Effect of nutritional supplement challenge in patients with isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia

Nutritional Supplement With Fermented Soy in Men With an Elevated Risk of Prostate Cancer and Negative Prostate Biopsies: General and Oncological Results From the Prospective PRAECAP Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of a dietary supplement containing fermented soy on PSA, IPSS, changes in prostate volume and prostate cancer (PCa) development after a 6-month challenge in men at increased risk of PCa and negative previous biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with an elevated risk of PCa, defined by either 1 of the following criteria: PSA >3 ng/mL, suspect lesion at digital rectal examination (DRE), suspect lesion at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and previous negative prostate biopsies (at least 8 cores) within 12 months before inclusion. Statistical analysis was carried out using a non-parametric 1-sided paired Wilcoxon rank sum test, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

In this trial, 94 patients were eligible for analysis. A PSA response was detected in 81% of the cases. In 25.8% (24/93) of patients, a decrease of at least 3 points on the IPSS was observed. The median prostate volume did not statistically change after 6 months (P = .908). Patients with PSA modulation required fewer investigations and had fewer positive biopsies (P <.001) and significantly fewer ISUP ≥3 lesions (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

We observed a significantly lower PSA level after a 6-month challenge with a fermented soy-containing supplement, and an effect on IPSS in a subset of patients. Prescribing a fermented soy supplement in patients with an increased PCa risk could lead to a better selection of patients at real increased risk of having occult PCa.

Quantifying the Contributions of Environmental Factors to Prostate Cancer and Detecting Risk-Related Diet Metrics and Racial Disparities

The relevance of nongenetic factors to prostate cancer (PCa) has been elusive. We aimed to quantify the contributions of environmental factors to PCa and identify risk-related diet metrics and relevant racial disparities. We performed a unique analysis of the Diet History Questionnaire data of 41 830 European Americans (EAs) and 1282 African Americans (AAs) in the PLCO project. The independent variables in the regression models consisted of age at trial entry, race, family history of prostate cancer (PCa-fh), diabetes history, body mass index (BMI), lifestyle (smoking and coffee consumption), marital status, and a specific nutrient/food factor (X). P < .05 and a 95% confidence interval excluding zero were adopted as the criteria for determining a significant difference (effect). We established a priority ranking among PCa risk-related genetic and environmental factors according to the deviances explained by them in the multivariate Cox-PH regression analysis: age > PCa-fh > diabetes ⩾ race > lifestyle ⩾marital-status ⩾BMI > X. We confirmed previous studies showing that (1) high protein and saturated fat levels in diet were related to increased PCa risk, (2) high-level supplementary selenium intake was harmful rather than beneficial for preventing PCa, and (3) supplementary vitamin B6 was beneficial for preventing benign PCa. We obtained the following novel findings: high-level organ meat intake was an independent predictor for increased aggressive PCa risk; supplementary iron, copper and magnesium increased benign PCa risk; and the AA diet was "healthy" in terms of the relatively lower protein and fat levels and was "unhealthy" in that it more commonly contained organ meat. In conclusion, we established a priority ranking among the contributing factors for PCa and identified several risk-related diet metrics and the racial disparities. Our findings suggested some new approaches to prevent PCa such as restriction of organ meat intake and supplementary microminerals.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Six-Month Intervention Study of Soy Protein Isolate in Men with Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy: A Pilot Study

There is evidence to suggest that soy may be beneficial for prostate cancer patients, but few randomized trials have addressed this. We examined the effect of 6-8 mo soy protein supplementation on prostate specific antigen (PSA) serum levels in men who recurred (PSA > 0.1 ng/ml) within three years of prostatectomy. Sixteen men were randomized to 20 g soy protein (∼24-26/day genistein; ∼40-43/day total isoflavones) or casein placebo. PSA was measured at base line and at 1, 2, 4, and 6-8 mo. Serum genistein levels greatly increased from baseline and cholesterol decreased in the soy group. In both treatment arms PSA increased similarly and PSA doubling times were not different over the 6-8 mo study duration. Two subjects in each group had stable PSA. A literature search for clinical studies of soy, isoflavones, and PSA revealed that supplementation with soy or isoflavones did not affect PSA in virtually all clinical studies identified. Although this study is too small to draw a definitive conclusion on the effect of soy protein on PSA in men with biochemical failure, the null finding in this study is consistent with the results of virtually all reports of soy and soy isoflavones in the literature.

