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.

This study demonstrated a close relation between coronary artery endothelium-dependent vasomotor responses to acetylcholine and flow-mediated vasodilation in the brachial artery. This noninvasive method may become a useful surrogate in assessing the predisposition to atherosclerosis in patients with cardiac risk factors.

Acetylcholine is believed to dilate normal blood vessels by promoting the release of a vasorelaxant substance from the endothelium (endothelium-derived relaxing factor). By contrast, if the endothelium is removed experimentally, acetylcholine constricts blood vessels. We tested the hypothesis that muscarinic cholinergic vasodilation is impaired in coronary atherosclerosis. Graded concentrations of acetylcholine and, for comparison, the nonendothelial-dependent vasodilator nitroglycerin were infused into the left anterior descending artery of eight patients with advanced coronary stenoses (greater than 50 percent narrowing), four subjects with angiographically normal coronary arteries, and six patients with mild coronary atherosclerosis (less than 20 percent narrowing). Vascular responses were evaluated by quantitative angiography. In several segments each of four normal coronary arteries, acetylcholine caused a dose-dependent dilation from a control diameter of 1.94 +/- 0.16 mm to 2.16 +/- 0.15 mm with the maximal acetylcholine dose (P less than 0.01). In contrast, all eight of the arteries with advanced stenoses showed dose-dependent constriction, from 1.05 +/- 0.05 to 0.32 +/- 0.16 mm at the highest concentration of acetylcholine (P less than 0.01), with temporary occlusion in five. Five of six vessels with minimal disease also constricted in response to acetylcholine. All vessels dilated in response to nitroglycerin, however. We conclude that paradoxical vasoconstriction induced by acetylcholine occurs early as well as late in the course of coronary atherosclerosis. Our preliminary findings suggest that the abnormal vascular response to acetylcholine may represent a defect in endothelial vasodilator function, and may be important in the pathogenesis of coronary vasospasm.