Multiple epidemiological studies have documented an association between metformin, used for treatment of type 2 diabetes, and reduced cancer incidence and mortality. Cell line models may not ...accurately reflect the effects of metformin in the clinical setting. Moreover, findings from animal model studies have been inconsistent, whilst those from more recent epidemiological studies have tempered the overall effect size. The purpose of this review is to examine metformin’s chemopreventive potential by outlining relevant mechanisms of action, the most recent epidemiologic evidence, and recently completed and ongoing clinical trials. Although repurposing drugs with excellent safety profiles is an appealing strategy for cancer prevention and treatment in the adjuvant setting, there is no substitute for well-executed, large randomised clinical trials to define efficacy and determine the populations that are most likely to benefit from an intervention. Thus, enthusiasm remains for understanding the role of metformin in cancer through ongoing clinical research.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OBVAL, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
The selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM) tamoxifen became the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agent for reducing breast cancer risk but did not gain wide acceptance for ...prevention, largely because it increased endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. The FDA approved the SERM raloxifene for breast cancer risk reduction following its demonstrated effectiveness in preventing invasive breast cancer in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR). Raloxifene caused less toxicity (versus tamoxifen), including reduced thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer. In this report, we present an updated analysis with an 81-month median follow-up. STAR women were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/d) or raloxifene (60 mg/d) for 5 years. The risk ratio (RR; raloxifene:tamoxifen) for invasive breast cancer was 1.24 (95% confidence interval CI, 1.05-1.47) and for noninvasive disease, 1.22 (95% CI, 0.95-1.59). Compared with initial results, the RRs widened for invasive and narrowed for noninvasive breast cancer. Toxicity RRs (raloxifene:tamoxifen) were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.36-0.83; P = 0.003) for endometrial cancer (this difference was not significant in the initial results), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.12-0.29) for uterine hyperplasia, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.60-0.93) for thromboembolic events. There were no significant mortality differences. Long-term raloxifene retained 76% of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in preventing invasive disease and grew closer over time to tamoxifen in preventing noninvasive disease, with far less toxicity (e.g., highly significantly less endometrial cancer). These results have important public health implications and clarify that both raloxifene and tamoxifen are good preventive choices for postmenopausal women with elevated risk for breast cancer.
Background: Initial findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (P-1) demonstrated that tamoxifen reduced the risk of estrogen ...receptor–positive tumors and osteoporotic fractures in women at increased risk for breast cancer. Side effects of varying clinical significance were observed. The trial was unblinded because of the positive results, and follow-up continued. This report updates our initial findings. Methods: Women (n = 13 388) were randomly assigned to receive placebo or tamoxifen for 5 years. Rates of breast cancer and other events were compared by the use of risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Estimates of the net benefit from 5 years of tamoxifen therapy were compared by age, race, and categories of predicted breast cancer risk. Statistical tests were two-sided. Results: After 7 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was reduced from 42.5 per 1000 women in the placebo group to 24.8 per 1000 women in the tamoxifen group (RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.70) and the cumulative rate of noninvasive breast cancer was reduced from 15.8 per 1000 women in the placebo group to 10.2 per 1000 women in the tamoxifen group (RR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.89). These reductions were similar to those seen in the initial report. Tamoxifen led to a 32% reduction in osteoporotic fractures (RR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.92). Relative risks of stroke, deep-vein thrombosis, and cataracts (which increased with tamoxifen) and of ischemic heart disease and death (which were not changed with tamoxifen) were also similar to those initially reported. Risks of pulmonary embolism were approximately 11% lower than in the original report, and risks of endometrial cancer were about 29% higher, but these differences were not statistically significant. The net benefit achieved with tamoxifen varied according to age, race, and level of breast cancer risk. Conclusions: Despite the potential bias caused by the unblinding of the P-1 trial, the magnitudes of all beneficial and undesirable treatment effects of tamoxifen were similar to those initially reported, with notable reductions in breast cancer and increased risks of thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer. Readily identifiable subsets of individuals comprising 2.5 million women could derive a net benefit from the drug.
The use of finasteride to prevent prostate cancer reduced the risk of low-grade tumors by 43%, as compared with placebo. High-grade tumors were more common in the finasteride group, but long-term ...follow-up did not show a significant between-group difference in survival.
With the advent of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the late 1980s, the rate of diagnosis of prostate cancer rose dramatically. Currently, a man in the United States has a 16.5% lifetime risk of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer.
1
The timing and magnitude of the 44% reduction in prostate-cancer mortality after the widespread adoption of PSA testing suggest that both screening and treatment improvements have contributed to this decline.
2
Unfortunately, treatments for prostate cancer (radiation and surgery) are associated with a substantial risk of side effects, including sexual, urinary, and bowel complications, that can dramatically affect quality of life. . . .
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 ...statistically nonsignificant 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 A total of 35 533 men from 427 study sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico were randomized between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Eligibility criteria included a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 4.0 ng/mL or less, a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer, and age 50 years or older for black men and 55 years or older for all others. The primary analysis included 34 887 men who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: 8752 to receive selenium; 8737, vitamin E; 8702, both agents, and 8696, placebo. Analysis reflect the final data collected by the study sites on their participants through July 5, 2011. INTERVENTIONS Oral selenium (200 μg/d 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 and 521 additional cases of prostate cancer since the primary report. Compared with the placebo (referent group) in which 529 men developed prostate cancer, 620 men in the vitamin E group developed prostate cancer (hazard ratio HR, 1.17; 99% CI, 1.004-1.36, P = .008); as did 575 in the selenium group (HR, 1.09; 99% CI, 0.93-1.27; P = .18), and 555 in the selenium plus vitamin E group (HR, 1.05; 99% CI, 0.89-1.22, P = .46). Compared with placebo, the absolute increase in risk of prostate cancer per 1000 person-years was 1.6 for vitamin E, 0.8 for selenium, and 0.4 for the combination. CONCLUSION Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00006392
Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer Cuzick, Jack, Prof; Thorat, Mangesh A, MBBS; Andriole, Gerald, Prof ...
