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.

Biopsy-detected prostate cancer, including high-grade cancers, is not rare among men with PSA levels of 4.0 ng per milliliter or less--levels generally thought to be in the normal range.

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

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.

Context The initial report of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) found no reduction in risk of prostate cancer with either selenium or vitamin E supplements but a non-statistically significant increase in prostate cancer risk with vitamin E. Longer follow-up and more prostate cancer events provide further insight into the relationship of vitamin E and prostate cancer. Objective To determine the long-term effect of vitamin E and selenium on risk of prostate cancer in relatively healthy men. Design, Setting and Participants SELECT randomized 35,533 men from 427 study sites in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico in a double-blind manner between August 22, 2001 and June 24, 2004. Eligible men were 50 years or older (African Americans) or 55 years or older (all others) with a PSA ≤4.0 ng/mL and a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer. Included in the analysis are 34,887 men randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: selenium (n=8752), vitamin E (n=8737), both agents (n=8702), or placebo (n=8696). Data reflect the final data collected by the study sites on their participants through July 5, 2011. Interventions Oral selenium (200 μg/day from L-selenomethionine) with matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate) with matched selenium placebo, both agents, or both matched placebos for a planned follow-up of a minimum of 7 and maximum of 12 years. Main Outcome Measures Prostate cancer incidence. Results This report includes 54,464 additional person-years of follow-up since the primary report. Hazard ratios (99% confidence intervals [CI]) and numbers of prostate cancers were 1.17(99% CI 1.004-1.36, p=.008, n=620) for vitamin E, 1.09 (99% CI 0.93-1.27, p=.18, n=575) for selenium, 1.05 (99%CI 0.89-1.22, p=.46, n=555) for selenium + vitamin E vs. 1.00 (n=529) for placebo.The absolute increase in risk compared with placebo for vitamin E, selenium and the combination were 1.6, 0.9 and 0.4 cases of prostate cancer per 1,000 person-years. Conclusions Dietary supplementation with Vitamin E significantly increases the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00006392