CEBP http://www.cancermicroenvironment.tau.ac.il/welcome2009.html Frontiers in Basic Cancer Research
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Crawford, E. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Crawford, E. D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Clinical Intervention
Right arrow Clinical Intervention: Definitive (Phase III) Clinical or Translational Trials
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 15, 1479-1484, August 2006
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research

Design and Progress of a Trial of Selenium to Prevent Prostate Cancer among Men with High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia

James R. Marshall1, Wael Sakr2, David Wood3, Donna Berry4, Catherine Tangen5, Felicia Parker1, Ian Thompson6, Scott M. Lippman7, Ronald Lieberman8, David Alberts9, David Jarrard10, Charles Coltman11, Peter Greenwald8, Lori Minasian8 and E. David Crawford12

1 Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York; 2 Wayne State University, Detroit; 3 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 4 University of Washington; 5 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; 6 University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio; 7 M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 8 National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; 9 Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona; 10 University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; 11 Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, Texas; and 12 University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, Colorado

Requests for reprints: James R. Marshall, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263. Phone: 716-845-8444; Fax: 716-845-8487. E-mail: james.marshall{at}roswellpark.org


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 The Significance of HGPIN
 Selenium as a Chemopreventive...
 Study Design
 Statistical Considerations
 Biomarkers
 Accrual Progress
 Conclusion
 References
 
High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) is generally regarded as a premalignant lesion that progresses toward prostate cancer. In light of the significant sequelae of prostate cancer treatment, prevention is desirable, and men with HGPIN would be suitable, high-risk subjects. There is in vitro, in vivo, epidemiologic, and human experimental evidence that selenium supplementation may protect against prostate cancer. This article introduces the rationale for, and progress to date, of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of selenium supplementation (200 µg/d in the form of selenomethionine), to prevent the development of prostate cancer among men with HGPIN. The trial, Southwest Oncology Group Protocol 9917, funded by a National Cancer Institute program supporting pivotal prevention trials has registered 537 patients and has randomized >380 to date. Subject accrual is expected to be completed by the fall of 2006, with trial completion in 2009. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(8):1479–84)


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
The Significance of HGPIN
 Selenium as a Chemopreventive...
 Study Design
 Statistical Considerations
 Biomarkers
 Accrual Progress
 Conclusion
 References
 
Prostate cancer continues to contribute significantly to cancer morbidity and mortality in the U.S. and western industrialized countries. Diagnosed in ~200,000 American men and causing ~30,000 deaths each year, it will affect the lives of approximately one in six men in the U.S. (1).

Prevention is clearly a rational component of our effort to limit prostate cancer's human costs. Nonetheless, for all its importance, screening, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) analysis and digital rectal examination, does not prevent prostate cancer. Screening aids in prostate cancer control, as it leads to earlier diagnosis and may prevent aggressive or metastatic disease; preventing prostate cancer may be more ambitious but remains an important goal.

The strategy of focusing on chemoprevention—the use of agents that block carcinogenesis—for high-risk individuals with premalignant lesions has received increased attention in recent years (2-4). Targeting those with premalignant lesions, whose risk of short-term progression to cancer is substantial, allows chemoprevention trials to be smaller and completed in a shorter time than if conducted among average risk individuals.

It is generally thought that high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) is the key premalignant lesion for prostate cancer (5-7). Men with this premalignant lesion, at elevated risk for subsequent diagnosis of prostate cancer, may be ideal subjects for chemopreventive agent testing. Given the observational evidence that men with elevated selenium stores are at lower risk of prostate cancer, and the experimental evidence that selenium supplementation decreases the risk of prostate cancer and can be safely taken for an extended span of time, selenium represents a plausible first agent for prostate cancer chemoprevention focused on men with HGPIN.


