Context Secondary analyses of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and supportive epidemiologic and preclinical indicated the potential of selenium and vitamin E for preventing prostate cancer. Objective To determine whether selenium or vitamin E or both could prevent prostate cancer with little or no toxicity in relatively healthy men. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomization of a planned 32,400 men to selenium, vitamin E, selenium plus vitamin E, and placebo in a double-blinded fashion. Participants were recruited and followed in community practices, local hospitals and HMOs, and tertiary cancer centers in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Baseline eligibility included 50 years or older (African American) or 55 years or older (all others), a serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 4 ng/mL, and a digital rectal examination (DRE) not suspicious for prostate cancer. Between 2001 and 2004, 35,533 men (10% more than planned because of a faster-than-expected accrual rate) were randomly assigned to the four study arms, which were well balanced with respect to all potentially important risk factors. Interventions Oral selenium (200 µg/day from L-selenomethionine) and matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/day of all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate) and matched selenium placebo, or the two combined or placebo plus placebo for a planned minimum of 7 and maximum of 12 years. Main Outcome Measures Prostate cancer (as determined by routine community diagnostic standards) and prespecified secondary outcomes including lung, colorectal and overall cancer. Results Study supplements were discontinued at the recommendation of the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee at a planned 7-year interim analysis because the evidence convincingly demonstrated no benefit from either study agent (p < 0.0001) and no possibility of a benefit to the planned degree with additional follow-up. As of October 23, 2008, median overall follow-up was 5.46 years (range, 4.17 and 7.33). Hazard ratios (number of prostate cancers, 99% confidence intervals [CIs]) for prostate cancer were 1.13 for vitamin E (n=473; CI, 0.91–1.41), 1.04 for selenium (n=432; CI, 0.83–1.30), and 1.05 for the combination (n=437; CI, 0.83–1.31) compared with placebo (n=416). There were no significant differences (all p-values > 0.15) in any prespecified cancer endpoints. There were nonsignificant increased risks of prostate cancer in the vitamin E arm (p=0.06; relative risk [RR]=1.13; 99% CI, 0l95–1.35) and of Type 2 diabetes mellitus in the selenium arm (p=0.16; RR=1.07; 99% CI, 0.94–1.22), but they were not observed in the combination arm. Conclusion Selenium or vitamin E, alone or in combination, did not prevent prostate cancer in this population at the doses and formulations used.

Importance Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer trials are currently reported by clinicians using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). To integrate the patient perspective, the NCI developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) to capture symptomatic AEs directly from patients. Objective To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items. Design Participants completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at two visits 1-6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit one business day after the first visit. Setting Nine U.S. cancer centers and community oncology practices. Participants 975 adult cancer patients undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation enrolled between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligibility required participants to read English and be without clinically significant cognitive impairment. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Results 940/975 (96%) and 852/940 (91%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at each visit. 938/940 (99.8%) participants (53% female, median age 59, 32% high school education or less, 17% ECOG PS 2-4) reported having at least one symptom. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least one correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111/124 P<.05). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually-related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94/124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2-4 versus 0-1 group (58/124 P<.05). Overall, 119/124 items met at least one construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for 36/49 pre-specified items (median intra-class correlation coefficient .76; range .53-.96). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes reached statistical significance for 27 pre-specified items (median r=.43, range .10-.56; all P≤.006). Conclusions and Relevance Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous U.S. sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are underway to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

Consolidation docetaxel after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage IIIB NSCLC is feasible and generally tolerable, and results compare favorably with the predecessor trial S9019. Nevertheless, this study remains hypothesis-generating and does not provide definitive evidence of the benefit of this approach. Phase III trials evaluating the S9504 regimen have been initiated to validate these results.