticancer action of Se is not fully understood yet, several mechanisms, such as antioxidant protection by selenoenzymes, specific inhibition of tumor cell growth by Se metabolites, modulation of cell cycle and apoptosis, and effect on DNA repair have all been proposed. Despite the unsupported results of the last SELECT trial, the cancer-preventing activity of Se was demonstrated in majority of the epidemiological studies. Moreover, recent studies suggest that Se has a potential to be used not only in cancer prevention but also in cancer treatment where in combination with other anticancer drugs or radiation, it can increase efficacy of cancer therapy. In combating cancer cells, Se acts as pro-oxidant rather than antioxidant, inducing apoptosis through the generation of oxidative stress. Thus, the inorganic Se compound, sodium selenite (SeL), due to its prooxidant character, represents a promising alternative for cancer therapy. However, this Se compound is highly toxic compared to organic Se forms. Thus, the unregulated intake of dietary or pharmacological Se supplements mainly in the form of SeL has a potential to expose the body tissues to the toxic levels of Se with subsequent negative consequences on DNA integrity. Hence, due to a broad interest to exploit the positive effects of Se on human health and cancer therapy, studies investigating the negative effects such as toxicity and DNA damage induction resulting from high Se intake are also highly required. Here, we review a role of Se in cancer prevention and cancer therapy, as well as mechanisms underlying Se-induced toxicity and DNA injury. Since Saccharomyces cerevisiae has proven a powerful tool for addressing some important questions regarding Se biology, a part of this review is devoted to this model system.

A large prospective study of SEP15 genetic variation, interaction with plasma selenium levels, and prostate cancer risk and survival

The role of selenium in prostate cancer (PCa) risk remains controversial, but many epidemiologic studies suggest an inverse association with more aggressive disease. A recently discovered selenoprotein, SEP15, which is highly expressed in the prostate, may play a role either independently or by modifying the effects of selenium. We genotyped four common single-nucleotide polymorphisms capturing common variation (frequency >5%; R(2) > 0.8) within SEP15, as well as rs5859 in the 3' untranslated region, previously reported to reduce the efficiency of selenium incorporation into SEP15. We examined the association of these single-nucleotide polymorphisms with PCa risk and PCa-specific mortality, as well as their interactions with plasma selenium levels, in the Physicians' Health Study. In this nested case-control study (1,286 cases and 1,267 controls), SEP15 polymorphisms were not significantly associated with PCa risk. However, among the cases, three variants were significantly associated with PCa-specific mortality [rs479341 hazard ratio (HR), 1.94; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.15-3.25; rs1407131 HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.45-5.59; rs561104 HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.12-2.11] with a recessive model. Additionally, rs561104 significantly modified the association of plasma selenium with PCa survival (P(interaction) = 0.02); an inverse relationship of high levels of selenium with PCa mortality was apparent only among those without the increased risk genotype. This study provides evidence that SEP15 genetic variation may influence PCa mortality. Additionally, the association of selenium with PCa mortality was modified by a variant, suggesting the possibility that some men with PCa may benefit more from selenium than others, depending on their genotype.

Null activity of selenium and vitamin e as cancer chemopreventive agents in the rat prostate

To evaluate the potential efficacy of selenium and vitamin E as inhibitors of prostate carcinogenesis, four chemoprevention studies using a common protocol were done in a rat model of androgen-dependent prostate cancer. After stimulation of prostate epithelial cell proliferation by a sequential regimen of cyproterone acetate followed by testosterone propionate, male Wistar-Unilever rats received a single i.v. injection of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea (MNU) followed by chronic androgen stimulation via subcutaneous implantation of testosterone pellets. At 1 week post-MNU, groups of carcinogen-treated rats (39-44/group) were fed either a basal diet or a basal diet supplemented with l-selenomethionine (3 or 1.5 mg/kg diet; study 1), dl-alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E, 4,000 or 2,000 mg/kg diet; study 2), l-selenomethionine + vitamin E (3 + 2,000 mg/kg diet or 3 + 500 mg/kg diet; study 3), or selenized yeast (target selenium levels of 9 or 3 mg/kg diet; study 4). Each chemoprevention study was terminated at 13 months post-MNU, and prostate cancer incidence was determined by histopathologic evaluation. No statistically significant reductions in prostate cancer incidence were identified in any group receiving dietary supplementation with selenium and/or vitamin E. These data do not support the hypotheses that selenium and vitamin E are potent cancer chemopreventive agents in the prostate, and when considered with the recent clinical data reported in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), show the predictive nature of this animal model for human prostate cancer chemoprevention.