   The Significance of HGPIN
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The Significance of HGPIN
Selenium as a Chemopreventive...
 Study Design
 Statistical Considerations
 Biomarkers
 Accrual Progress
 Conclusion
 References
 
Research in the late 1980s and early 1990s focused on HGPIN as a premalignant lesion. Those with HGPIN have an increased risk of prostate cancer occurrence, and HGPIN cells bear a number of morphologic and phenotypic similarities to prostate cancer (5, 6). In total, the evidence suggests that HGPIN is a key intermediate in the development of prostate cancer (7-11).

An understanding of the predictive significance of HGPIN with respect to prostate cancer continues to evolve. Davidson showed that those with HGPIN are several times as likely as those without HGPIN to have cancer subsequently diagnosed; those with HGPIN have an ~50% chance of having prostate cancer diagnosed within 3 years (12, 13). Demographic data confirm that HGPIN appears earlier in high risk than in low risk populations (14).

Changes in urologic practice in the past 10 years have made it more difficult to understand the predictive significance of HGPIN. There is some debate over the extent to which HGPIN would indicate that a man is at an elevated probability of subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis (15-19). In all likelihood, HGPIN indicates a condition that is likely to progress to prostate cancer within 1 to 3 years (6, 7). Data recently collected by Steiner and colleagues confirm that those with HGPIN are at an elevated risk of metachronous cancer (20). With the risk approaching 30% after 1 year of observation, risk after 3 years may be close to or even greater than the 50% suggested by Davidson et al. (12, 13).


   Selenium as a Chemopreventive Agent
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The Significance of HGPIN
 Selenium as a Chemopreventive...
Study Design
 Statistical Considerations
 Biomarkers
 Accrual Progress
 Conclusion
 References
 
In vitro and animal experiment data indicate that selenium has anticancer properties (21). A number of prospective observational studies have shown that those with elevated body stores of selenium, as indicated by elevated blood or toenail concentrations, are at a decreased risk of a number of cancers (22-57). These associations seem stronger for prostate than for other cancers, and they seem stronger yet for advanced or metastatic cancer (22, 24, 38, 40, 41). These associations have been interpreted as indicating that selenium intake is protective. As the selenium content of a food is less dependent on the identity of the food than on the selenium content of the soil in which it is grown, observational dietary studies cannot be based on food intake–derived indices of selenium intake (58).

In the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer study, prostate cancer was a secondary end point of a trial designed to test selenium for preventing the recurrence of non–melanoma skin cancer. The dose of selenium in the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer trial, which seemed not to induce significant toxicity, was 200 µg/d. The incidence of prostate cancer among those who received selenium was approximately half that among those who received placebo (58-60). Cautious interpretation of this finding is warranted; it was secondary, rather than primary, not anticipated in advance, and derived from a relatively small study (61). That the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer finding was based on an experiment helped provide an impetus for selenium's inclusion in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial prostate cancer chemoprevention trial (62). Selenium in the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer trial was incorporated into selenized baker's yeast. The major organic component in selenized yeast is believed to be selenomethionine (63). The pharmacokinetics and safety profile of selenomethionine are well understood (21).


   Study Design
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The Significance of HGPIN
 Selenium as a Chemopreventive...
 Study Design
Statistical Considerations
 Biomarkers
 Accrual Progress
 Conclusion
 References
 
