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.
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
The Early Phase Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Program (Consortia), led by the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, supports and conducts trials assessing safety, ...tolerability, and cancer preventive potential of a variety of interventions. Accrual to cancer prevention trials includes the recruitment of unaffected populations, posing unique challenges related to minimizing participant burden and risk, given the less evident or measurable benefits to individual participants. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program was developed to address these challenges and better understand the multiple determinants of accrual activity throughout the life of the trial. Through continuous monitoring of accrual data, Accrual Quality Improvement Program identifies positive and negative factors in real-time to optimize enrollment rates for ongoing and future trials.
The Accrual Quality Improvement Program provides a web-based centralized infrastructure for collecting, analyzing, visualizing, and storing qualitative and quantitative participant-, site-, and study-level data. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program approaches cancer prevention clinical trial accrual as multi-factorial, recognizing protocol design, potential participants' characteristics, and individual site as well as study-wide implementation issues.
The Accrual Quality Improvement Program was used across 39 Consortia trials from 2014 to 2022 to collect comprehensive trial information. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program captures data at the participant level, including number of charts reviewed, potential participants contacted and reasons why participants were not eligible for contact or did not consent to the trial or start intervention. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program also captures site-level (e.g. staffing issues) and study-level (e.g. when protocol amendments are made) data at each step of the recruitment/enrollment process, from potential participant identification to contact, consent, intervention, and study completion using a Recruitment Journal. Accrual Quality Improvement Program's functionality also includes tracking and visualization of a trial's cumulative accrual rate compared to the projected accrual rate, including a zone-based performance rating with corresponding quality improvement intervention recommendations.
The challenges associated with recruitment and timely completion of early phase cancer prevention clinical trials necessitate a data collection program capable of continuous collection and quality improvement. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program collects cumulative data across National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention early phase clinical trials, providing the opportunity for real-time review of participant-, site-, and study-level data and thereby enables responsive recruitment strategy and protocol modifications for improved recruitment rates to ongoing trials. Of note, Accrual Quality Improvement Program data collected from ongoing trials will inform future trials to optimize protocol design and maximize accrual efficiency.
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.
To update the 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer (BC) risk reduction.
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and ...meta-analyses published from June 2007 through June 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Collaboration Library. Primary outcome of interest was BC incidence (invasive and noninvasive). Secondary outcomes included BC mortality, adverse events, and net health benefits. Guideline recommendations were revised based on an Update Committee's review of the literature.
Nineteen articles met the selection criteria. Six chemoprevention agents were identified: tamoxifen, raloxifene, arzoxifene, lasofoxifene, exemestane, and anastrozole.
In women at increased risk of BC age ≥ 35 years, tamoxifen (20 mg per day for 5 years) should be discussed as an option to reduce the risk of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive BC. In postmenopausal women, raloxifene (60 mg per day for 5 years) and exemestane (25 mg per day for 5 years) should also be discussed as options for BC risk reduction. Those at increased BC risk are defined as individuals with a 5-year projected absolute risk of BC ≥ 1.66% (based on the National Cancer Institute BC Risk Assessment Tool or an equivalent measure) or women diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ. Use of other selective ER modulators or other aromatase inhibitors to lower BC risk is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. Health care providers are encouraged to discuss the option of chemoprevention among women at increased BC risk. The discussion should include the specific risks and benefits associated with each chemopreventive agent.
Summary Background Tamoxifen and raloxifene reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at elevated risk of disease, but the duration of the effect is unknown. We assessed the effectiveness of ...selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) on breast cancer incidence. Methods We did a meta-analysis with individual participant data from nine prevention trials comparing four selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; tamoxifen, raloxifene, arzoxifene, and lasofoxifene) with placebo, or in one study with tamoxifen. Our primary endpoint was incidence of all breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ) during a 10 year follow-up period. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results We analysed data for 83 399 women with 306 617 women-years of follow-up. Median follow-up was 65 months (IQR 54–93). Overall, we noted a 38% reduction (hazard ratio HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·56–0·69) in breast cancer incidence, and 42 women would need to be treated to prevent one breast cancer event in the first 10 years of follow-up. The reduction was larger in the first 5 years of follow-up than in years 5–10 (42%, HR 0·58, 0·51–0·66; p<0·0001 vs 25%, 0·75, 0·61–0·93; p=0·007), but we noted no heterogeneity between time periods. Thromboembolic events were significantly increased with all SERMs (odds ratio 1·73, 95% CI 1·47–2·05; p<0·0001). We recorded a significant reduction of 34% in vertebral fractures (0·66, 0·59–0·73), but only a small effect for non-vertebral fractures (0·93, 0·87–0·99). Interpretation For all SERMs, incidence of invasive oestrogen (ER)-positive breast cancer was reduced both during treatment and for at least 5 years after completion. Similar to other preventive interventions, careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to identify women who are most likely to benefit from these drugs. Funding Cancer Research UK.
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.
PDF