Gleason grading controversies: what the chemoprevention trials have taught us

The recent Prostate Chemoprevention Trial (PCPT), which assessed the efficacy of finasteride in reducing prostate cancer incidence, showed promising results. However, patients who developed cancer had higher Gleason scores than those on placebo. Moreover, recent evidence has shown that the biopsy Gleason scores in patients on finasteride were actually more accurate compared with patients on placebo when matched with the final, radical prostatectomy (RP) scores. This accuracy was due to a reduction in prostate volume induced by the drug, and better performance of prostate-specific antigen correlation for identifying men with high-grade cancer. Re-evaluation of the results based on the pathology of the RP specimens and longer follow-up showed a 30% reduction in cancer incidence with finasteride and no significant differences in Gleason scores compared with placebo.

Association of variants in two vitamin e transport genes with circulating vitamin e concentrations and prostate cancer risk

Significant reductions in prostate cancer incidence and mortality were observed in men randomized to receive 50 mg supplemental vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) per day in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention (ATBC) Study. We hypothesized that variation in key vitamin E transport genes might directly affect prostate cancer risk or modify the effects of vitamin E supplementation. Associations between prostate cancer risk and 13 polymorphisms in two genes, TTPA and SEC14L2, were examined in 982 incident prostate cancer cases and 851 controls drawn from the ATBC Study. There was no association between the genetic variants and prostate cancer risk. Significant interactions were observed, however, between two variants in SEC14L2 (IVS11+931A>G and IVS11-896A>T) and the trial alpha-tocopherol supplement such that vitamin E supplementation reduced prostate cancer risk among men who were homozygous for either common allele [odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 0.52 (0.30-0.90) and 0.64 (0.46-0.88), respectively] and nonsignificantly increased risk among those who carried one or two copies of either variant allele [ORs and 95% CIs, 1.27 (0.90-1.79) and 1.21 (0.96-1.52), respectively; both P for interaction < 0.05]. Genotype-phenotype analyses revealed significant but modest differences in baseline circulating concentrations of alpha-tocopherol and serum responses to the vitamin E supplementation for several polymorphisms. This study shows that genetic variation in TTPA and SEC14L2 is associated with serum alpha-tocopherol but does not have a direct effect on prostate cancer. Our results do, however, suggest that polymorphisms in SEC14L2 may modify the effect of vitamin supplementation regimens on prostate cancer risk.

Vitamins E and C in the prevention of prostate and total cancer in men: the Physicians' Health Study II randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Many individuals take vitamins in the hopes of preventing chronic diseases such as cancer, and vitamins E and C are among the most common individual supplements. A large-scale randomized trial suggested that vitamin E may reduce risk of prostate cancer; however, few trials have been powered to address this relationship. No previous trial in men at usual risk has examined vitamin C alone in the prevention of cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether long-term vitamin E or C supplementation decreases risk of prostate and total cancer events among men.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Physicians' Health Study II is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled factorial trial of vitamins E and C that began in 1997 and continued until its scheduled completion on August 31, 2007. A total of 14,641 male physicians in the United States initially aged 50 years or older, including 1307 men with a history of prior cancer at randomization, were enrolled.