The first eligibility criterion is that HGPIN must be identified by biopsy; the tissue must then be confirmed by centralized pathology review to show HGPIN and no cancer. The PSA at study entry cannot exceed 10 ng/mL, the PSA cutoff of 10 ng/mL was selected in recognition of the widespread understanding among urologists that HGPIN is associated with increased prostate cancer risk; it is recognized that the combination of HGPIN and a PSA in excess of 10, probably signifies the presence of prostate cancer missed by biopsy. The subject cannot be taking finasteride, any other drug known to affect PSA, or selenium supplements in excess of 50 µg/d. Excluding those taking any selenium supplements would have resulted in a clearer research design in terms of study validity. Because most multivitamin supplements contain selenium, however, we decided that we would lose an excess of patients by allowing no selenium supplementation. Thus, we allowed participants to take up to 50 µg of selenium per day; this is the dose in most multivitamins. The procedure for enrolling and randomizing potential participants is defined by the number of biopsy cores drawn. When this study was initiated in 1999, the standard biopsy consisted of six or fewer cores, this biopsy was to be followed by a six-core or greater biopsy showing no cancer. Cancer on the second biopsy required exclusion. Figure 1 displays this initial enrollment schema. As biopsy procedures have changed and the number of cores drawn has increased, it has become clear that immediate follow up of a 10-core or greater biopsy showing HGPIN and no cancer is unlikely to reveal cancer (15-18). Thus, in 2002, the protocol was changed, so that men whose initial biopsy revealing HGPIN and no cancer was based on 10 or more cores done within 6 months prior to registration can be randomized as soon as centralized review confirms HGPIN. Figure 2 displays the revised enrollment schema.


Figure 1
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Schema I. Men ages 40 to 80 with biopsy-proven HGPIN diagnosed within 2 years prior to registration.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Schema II. Men ages 40 to 80 with biopsy-proven HGPIN.

 
The patient is randomly assigned to 200 µg/d of selenium as L-selenomethionine, or to placebo, with treatment scheduled for 3 years. The patient is to be evaluated at baseline and every 6 months, including blood sample, PSA test, digital rectal examination, and queries about symptoms, adverse events, and cancer diagnoses. Adherence is evaluated by manual pill counts. The patient is also contacted by telephone 3 months after randomization and 3 months after each clinic visit for queries about symptoms and changes.

Paperwork is minimized; the only data requests are for patient symptoms, adherence to study drug, and vitamin and mineral supplement use. Community Clinical Oncology Programs receive 1.0 cancer-control credits for the registration of each new subject and 0.3 credits for each subsequent year on study. Informed consent, approved by the cooperative groups and by each study site, describes the study protocol, informs the subject that HGPIN is believed to signal increased prostate cancer risk, and that the use of selenium in men with HGPIN is investigational.

If at any point the patient's baseline PSA of <4 ng/mL has increased by >1 ng/mL in a year, or if a patient's baseline PSA of 4 to 10 ng/mL has increased by >25%, or if the digital rectal examination is abnormal, transrectal ultrasound–guided biopsy is recommended. The urologist is at liberty to recommend biopsy or other diagnostic or interventional procedures as he or she sees fit. Pathology materials are submitted to the study pathologist (W. Sakr) for evaluation. The biopsy triggers of a PSA increase of 1 ng/mL in a year for those with a baseline level of <4 ng/mL, or of a 25% increase in a baseline of 4 to 10 ng/mL are benchmark decision guides, chosen because they are widely accepted in clinical practice.

After 3 years in the study, patients not diagnosed with prostate cancer are scheduled for transrectal ultrasound–directed sextant or greater prostatic biopsy. Patients removed from treatment early for any reason other than cancer are also to have this biopsy.


   Statistical Considerations
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The Significance of HGPIN
 Selenium as a Chemopreventive...
 Study Design
 Statistical Considerations
Biomarkers
 Accrual Progress
 Conclusion
 References
 
Treatment assignment is randomized, double-blinded, to placebo or to selenium, stratified with dynamic balancing for age (40-60 versus 61 or older), race (African-American versus other), pre-study PSA (<4 versus 4-10 ng/mL), vitamin E supplementation (yes versus no), and initial biopsy (<10 cores versus ≥10 cores).

The target sample size of 466 patients, 233 per arm, provides 90% power, based on the following assumptions:

(a) a 3-year incidence of prostate cancer among men with HGPIN of 50%,
(b) a 33% reduction in 3-year incidence of prostate cancer,
(c) one-sided {alpha} level of 0.025
(d) 80% of randomized patients provide valid end point data.