Lancet oncology/Lancet. Oncology,
10/2014, Volume:
15, Issue:
11
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Summary Prostate cancer is a common malignancy in men and the worldwide burden of this disease is rising. Lifestyle modifications such as smoking cessation, exercise, and weight control offer ...opportunities to reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Early detection of prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial, but changes in the PSA threshold, frequency of screening, and the use of other biomarkers have the potential to minimise the overdiagnosis associated with PSA screening. Several new biomarkers for individuals with raised PSA concentrations or those diagnosed with prostate cancer are likely to identify individuals who can be spared aggressive treatment. Several pharmacological agents such as 5α-reductase inhibitors and aspirin could prevent development of prostate cancer. In this Review, we discuss the present evidence and research questions regarding prevention, early detection of prostate cancer, and management of men either at high risk of prostate cancer or diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
The initial report on finasteride for prevention of prostate cancer documented a reduction in prostate cancers but a paradoxical increase in high-grade tumors. Prolonged follow-up and surveillance ...revealed that the number of deaths from prostate cancer was not increased by finasteride.
Early phase cancer prevention trials are designed to demonstrate safety, tolerability, feasibility, and signals of efficacy of preventive agents. Yet it is often observed that many trials fail to ...detect intervention effects. We conducted a systematic review and pooled analyses of recently completed early phase chemoprevention trials to gain in depth insight on the failure of detecting efficacy signals by comparing hypothesized effect sizes to the corresponding observed effect sizes.Single- or multi-arm efficacy chemoprevention trials conducted under the phase 0/I/II Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Program of the Division of Cancer Prevention, NCI between 2003 and 2019 were evaluated. A total of 59 chemoprevention trials were reviewed. Twenty-four studies were efficacy or biomarker trials with complete information on hypothesized and observed effect sizes and included in this analysis. The majority of the trials (n = 18) were multi-arm randomized studies of which 15 trials were blinded. The pooled estimate of the observed to hypothesized effect size ratio was 0.57 (95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.73, P < 0.001) based on a random-effects model. There were no significant differences detected in the ratio of observed to hypothesized effect sizes when conducting various subgroup analyses.The results demonstrate that the majority of early phase cancer chemoprevention trials have substantially smaller observed effect sizes than hypothesized effect sizes. Sample size calculations for early phase chemoprevention trials need to balance the potential detectable effect sizes with realistic and cost-effective accrual of study populations, thereby, detecting only intervention effects large enough to justify subsequent large-scale confirmatory trials.
The results of this systematic review and pooled analyses demonstrate that for early chemoprevention trials, there are substantial differences between hypothesized and observed effect sizes, regardless of study characteristics. The conduct of early phase chemoprevention trial requires careful planning of study design, primary endpoint, and sample size determination.
This randomized trial tested the idea that finasteride, which inhibits the production of androgens within the prostate, can prevent prostate cancer. The participants were to receive finasteride or a ...placebo daily for seven years. Prostate cancer was found in 18.4 percent of the men in the finasteride group and in 24.4 percent of those in the placebo group. Higher-grade cancers (Gleason score, 7, 8, 9, or 10) were more common in the finasteride group than in the placebo group. Sexual dysfunction was more common in the finasteride group, and urinary difficulties were more common in the placebo group.
A test of the idea that finasteride can prevent prostate cancer.
To date, the management of prostate cancer, the most common nondermatologic neoplasm in men in the United States, has focused on early diagnosis and treatment. Given that the development of prostate cancer is a long-term process involving multiple steps, however, prevention may be a more effective approach.
There is abundant evidence that androgens influence the development of prostate cancer.
1
–
3
The development of finasteride, an inhibitor of steroid 5α-reductase, the enzyme that converts testosterone to the more potent androgen dihydrotestosterone, created an opportunity to test the possibility that lowering the androgen levels in the prostate would reduce the risk of . . .
Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain tamoxifen resistance of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive tumors, but a clinically useful explanation for such resistance has not been described. ...Because the ER is the treatment target for tamoxifen, a linear association between ER expression levels and the degree of benefit from tamoxifen might be expected. However, such an association has never been demonstrated with conventional clinical ER assays, and the ER is currently used clinically as a dichotomous marker. We used gene expression profiling and ER protein assays to help elucidate molecular mechanism(s) responsible for tamoxifen resistance in breast tumors.
We performed gene expression profiling of paraffin-embedded tumors from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) trials that tested the worth of tamoxifen as an adjuvant systemic therapy (B-14) and as a preventive agent (P-1). This was a retrospective subset analysis based on available materials.
In B-14, ESR1 was the strongest linear predictor of tamoxifen benefit among 16 genes examined, including PGR and ERBB2. On the basis of these data, we hypothesized that, in the P-1 trial, a lower level of ESR1 mRNA in the tamoxifen arm was the main difference between the two study arms. Only ESR1 was downregulated by more than two-fold in ER-positive cancer events in the tamoxifen arm (P < .001). Tamoxifen did not prevent ER-positive tumors with low levels of ESR1 expression.
These data suggest that low-level expression of ESR1 is a determinant of tamoxifen resistance in ER-positive breast cancer. Strategies should be developed to identify, treat, and prevent such tumors.
PDF