INTERVENTION

Individual supplements of 400 IU of vitamin E every other day and 500 mg of vitamin C daily.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prostate and total cancer.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 8.0 years, there were 1008 confirmed incident cases of prostate cancer and 1943 total cancers. Compared with placebo, vitamin E had no effect on the incidence of prostate cancer (active and placebo vitamin E groups, 9.1 and 9.5 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.09; P = .58) or total cancer (active and placebo vitamin E groups, 17.8 and 17.3 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-1.13; P = .41). There was also no significant effect of vitamin C on total cancer (active and placebo vitamin C groups, 17.6 and 17.5 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92-1.10; P = .86) or prostate cancer (active and placebo vitamin C groups, 9.4 and 9.2 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90-1.15; P = .80). Neither vitamin E nor vitamin C had a significant effect on colorectal, lung, or other site-specific cancers. Adjustment for adherence and exclusion of the first 4 or 6 years of follow-up did not alter the results. Stratification by various cancer risk factors demonstrated no significant modification of the effect of vitamin E on prostate cancer risk or either agent on total cancer risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, long-term trial of male physicians, neither vitamin E nor C supplementation reduced the risk of prostate or total cancer. These data provide no support for the use of these supplements for the prevention of cancer in middle-aged and older men.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00270647.

Antioxidant supplements for preventing gastrointestinal cancers

BACKGROUND

Oxidative stress may cause gastrointestinal cancers. The evidence on whether antioxidant supplements are effective in preventing gastrointestinal cancers is contradictory.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements in preventing gastrointestinal cancers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified trials through the trials registers of the four Cochrane Review Groups on gastrointestinal diseases, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and The Chinese Biomedical Database from inception to October 2007. We scanned reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing antioxidant supplements to placebo/no intervention examining occurrence of gastrointestinal cancers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (GB and DN) independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcome measures were gastrointestinal cancers, overall mortality, and adverse effects. Outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analysis. Meta-regression assessed the effect of covariates across the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 20 randomised trials (211,818 participants), assessing beta-carotene (12 trials), vitamin A (4 trials), vitamin C (8 trials), vitamin E (10 trials), and selenium (9 trials). Trials quality was generally high. Heterogeneity was low to moderate. Antioxidant supplements were without significant effects on gastrointestinal cancers (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.06). However, there was significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 54.0%, P = 0.003). The heterogeneity may have been explained by bias risk (low-bias risk trials RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13 compared to high-bias risk trials RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; test of interaction P < 0.0005), and type of antioxidant supplement (beta-carotene potentially increasing and selenium potentially decreasing cancer risk). The antioxidant supplements had no significant effects on mortality in a random-effects model meta-analysis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.07, I(2) = 53.5%), but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model meta-analysis (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.07). Beta-carotene in combination with vitamin A (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.23) and vitamin E (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11) significantly increased mortality. Increased yellowing of the skin and belching were non-serious adverse effects of beta-carotene. In five trials (four with high risk of bias), selenium seemed to show significant beneficial effect on gastrointestinal cancer occurrence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75, I(2) = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We could not find convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, antioxidant supplements seem to increase overall mortality. The potential cancer preventive effect of selenium should be tested in adequately conducted randomised trials.

Prostate cancer

In developed countries, prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer, and the third most common cause of death from cancer in men. Apart from age and ethnic origin, a positive family history is probably the strongest known risk factor. Clinically, prostate cancer is diagnosed as local or advanced, and treatments range from surveillance to radical local treatment or androgen-deprivation treatment. Androgen deprivation reduces symptoms in about 70-80% of patients with advanced prostate cancer, but most tumours relapse within 2 years to an incurable androgen-independent state. The recorded incidence of prostate cancer has substantially increased in the past two decades, probably because of the introduction of screening with prostate-specific antigen, the use of improved biopsy techniques for diagnosis, and increased public awareness. Trends in mortality from the disease are less clearcut. Mortality changes are not of the same magnitude as the changes in incidence, and in some countries mortality has been stable or even decreased. The disparity between reported incidence and mortality rates leads to the probable conclusion that only a small proportion of diagnosed low-risk prostate cancers will progress to life-threatening disease during the lifetime of the patient.

Effect of vitamin E and selenium supplementation on oxidative stress status in pulmonary tuberculosis patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Increased production of reactive oxygen species secondary to phagocyte respiratory burst occurs in pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). The present study evaluated the efficacy of vitamin E-selenium supplementation on oxidative stress in newly diagnosed patients treated for pulmonary TB.

METHODS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial including patients with newly diagnosed TB was conducted. The intervention group (n = 17) received vitamin E and selenium (vitamin E: 140 mg alpha-tocopherol and selenium: 200 microg) and the control group (n = 18) received placebo. Both groups received standard anti-TB treatment. Assessment of micronutrient levels, oxidative markers and total antioxidant capacity were carried out at baseline and 2 months after the intervention.