   Biomarkers
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The Significance of HGPIN
 Selenium as a Chemopreventive...
 Study Design
 Statistical Considerations
 Biomarkers
Accrual Progress
 Conclusion
 References
 
The rationale for this trial was that, although there is empirical evidence that selenium is protective, there is a need for the experimental validation of its effects. In addition, there is only a limited understanding of the mechanisms of its apparent effects (64). As a first step in delineating these mechanisms, we are evaluating cellular proliferation by Ki67 (65, 66) and apoptosis by terminal nucleotidyl transferase–mediated nick end labeling (67). We are using machine vision histometry to quantitatively characterize nuclear characteristics: nuclear size, roundness, staining intensity, staining variance, and intracellular staining patterns.

We are examining the degree to which proliferation, apoptosis, and morphometry in tissue from patients who receive two biopsies prior to randomization are correlated; this will provide a basic description of the repeatability of our proliferation, apoptosis, and morphometric measures. We will also analyze these factors as they are changed by selenium treatment, and we will evaluate whether the factors mediate any of the effects of selenium. We will thus examine whether changes in the factors seem to statistically explain any of the effects of treatment. Double-blind clinical trials require that these intermediate biomarkers not be examined until the end of the trial, or until the study has been unblinded with respect to the primary end point.


   Accrual Progress
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The Significance of HGPIN
 Selenium as a Chemopreventive...
 Study Design
 Statistical Considerations
 Biomarkers
 Accrual Progress
Conclusion
 References
 
The original study design called for 50 registrations and 20 randomizations per month, which would have completed recruitment within 24 months. However, registration and randomization initially progressed a good deal more slowly than was expected.

The cooperative oncologists have been effective at bringing cancer patients into therapeutic trials and normal patients into prevention trials. They have been less effective at identifying and enrolling patients with high-risk or premalignant conditions to prevention trials. The most active clinician members of the cooperative oncology groups are medical and surgical oncologists; unfortunately, these clinicians do not see people whose most significant affliction is a premalignant lesion like HGPIN. Urologists are more likely than urologic or medical oncologists to come in contact with HGPIN; thus, we have directed attention to urologists as well as to members of the cooperative oncology groups.

Several clinicians have indicated that the recruitment reimbursement offered by the cooperative groups is not adequate to cover the cost and effort of identifying patients. With drug company reimbursement an order of magnitude greater than that offered by the cooperative groups, drug company trials often take precedence over those of cooperative groups. However, it is not readily possible to attribute changes in accrual to any specific effort.

As Table 1 illustrates, only 12 people were registered and 2 were randomized during the first 6 months. By the end of the first year, only 51 had been registered and 25 had been randomized.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. HGPIN trial: accrual by 6-month time span

 
Between 2000 and 2003, study leaders were repeatedly summoned to meetings of the Southwest Oncology Group Data Safety and Monitoring Board to defend continuation, rather than closure, of the study.

We have employed several strategies to increase enrollment. We directed e-mails and telephone reminders to Southwest Oncology Group principal investigators, urologists, clinical research associates, and nurses, and provided reminders at group meetings. We arranged for the Chair of the Southwest Oncology Group Genitourinary Committee (E.D. Crawford), for the Director of the Southwest Oncology Group (C. Coltman), and for an influential leader of the American Urological Association (I. Thompson) to send letters urging greater effort. We opened the study to other major cooperative oncology groups and several Veteran's Administration Medical Centers. We arranged for participants in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, whose end-of-study biopsy revealed HGPIN, to be invited to join this trial. We placed paid advertisements in journals of the American Urological Association, and in trade periodicals The initial enrollment stipend was U.S.$500; study sites also receive U.S.$200 for each year a subject is on study. In 2002, we increased this initial enrollment stipend from U.S.$500 to U.S.$1,000. Gradually, these efforts and changes led to increased study accrual. As Fig. 3 shows, 370 of the study goal of 466 patients have been randomized after a recruitment period of 4 years. Given the present rate of recruitment, enrollment should be complete by the fall of 2006, with study completion anticipated in 2009.


Figure 3
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Randomization and baseline study data.