Selenium Supplementation and Prostate Health in a New Zealand Cohort

Background: There is variable reporting on the benefits of a 200 μg/d selenium supplementation towards reducing prostate cancer impacts. The current analysis is to understand whether stratified groups receive supplementation benefits on prostate health. Methods: 572 men were supplemented with 200 µg/d selenium as selinized yeast for six months, and 481 completed the protocol. Selenium and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were measured in serum at pre- and post-supplementation. Changes in selenium and PSA levels subsequent to supplementation were assessed with and without demographic, lifestyle, genetic and dietary stratifications. Results: The post-supplementation selenium (p = 0.002) and the gain in selenium (p < 0.0001) by supplementation were significantly dependent on the baseline selenium level. Overall, there was no significant correlation between changes in PSA and changes in selenium levels by supplementation. However, stratified analyses showed a significant inverse correlation between changes in PSA and changes in selenium in men below the median age (p = 0.048), never-smokers (p = 0.031), men carrying the GPX1 rs1050450 T allele (CT, p = 0.022 and TT, p = 0.011), dietary intakes above the recommended daily intake (RDI) for zinc (p < 0.05), and below the RDI for vitamin B12 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The current analysis shows the influence of life factors on prostate health benefits of supplemental selenium.

Selenium for preventing cancer

BACKGROUND

This review is the third update of the Cochrane review "Selenium for preventing cancer". Selenium is a naturally occurring element with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To gather and present evidence needed to address two research questions:1. What is the aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans?2. Describe the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid, 2013 to January 2017, week 4), and Embase (2013 to 2017, week 6), as well as searches of clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies that enrolled adult participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed random-effects (RE) meta-analyses when two or more RCTs were available for a specific outcome. We conducted RE meta-analyses when five or more observational studies were available for a specific outcome. We assessed risk of bias in RCTs and in observational studies using Cochrane's risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. We considered in the primary analysis data pooled from RCTs with low risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 83 studies in this updated review: two additional RCTs (10 in total) and a few additional trial reports for previously included studies. RCTs involved 27,232 participants allocated to either selenium supplements or placebo. For analyses of RCTs with low risk of bias, the summary risk ratio (RR) for any cancer incidence was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10; 3 studies, 19,475 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for estimated cancer mortality was 1.02 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.30; 1 study, 17,444 participants). For the most frequently investigated site-specific cancers, investigators provided little evidence of any effect of selenium supplementation. Two RCTs with 19,009 participants indicated that colorectal cancer was unaffected by selenium administration (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43), as were non-melanoma skin cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants), lung cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), breast cancer (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 9.55; 1 study, 802 participants), bladder cancer (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.52; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), and prostate cancer (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 4 studies, 18,942 participants). Certainty of the evidence was high for all of these cancer sites, except for breast cancer, which was of moderate certainty owing to imprecision, and non-melanoma skin cancer, which we judged as moderate certainty owing to high heterogeneity. RCTs with low risk of bias suggested increased melanoma risk.Results for most outcomes were similar when we included all RCTs in the meta-analysis, regardless of risk of bias. Selenium supplementation did not reduce overall cancer incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 5 studies, 21,860 participants) nor mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 2 studies, 18,698 participants). Summary RRs for site-specific cancers showed limited changes compared with estimates from high-quality studies alone, except for liver cancer, for which results were reversed.In the largest trial, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial, selenium supplementation increased risks of alopecia and dermatitis, and for participants with highest background selenium status, supplementation also increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. RCTs showed a slightly increased risk of type 2 diabetes associated with supplementation. A hypothesis generated by the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial - that individuals with low blood selenium levels could reduce their risk of cancer (particularly prostate cancer) by increasing selenium intake - has not been confirmed. As RCT participants have been overwhelmingly male (88%), we could not assess the potential influence of sex or gender.We included 15 additional observational cohort studies (70 in total; over 2,360,000 participants). We found that lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 7 studies, 76,239 participants) and lower cancer mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97; 7 studies, 183,863 participants) were associated with the highest category of selenium exposure compared with the lowest. Cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.14, 4 studies, 29,365 men) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, 2 studies, 18,244 women). Data show a decrease in risk of site-specific cancers for stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancers. However, these studies have major weaknesses due to study design, exposure misclassification, and potential unmeasured confounding due to lifestyle or nutritional factors covarying with selenium exposure beyond those taken into account in multi-variable analyses. In addition, no evidence of a dose-response relation between selenium status and cancer risk emerged. Certainty of evidence was very low for each outcome. Some studies suggested that genetic factors might modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk - an issue that merits further investigation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Well-designed and well-conducted RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of selenium supplements in reducing cancer risk (high certainty of evidence). Some RCTs have raised concerns by reporting a higher incidence of high-grade prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes in participants with selenium supplementation. No clear evidence of an influence of baseline participant selenium status on outcomes has emerged in these studies.Observational longitudinal studies have shown an inverse association between selenium exposure and risk of some cancer types, but null and direct relations have also been reported, and no systematic pattern suggesting dose-response relations has emerged. These studies suffer from limitations inherent to the observational design, including exposure misclassification and unmeasured confounding.Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing selenium intake through diet or supplementation prevents cancer in humans. However, more research is needed to assess whether selenium may modify the risk of cancer in individuals with a specific genetic background or nutritional status, and to investigate possible differential effects of various forms of selenium.