RESULTS

Malondialdehyde levels were significantly reduced in the intervention group (P = 0.01), while there was minimal reduction in the control group. The mean plasma level of total antioxidants was increased significantly (P = 0.001) in both the intervention and the control groups.

CONCLUSION

A 2-month intervention with vitamin E and selenium supplementation reduces oxidative stress and enhances total antioxidant status in patients with pulmonary TB treated with standard chemotherapy.

Selenium: its role as antioxidant in human health

Selenium (Se) is an essential trace element, and its low status in humans has been linked to increased risk of various diseases, such as cancer and heart disease. In recent years, Se research has attracted tremendous interest because of its important role in antioxidant selenoproteins for protection against oxidative stress initiated by excess reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (NOS). The synthesis of selenoproteins requires a unique incorporation of amino acid selenocysteine (Sec) into proteins directed by the UGA codon, which is also a termination codon. Interest in Se research has led to the discovery of at least 30 selenoproteins; however, the biochemical functional roles of some of these selenoproteins are still unknown. Besides in the form of selenoproteins, Se can exist in many different chemical forms in biological materials either as organic Se compounds, such as selenomethionine and dimethylselenide, and inorganic selenites and selenates. In foods, Se is predominantly present as selenomethionine, which is an important source of dietary Se in humans, and also as a chemical form that is commonly used for Se supplements in clinical trials. Concern for potential deficiency diseases associated with low Se status has led to the establishment of the recommended daily requirements for Se in many countries. However, excess Se intakes through supplementation and its potential misuse as health therapy could also pose a risk of adverse health effects if its use is not properly regulated.

Apoptotic cellular events for selenium compounds involved in cancer prevention

Converging data from epidemiological, ecological, and clinical studies have shown that selenium (Se) can decrease the risk for some types of human cancers. Induction of apoptosis is considered an important cellular event that can account for the cancer preventive effects of Se. Prior to occurrence of apoptosis, Se compounds alter the expression and/or activities of signaling molecules, mitochondria-associated factors, transcriptional factors, tumor suppressor genes, and cellular reduced glutathione. Mechanistic studies have demonstrated that the methylselenol metabolite pool has many desirable attributes of chemoprevention, whereas the hydrogen selenide pool with excess of selenoprotein synthesis can lead to DNA single-strand breaks. To elucidate the effects of Se on cytotoxic events, it should be remembered that the chemical forms and the dose of Se, and the experimental system used, are determinants of its biological activities. This mini-review focuses on elucidation of the molecular mechanisms of cancer prevention by Se with the apoptotic approach.

Supplemental and Dietary Vitamin E Intakes and Risk of Prostate Cancer in a Large Prospective Study

Supplemental vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) has been linked to lower prostate cancer incidence in one randomized trial and several, although not all, observational studies. The evidence regarding dietary intake of individual vitamin E isoforms and prostate cancer is limited and inconclusive, however. We prospectively examined the relations of supplemental vitamin E and dietary intakes of alpha-, beta-, gamma-, and delta- tocopherols to prostate cancer risk among 295,344 men, ages 50 to 71 years and cancer-free at enrollment in 1995 to 1996, in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. At baseline, participants completed a questionnaire that captured information on diet, supplement use, and other factors. Proportional hazards models were used to estimate relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of prostate cancer. During 5 years of follow-up, 10,241 incident prostate cancers were identified. Supplemental vitamin E intake was not related to prostate cancer risk (for >0-99, 100-199, 200-399, 400-799, and > or = 800 IU/d versus never use: RR, 0.97, 0.89, 1.03, 0.99, and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87-1.07) respectively; Ptrend = 0.90). However, dietary gamma-tocopherol, the most commonly consumed form of vitamin E in the United States, was significantly inversely related to the risk of advanced prostate cancer (for highest versus lowest quintile: RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84; Ptrend = 0.001). These results suggest that supplemental vitamin E does not protect against prostate cancer, but that increased consumption of gamma-tocopherol from foods is associated with a reduced risk of clinically relevant disease. The potential benefit of gamma-tocopherol for prostate cancer prevention deserves further attention.