 
Table 2 , describing the first 280 subjects randomized, shows that the two study groups are well balanced in terms of age, race, pre-study PSA, the use of vitamin E supplements, and the biopsy procedure or sequence that brought the participant into the study. The differences observed in central tendency and in distribution are insignificant, both in statistical and substantive terms, which suggests that confounding of any effect of selenium treatment by the stratification variables is unlikely.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Stratification factor distribution for HGPIN patient randomized to treatment group 1 or 2

 
Table 3 shows that the baseline plasma selenium concentrations of both groups are similar, both in mean and dispersion. These levels are considerably higher than those observed in the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer trial: the mean baseline concentration in that study was 114 ng/mL (59). The levels are well above even the mean of 123 ng/mL estimated for the U.S. population (68). The distributions about the means are fairly symmetric, as can be seen by the proximity of each mean to the median.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Baseline plasma selenium levels for HGPIN patients randomized to treatment groups 1 or 2

 
Table 4 , completed on a subset of patients, shows that temporal lags in enrollment—between the initial biopsy and registration, between the initial biopsy and randomization, and between the second biopsy and randomization—are similar for the two study groups.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Time from biopsy to registration in days for HGPIN patients randomized to treatment group 1 or 2

 
A number of characteristics of trial progress, such as changes in blood selenium status of experimental subjects and controls, and the proportions of subjects with a valid end point, with cancer, or with prostate cancer would be of interest. Unfortunately, very strict blinding is maintained for cooperative group studies with extended recruitment and treatment, so that such information will not be available until the end of the trial.


   Conclusion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The Significance of HGPIN
 Selenium as a Chemopreventive...
 Study Design
 Statistical Considerations
 Biomarkers
 Accrual Progress
 Conclusion
References
 
HGPIN may offer an important opportunity for chemopreventive intervention. Men with HGPIN, which seems to be a significant premalignant lesion, are at substantially increased cancer risk; thus, chemical intervention can be more readily defended than if those individuals were at average risk. Among potential chemopreventive agents, selenium seems, given its safety and the confluence of epidemiologic, experimental, in vitro and in vivo data, to be a leading candidate. The trial is premised on the need for experimental validation of the accumulating evidence.

Accrual to this study has been difficult; a great deal of effort has been denoted to raising trial awareness and encouraging cooperative groups to enroll patients. These efforts seem to have borne fruit; at this point, >80% of the study participants have been randomized. It seems likely that enrollment will be completed in the fall of 2006. Randomization is working well, balancing experimental and placebo study groups in characteristics believed predictive of prostate cancer.


   Footnotes
 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received 8/ 1/05; revised 4/18/06; accepted 5/22/06.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The Significance of HGPIN
 Selenium as a Chemopreventive...
 Study Design
 Statistical Considerations
 Biomarkers
 Accrual Progress
 Conclusion
 References
 