Association between selenium and lycopene supplementation and incidence of prostate cancer: Results from the post-hoc analysis of the procomb trial

BACKGROUND

Many potential chemopreventive agents have been used in PCa prevention, including selenium (Se) and lycopene (Ly). However, their role has been matter of debate over the years, due to potential of promotion of PCa.

PURPOSE

In this study we aimed at evaluating the incidence risk of prostate cancer (PCa) in a cohort of patients treated with Se and Ly.

METHODS

The Procomb trial design has been previously published (ISRCTN78639965). From April 2012 to April 2014 209 patients were followed and underwent prostate biopsy when PSA ≥4 ng/ml and/or suspicion of PCa. The all cohort was composed by patients treated with Se and Ly (Group A = 134 patients) and control (Group B = 75 patients).

RESULTS

During the follow-up time of 2 years, a total of 24 patients (11.5%) underwent prostate biopsy, of which 9 (4.3%) where diagnosed with PCa and 15 (7.2%) where diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia. We did not observe statistical differences in terms of mean changes of PSA between the two groups (p-value for trend = 0.33). The relative risk (RR) for PCa was 1.07 and 0.89 in group A and B, respectively (p = 0.95). At the multivariate Cox regression analysis supplementation with Se and Ly was not associated with greater risk of PCa (hazard ratio: 1.38; p = 0.67).

CONCLUSION

In this analysis we did not show evidences supporting a detrimental role of Selenium and Lycopene supplementation in increasing PCa after 2 years of therapy, nor supporting a protective role.

Premalignancy in Prostate Cancer: Rethinking What we Know

High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) has been accepted as the main precursor lesion to invasive adenocarcinoma of the prostate, and this is likely to be the case. However, in an unknown number of cases, lesions fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for high-grade PIN may actually represent intra-acinar or intraductal spread of invasive carcinoma. Intriguingly, this possibility would not contradict many of the findings of previous epidemiologic studies linking high-grade PIN to carcinoma or molecular pathologic studies showing similar genomic (e.g., TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion) as well as epigenomic and molecular phenotypic alterations between high-grade PIN and carcinoma. Also, this possibility would be consistent with previous anatomic studies in prostate specimens linking high-grade PIN and carcinoma in autopsy and other whole prostate specimens. In addition, if some cases meeting morphologic criteria for PIN actually represent intra-acinar spread of invasive carcinoma, this could be an important potential confounder of the interpretation of past clinical trials enrolling patients presumed to be without carcinoma, who are at high risk of invasive carcinoma. Thus, in order to reduce possible bias in future study/trial designs, novel molecular pathology approaches are needed to decipher when an apparent PIN lesion may be intra-acinar/intra-ductal spread of an invasive cancer and when it truly represents a precursor state. Similar approaches are needed for lesions known as intraductal carcinoma to facilitate better classification of them as true intra-ductal/acinar spread on one hand or as precursor high-grade PIN (cribriform type) on the other hand; a number of such molecular approaches (e.g., coevaluating TMPRSS-ERG fusion and PTEN loss) are already showing excellent promise. Cancer Prev Res; 9(8); 648-56. ©2016 AACR.

A randomized double-blind placebo controlled phase I-II study on clinical and molecular effects of dietary supplements in men with precancerous prostatic lesions. Chemoprevention or "chemopromotion"?