Augmented suppression of androgen receptor signaling by a combination of alpha-tocopheryl succinate and methylseleninic acid

BACKGROUND

Previous reports showed that alpha-tocopheryl succinate (alphaTS) and methylseleninic acid (MSA) independently reduce the abundance of androgen receptor (AR) in prostate cancer cells. The response to MSA happens quickly, whereas the response to alphaTS takes much longer. The present study was designed to investigate whether a combination of alphaTS and MSA would produce an additive or a greater than additive effect in suppressing AR level, AR transactivation, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

METHODS

LNCaP cells were treated with alphaTS alone for 31 hours, MSA alone for 3 hours, or alphaTS first for 28 hours and alphaTS/MSA together for the last 3 hours. AR and PSA mRNA levels were quantitated by quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). AR transactivation was determined by the ARE-luciferase reporter assay. Both cellular and secretory PSA was also measured by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method.

RESULTS

Different doses of alphaTS were evaluated in combination with MSA. Some striking results are highlighted below for alphaTS alone, MSA alone, or alphaTS/MSA (presented in that order). AR mRNA level was depressed by 0%, 20%, or 60%, respectively; AR transactivation was inhibited by 35%, 10%, or 60%, respectively; whereas the PSA mRNA level was decreased by 40%, 60%, or 90%, respectively. Interestingly, secretory PSA was consistently reduced to a greater extent than cellular PSA.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of alphaTS/MSA produced a greater than additive effect in suppressing AR signaling compared with the single agent. Decreased AR abundance is a major factor, but not necessarily the sole factor, in diminishing the transcriptional activity of AR by alphaTS or MSA.

Inhibition of androgen receptor signaling by selenite and methylseleninic acid in prostate cancer cells: two distinct mechanisms of action

The development of prostate cancer and its progression to a hormone-refractory state is highly dependent on androgen receptor (AR) expression. Recent studies have shown that the selenium-based compound methylseleninic acid (MSeA) can disrupt AR signaling in prostate cancer cells. We have found that selenite can inhibit AR expression and activity in LAPC-4 and LNCaP prostate cancer cells as well but through a different mechanism. On entering the cell, selenite consumes reduced glutathione (GSH) and generates superoxide radicals. Pretreatment with N-acetylcysteine, a GSH precursor, blocked the down-regulation of AR mRNA and protein expression by selenite and restored AR ligand binding and prostate-specific antigen expression to control levels. MSeA reacts with reduced GSH within the cell; however, N-acetylcysteine did not effect MSeA-induced down-regulation of AR and prostate-specific antigen. The superoxide dismutase mimetic MnTMPyP was also found to prevent the decrease in AR expression caused by selenite but not by MSeA. A Sp1-binding site in the AR promoter is a key regulatory component for its expression. Selenite decreased Sp1 expression and activity, whereas MSeA did not. The inhibition of Sp1 by selenite was reversed in the presence of N-acetylcysteine. In conclusion, we have found that selenite and MSeA disrupt AR signaling by distinct mechanisms. The inhibition of AR expression and activity by selenite occurs via a redox mechanism involving GSH, superoxide, and Sp1.

Selenoprotein deficiency and high levels of selenium compounds can effectively inhibit hepatocarcinogenesis in transgenic mice

The micronutrient element selenium (Se) has been shown to be effective in reducing the incidence of cancer in animal models and human clinical trials. Selenoproteins and low molecular weight Se compounds were implicated in the chemopreventive effect, but specific mechanisms are not clear. We examined the role of Se and selenoproteins in liver tumor formation in TGFalpha/c-Myc transgenic mice, which are characterized by disrupted redox homeostasis and develop liver cancer by 6 months of age. In these mice, both Se deficiency and high levels of Se compounds suppressed hepatocarcinogenesis. In addition, both treatments induced expression of detoxification genes, increased apoptosis and inhibited cell proliferation. Within low-to-optimal levels of dietary Se, tumor formation correlated with expression of most selenoproteins. These data suggest that changes in selenoprotein expression may either suppress or promote tumorigenesis depending on cell type and genotype. Since dietary Se may have opposing effects on cancer, it is important to identify the subjects who will benefit from Se supplementation as well as those who will not.