  1. American Cancer Society, Cancer facts and figures. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0.asp. 2004.
  2. Lieberman R. Chemoprevention of prostate cancer: current status and future directions [abstract]. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2002;21:297–309.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Lieberman R. Prostate cancer chemoprevention: strategies for designing efficient clinical trials. Urology 2001;57:224–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. O'Shaughnessy JA, Kelloff GJ, Gordon GB, et al. Treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia: an important target for accelerated new agent development. Recommendations of the American Association for Cancer Research Task Force on the Treatment and Prevention of Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:314–46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Bostwick DG. Premalignant lesions of the prostate. Semin Diagn Pathol 1988;5:240–53.[Medline]
  6. Bostwick DG, Brawer MK. Prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia and early invasion in prostate cancer. Cancer 1987;59:788–94.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Bostwick DG, Qian J. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol 2004;17:360–79.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Bostwick DG, Norlen BJ, Denis L. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: the preinvasive stage of prostate cancer. Overview of the prostate committee report. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 2000;205:1–2.
  9. Bostwick DG, Montironi R, Sesterhenn IA. Diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: Prostate Working Group/consensus report. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 2000;205:10.
  10. Bostwick DG. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a risk factor for cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 1999;17:187–98.[Medline]
  11. Montironi R, Schulman CC. Precursors of prostatic cancer: progression, regression and chemoprevention. Eur Urol 1996;30:133–7.[Medline]
  12. Davidson D, Bostwick DG, Qian J, et al. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a risk factor for adenocarcinoma: predictive accuracy in needle biopsies. J Urol 1995;154:1295–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Davidson D, Siroky M, Rudders R, et al. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is predictive of adenocarcinoma: retrospective study of 100 cases. Mod Pathol 1994;7:72a.
  14. Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Crissman JD, et al. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma between the ages of 20–69: an autopsy study of 249 cases. In Vivo 1994;8:439–44.[Medline]
  15. Lefkowitz GK, Sidhu GS, Torre P, Lepor H, Taneja SS. Is repeat prostate biopsy for high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia necessary after routine 12-core sampling? Urology 2001;58:999–1003.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Naya Y, Ayala AG, Tamboli P, Babaian RJ. Can the number of cores with high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia predict cancer in men who undergo repeat biopsy? Urology 2004;63:503–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Mian BM, Naya Y, Okihara K, Vakar-Lopez F, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Predictors of cancer in repeat extended multisite prostate biopsy in men with previous negative extended multisite biopsy. Urology 2002;60:836–40.[Medline]
  18. Nazeer T, Anwar S, Jennings TA, Ross JS, Mian B. Albany Medical College AN. Impact of extended biopsy schemes on prostatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) detection in repeat biopsy specimens [abstract]. Mod Pathol 2003;16:164A.
  19. O'Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Orozco R, Veltri RW. Analysis of repeated biopsy results within 1 year after a noncancer diagnosis. Urology 2000;55:553–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Burzon D, Brick NJ, Kahnoski R, Bennett JK, Barnette KG, Steiner MS. Men with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) remain at high risk for prostate cancer regardless of whether HGPIN is detected on subsequent biopsies [abstract]. American Urological Association Annual Meeting 2005; May 21–26, 2005.
  21. Dietary reference intakes, vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, and ß-carotene and other carotenoids: overview, antioxidant definition, and relationship to chronic disease. 2000. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.
  22. Willett WC, Morris JS, Pressel S, et al. Prediagnostic serum selenium and risk of cancer. Lancet 1983;2:130–4.[Medline]
  23. Overvad K, Gron P, Langhoff O, Tarp U, Foldspang A, Thorling EB. Selenium in human mammary carcinogenesis: a case-referent study. Eur J Cancer 1991;1:27–30.
  24. Ghadirian P, Maisonneuve P, Perret C, et al. A case-control study of toenail selenium and cancer of the breast, colon, and prostate. Cancer Detect Prev 2000;24:305–13.[Medline]
  25. Van Noord PA, Maas MJ, Van Der Tweel I, Collette C. Selenium and the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in the DOM cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1993;25:11–9.[Medline]