BACKGROUND

Antioxidants effectiveness in prostate cancer (PCa) chemoprevention has been severely questioned, especially after the recent results of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial. We present the results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial (dbRCT) on the pharmacokinetic, clinical, and molecular activity of dietary supplements containing lycopene, selenium, and green tea catechins (GTCs) in men with multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (mHGPIN) and/or atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP).

METHODS

From 2009 to 2014, we conducted a dbRCT including 60 patients with primary mHGPIN and/or ASAP receiving daily lycopene 35 mg, selenium 55 µg, and GTCs 600 mg, or placebo for 6 months. Pharmacokinetic analysis were performed with UV-Visible spectrophotometric assay under standard (SC) and accelerated (AC) conditions. Upon plasma lycopene concentrations falling within the expected range (1.2-90 mcg/l) and no side-effects of grade >1, study proceeded to phase II (n = 50). After unblinding of results, eight men (4 per arm, 2 without and 2 with PCa, respectively) were randomly selected and totRNA extracted from "non-pathological" tissues. MicroRNA profiling was performed with the Agilent platform. Raw data processing used R-statistical language and linear models for microarray analysis.

RESULTS

Samples were stable except for lycopene, showing significant degradation (SC = 56%, AC = 59%) and consequently stabilized under vacuum in a dark packaging. Mean plasmatic lycopene concentration was 1,45 ± 0,4 μM. At 6 months, 53 men underwent re-biopsy and 13 (24.5%) were diagnosed with PCa (supplementation n = 10, placebo n = 3 [P = 0.053]). At a mean 37 months follow-up, 3 additional PCa were found in the placebo group. No significant variations in PSA, IPSS, and PR25 questionnaires were observed. Stronger modulation of miRNAs was present on re-biopsy in the supplementation group compared to the placebo, including: (i) overexpression of miRNAs present in PCa versus non-cancer tissue; (ii) underexpression of miRNAs suppressing PCa proliferation; (iii) detection of 35 miRNAs in PCa patients versus disease-free men, including androgen-regulated miR-125b-5p and PTEN-targeting miR-92a-3p (both upregulated).

CONCLUSION

Administration of high doses of lycopene, GTCs, and selenium in men harboring HGPIN and/or ASAP was associated with a higher incidence of PCa at re-biopsy and expression of microRNAs implicated in PCa progression at molecular analysis. The use of these supplements should be avoided.

Selenium for preventing cancer

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of the first Cochrane publication on selenium for preventing cancer (Dennert 2011).Selenium is a metalloid with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancers.

OBJECTIVES

Two research questions were addressed in this review: What is the evidence for:1. an aetiological relation between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans? and2. the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans?

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to February 2013 week 1), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 6), CancerLit (February 2004) and CCMed (February 2011). As MEDLINE now includes the journals indexed in CancerLit, no further searches were conducted in this database after 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective observational studies (cohort studies including sub-cohort controlled studies and nested case-control studies) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthy adult participants (18 years of age and older).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For observational studies, we conducted random effects meta-analyses when five or more studies were retrieved for a specific outcome. For RCTs, we performed random effects meta-analyses when two or more studies were available. The risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using forms adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort and case-control studies; the criteria specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias in RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 55 prospective observational studies (including more than 1,100,000 participants) and eight RCTs (with a total of 44,743 participants). For the observational studies, we found lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.91, N = 8) and cancer mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93, N = 6) associated with higher selenium exposure. Gender-specific subgroup analysis provided no clear evidence of different effects in men and women (P value 0.47), although cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05, N = 6) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, N = 2). The most pronounced decreases in risk of site-specific cancers were seen for stomach, bladder and prostate cancers. However, these findings have limitations due to study design, quality and heterogeneity that complicate interpretation of the summary statistics. Some studies suggested that genetic factors may modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk-a hypothesis that deserves further investigation.In RCTs, we found no clear evidence that selenium supplementation reduced the risk of any cancer (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17, two studies, N = 4765) or cancer-related mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32, two studies, N = 18,698), and this finding was confirmed when the analysis was restricted to studies with low risk of bias. The effect on prostate cancer was imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14, four studies, N = 19,110), and when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of bias, the interventions showed no effect (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14, three studies, N = 18,183). The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer was increased (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17, three studies, N = 1900). Results of two trials-the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial (NPCT) and the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial (SELECT)-also raised concerns about possible increased risk of type 2 diabetes, alopecia and dermatitis due to selenium supplements. An early hypothesis generated by NPCT that individuals with the lowest blood selenium levels at baseline could reduce their risk of cancer, particularly of prostate cancer, by increasing selenium intake has not been confirmed by subsequent trials. As the RCT participants were overwhelmingly male (94%), gender differences could not be systematically assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although an inverse association between selenium exposure and the risk of some types of cancer was found in some observational studies, this cannot be taken as evidence of a causal relation, and these results should be interpreted with caution. These studies have many limitations, including issues with assessment of exposure to selenium and to its various chemical forms, heterogeneity, confounding and other biases. Conflicting results including inverse, null and direct associations have been reported for some cancer types.RCTs assessing the effects of selenium supplementation on cancer risk have yielded inconsistent results, although the most recent studies, characterised by a low risk of bias, found no beneficial effect on cancer risk, more specifically on risk of prostate cancer, as well as little evidence of any influence of baseline selenium status. Rather, some trials suggest harmful effects of selenium exposure. To date, no convincing evidence suggests that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in humans.