  26. Van Noord PA, Collette HJ, Maas MJ, De Waard F. Selenium levels in nails of premenopausal breast cancer patients assessed prediagnostically in a cohort-nested case-referent study among women screened in the DOM project. Int J Epidemiol 1987;16:318–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Hunter DJ, Morris JS, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Speizer FE, Willett WC. A prospective study of selenium status and breast cancer risk. JAMA 1990;264:1128–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Van't Veer P, Van der Wielen RP, Kok FJ, Hermus RJ, Sturmans F. Selenium in diet, blood, and toenails in relation to breast cancer: a case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 1990;131:987–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Van Den Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA, Van't Veer P, et al. Toenail selenium levels and the risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:20–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Garland M, Morris JS, Stampfer MJ, et al. Prospective study of toenail selenium levels and cancer among women. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:497–505.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Ratnasinghe D, Tangrea JA, Forman MR, et al. Serum tocopherols, selenium and lung cancer risk among tin miners in China. Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:129–35.[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Knekt P, Marniemi J, Teppo L, Heliovaara M, Aromaa A. Is low selenium status a risk factor for lung cancer? Am J Epidemiol 1998;148:975–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Kabuto M, Imai H, Yonezawa C, et al. Prediagnostic serum selenium and zinc levels and subsequent risk of lung and stomach cancer in Japan. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1994;3:465–9.[Abstract]
  34. Van Den Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA, Van't Veer P, et al. A prospective cohort study on selenium status and the risk of lung cancer. Cancer Res 1993;53:4860–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Nelson RL, Davis FG, Sutter E, et al. Serum selenium and colonic neoplastic risk. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:1306–10.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Schober SE, Comstock GW, Helsing KJ, et al. Serologic precursors of cancer. I. Prediagnostic serum nutrients and colon cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 1987;126:1033–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Van Den Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA, Van't Veer P, et al. A prospective cohort study on toenail selenium levels and risk of gastrointestinal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:224–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Nomura AM, Lee J, Stemmermann GN, Combs GF. Serum selenium and subsequent risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:883–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Coates RJ, Weiss NS, Daling JR, Morris JS, Labbe RF. Serum levels of selenium and retinol and the subsequent risk of cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1988;128:515–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Yoshizawa K, Willett WC, Morris SJ, et al. Study of prediagnostic selenium level in toenails and the risk of advanced prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1219–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Helzlsouer KJ, Huang HY, Alberg AJ, et al. Association between {alpha}-tocopherol, {gamma}-tocopherol, selenium, and subsequent prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:2018–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Salonen JT, Alfthan G, Huttunen JK, Puska P. Association between serum selenium and the risk of cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1984;120:342–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Salonen JT, Salonen R, Lappetelainen R, Maenpaa PH, Alfthan G, Puska P. Risk of cancer in relation to serum concentrations of selenium and vitamins A and E: matched case-control analysis of prospective data. Br Med J 1985;290:417–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Reinhold U, Biltz H, Bayer W, Schmidt KH. Serum selenium levels in patient with malignant melanoma. Acta Derm Venereol 1989;69:132–6.[Medline]
  45. Fex G, Pettersson B, Akesson B. Low plasma selenium as a risk factor for cancer death in middle-aged men. Nutr Cancer 1987;10:221–9.[Medline]
  46. Kok FJ, De Bruijn AM, Hofman A, Vermeeren R, Valkenburg HA. Is serum selenium a risk factor for cancer in men only? Am J Epidemiol 1987;125:12–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Nomura A, Heilbrun LK, Morris JS, Stemmermann GN. Serum selenium and the risk of cancer, by specific sites: case-control analysis of prospective data. J Natl Cancer Inst 1987;79:103–8.[Medline]
  48. Comstock GW, Alberg AJ, Huang HY, et al. The risk of developing lung cancer associated with antioxidants in the blood: ascorbic acid, carotenoids, {alpha}-tocopherol, selenium, and total peroxyl radical absorbing capacity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997;6:907–16.[Abstract]
  49. Mark SD, Qiao YL, Dawsey SM, et al. Prospective study of serum selenium levels and incident esophageal and gastric cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1753–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Burney PG, Comstock GW, Morris JS. Serologic precursors of cancer: serum micronutrients and the subsequent risk of pancreatic cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1989;49:895–900.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Glattre E, Thomassen Y, Thoresen SO, et al. Prediagnostic serum selenium in a case-control study of thyroid cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:45–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Vinceti M, Rovesti S, Gabrielli C, et al. Cancer mortality in a residential cohort exposed to environmental selenium through drinking water. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1091–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  53. Vinceti M, Rothman KJ, Bergomi M, Borciani N, Serra L, Vivoli G. Excess melanoma incidence in a cohort exposed to high levels of environmental selenium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998;7:353–7.
  54. Breslow RA, Alberg AJ, Helzlsouer KJ, et al. Serological precursors of cancer: malignant melanoma, basal and squamous cell skin cancer, and prediagnostic levels of retinol, ß-carotene, lycopene, {alpha}-tocopherol, and selenium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1995;4:837–42.[Abstract]
  55. Helzlsouer KJ, Comstock GW, Morris JS. Selenium, lycopene, {alpha}-tocopherol, ß-carotene, retinol, and subsequent bladder cancer. Cancer Res 1989;49:6144–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Zheng W, Blot WJ, Diamond EL, et al. Serum micronutrients and the subsequent risk of oral and pharyngeal cancer. Cancer Res 1993;53:795–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Blot WJ, Li JY, Taylor PR, et al. Nutrition intervention trials in Linxian, China: supplementation with specific vitamin/mineral combinations, cancer incidence, and disease-specific mortality in the general population. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1483–92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Clark LC, Combs GF, Turnbull BW, et al. Effects of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in patients with carcinoma of the skin. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1996;276:1957–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Duffield-Lillico AJ, Dalkin BL, Reid ME, et al. Selenium supplementation, baseline plasma selenium status and incidence of prostate cancer: an analysis of the complete treatment period of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial. BJU Int 2003;91:608–12.[CrossRef][Medline]
  60. Duffield-Lillico AJ, Reid ME, Turnbull BW, et al. Baseline characteristics and the effect of selenium supplementation on cancer incidence in a randomized clinical trial: a summary report of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:630–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Colditz GA. Selenium and cancer prevention promising results indicate further trials required. JAMA 1996;276:1984–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Klein EA, Thompson IM, Lippman SM, et al. SELECT: the next prostate cancer prevention trial. J Urol 2001;166:1311–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  63. Uden PC, Boakye HT, Kahakachchi C, et al. Element selective characterization of stability and reactivity of selenium species in selenized yeast. J Anal At Spectrom 2003;18:1–10.[CrossRef]
  64. Ip C, Dong Y, Ganther H. New concepts in selenium chemoprevention. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2002;21:281–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  65. Gallee MPW, Jong E V-D, Ten Kate FJW, Schroeder FH, Van Der Kwast ThH. Monoclonal antibody Ki67 defined growth fraction in benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1989;142:1342–6.[Medline]
  66. Oomens E, Van Steenbrugge G, Van Der Kwast T, Schroeder F. Application of the monoclonal antibody Ki67 on prostate biopsies to assess the proliferative cell fraction of human prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1991;145:81–5.[Medline]
  67. Gavrieli Y, Sherman Y, Ben-Sasson S. Identification of programmed cell death in situ via specific labeling of nuclear DNA fragmentation. J Cell Biol 1992;119:493–501.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Hu G, Cassano P. Antioxidant nutrients and pulmonary function: the Third National Health and Examination Survey. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:951–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
J. Bleys, A. Navas-Acien, M. Laclaustra, R. Pastor-Barriuso, A. Menke, J. Ordovas, S. Stranges, and E. Guallar
Serum Selenium and Peripheral Arterial Disease: Results From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2004
Am. J. Epidemiol., April 15, 2009; 169(8): 996 - 1003.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
J. Bleys, A. Navas-Acien, S. Stranges, A. Menke, E. R Miller III, and E. Guallar
Serum selenium and serum lipids in US adults
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, August 1, 2008; 88(2): 416 - 423.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
J. Bleys, A. Navas-Acien, and E. Guallar
Selenium and Diabetes: More Bad News for Supplements
Ann Intern Med, August 21, 2007; 147(4): 271 - 272.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
J. Bleys, A. Navas-Acien, and E. Guallar
Serum Selenium and Diabetes in U.S. Adults
Diabetes Care, April 1, 2007; 30(4): 829 - 834.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Crawford, E. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Crawford, E. D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Clinical Intervention
Right arrow Clinical Intervention: Definitive (Phase III) Clinical or Translational Trials

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online