Advances in prostate cancer chemoprevention: a translational perspective

Chemopreventive interventions are steadily emerging as an important aspect of cancer management and control. Herein, we have discussed the major epidemiological and clinical studies advocating the role of androgen inhibitors, flavonoids and antioxidants in preventing prostate cancer (PCa). Androgen inhibitors have lately been discussed not only in treatment of PCa, but also as preventive agents especially after trials with Finasteride and Dutasteride. Flavonoids such as silibinin, green tea polyphenols, genistein, curcumin have shown great promise, but avenues to improve their bioavailability are requisite. Agents with antioxidant potentials like lycopene, selenium, and vitamin E have also been explored. Antioxidant trials have yielded mixed results or benefitted only a subgroup of population, although further studies are needed to establish them as preventive agent. Although a majority of the trials resulted in positive outcomes supporting their role as preventive agents; one should be cautious of neutral or negative results as well. For clinical applicability of these agents, we need to identify the ideal target population, time of intervention, appropriate dosage, and extent of intervention required. Incoherency of data with these agents urges for a stringent study design and thorough interpretation to accurately judge the necessity and feasibility of the preventive measures.

Precursors of prostate cancer

High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) is the only accepted precursor of prostatic adenocarcinoma, according to numerous studies of animal models and man; other proposed precursors include atrophy and malignancy-associated changes (with no morphologic changes). PIN is characterized by progressive abnormalities of phenotype and genotype that are intermediate between benign prostatic epithelium and cancer, indicating impairment of cell differentiation and regulatory control with advancing stages of prostatic carcinogenesis. The only method of detection of PIN is biopsy because it does not significantly elevate serum prostate-specific antigen concentration and cannot be detected by ultrasonography. The mean incidence of PIN in biopsies is 9% (range, 4%-16%), representing about 115,000 new cases of isolated PIN diagnosed each year in the United States. The clinical importance of PIN is its high predictive value as a marker for adenocarcinoma, and its identification warrants repeat biopsy for concurrent or subsequent carcinoma, especially when multifocal or observed in association with atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP). Carcinoma develops in most patients with PIN within 10 years. Androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy decrease the prevalence and extent of PIN, suggesting that these forms of treatment may play a role in prevention of subsequent cancer. Multiple clinical trials to date of men with PIN have had modest success in delaying or preventing subsequent cancer.

Chemoprevention of prostate cancer: Natural compounds, antiandrogens, and antioxidants - In vivo evidence

Prostate cancer is the leading non-skin malignancy detected in US males and the second cause of death due to male cancer, in the US. Interventions with drugs or diet supplements that slow down the growth and progression of prostate cancer are potentially very effective in reducing the burden of prostate cancer, particularly if these treatments also prevent the de novo development of new prostatic malignancies. Challenges to identify efficacious agents and develop them for chemopreventive application in men at risk for prostate cancer have included uncertainty about which preclinical models have the ability to predict efficacy in men and lack of consensus about which early phase clinical trial designs are the most appropriate and cost-effective to test promising agents. Efficacy studies in animal models have identified several agents with potential chemopreventive activity against prostate cancer, but few of these findings have been translated into clinical trials. This article identifies some of the major issues associated with prostate cancer chemoprevention research and summarizes the most significant current results from animal efficacy studies and human clinical prevention trials. This summary focuses on: (1) Naturally occurring agents and compounds derived from such agents, including green tea and its constituents, silibinin and milk thistle, and genistein and soy, (2) chemoprevention drugs including agents interfering with androgen action, and (3) antioxidants such as selenium, vitamin E, and lycopene. The general lack of activity of antioxidants is discussed, followed by considerations about translation of preclinical chemoprevention efficacy data, focusing on dose, form, bioavailability, and timing of administration of the agent, as well as discussion of study design of clinical trials and the predictive ability of preclinical models.

Selenium for preventing cancer

BACKGROUND

Selenium is a trace element essential to humans. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancers.

OBJECTIVES

Two research questions were addressed in this review: What is the evidence for1. an aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in women and men?2. the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in women and men?

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched electronic databases and bibliographies of reviews and included publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective observational studies to answer research question (a) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to answer research question (b).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted random effects meta-analyses of epidemiological data when five or more studies were retrieved for a specific outcome. We made a narrative summary of data from RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 49 prospective observational studies and six RCTs. In epidemiologic data, we found a reduced cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.91) and mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83) with higher selenium exposure. Cancer risk was more pronouncedly reduced in men (incidence: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05) than in women (incidence: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77). These findings have potential limitations due to study design, quality and heterogeneity of the data, which complicated the interpretation of the summary statistics.The RCTs found no protective efficacy of selenium yeast supplementation against non-melanoma skin cancer or L-selenomethionine supplementation against prostate cancer. Study results for the prevention of liver cancer with selenium supplements were inconsistent and studies had an unclear risk of bias. The results of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial (NPCT) and SELECT raised concerns about possible harmful effects of selenium supplements.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No reliable conclusions can be drawn regarding a causal relationship between low selenium exposure and an increased risk of cancer. Despite evidence for an inverse association between selenium exposure and the risk of some types of cancer, these results should be interpreted with care due to the potential limiting factors of heterogeneity and influences of unknown biases, confounding and effect modification.The effect of selenium supplementation from RCTs yielded inconsistent results. To date, there is no convincing evidence that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in men, women or children.

Chemoprevention of prostate cancer with nutrients and supplements

As the adult population is increasing, prostate cancer (PCa) will become a considerable health problem in the next millennium. This has raised public interest in potential chemoprevention of this disease. As PCa is extremely common and generally slow to progress it is regarded as an ideal candidate for chemoprevention. At present, the 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors finasteride and dutasteride have been identified as preventive agents. This review describes whether selenium, alpha-tocopherol, isoflavones, lycopene green tea polyphenols, calcium, and resveratrol may be useful for decreasing the risk of PCa in men. Although encouraging results are present, some studies show negative results. Differences in study design, sample size, dose administered, and/or concentrations achieved in the body may be the reason for these inconsistencies. Today, chemopreventive agents may be appropriate for high-risk patients like those with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and other high-risk groups such as patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) and negative biopsy, rapid PSA velocity, and with a family history of PCa. Although larger randomized controlled studies are needed and epidemiologic evidence should be placed in a clinical context, physicians must be aware of these preventive opportunities in PCa care. Combinations of chemopreventive agents should be carefully investigated because mechanisms of action may be additive or synergistic.

Selenium in human health and disease

This review covers current knowledge of selenium in the environment, dietary intakes, metabolism and status, functions in the body, thyroid hormone metabolism, antioxidant defense systems and oxidative metabolism, and the immune system. Selenium toxicity and links between deficiency and Keshan disease and Kashin-Beck disease are described. The relationships between selenium intake/status and various health outcomes, in particular gastrointestinal and prostate cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and male fertility, are reviewed, and recent developments in genetics of selenoproteins are outlined. The rationale behind current dietary reference intakes of selenium is explained, and examples of differences between countries and/or expert bodies are given. Throughout the review, gaps in knowledge and research requirements are identified. More research is needed to improve our understanding of selenium metabolism and requirements for optimal health. Functions of the majority of the selenoproteins await characterization, the mechanism of absorption has yet to be identified, measures of status need to be developed, and effects of genotype on metabolism require further investigation. The relationships between selenium intake/status and health, or risk of disease, are complex but require elucidation to inform clinical practice, to refine dietary recommendations, and to develop effective public health policies.

Harnessing the fruits of nature for the development of multi-targeted cancer therapeutics

Cancer cells exhibit deregulation in multiple cellular signaling pathways. Therefore, treatments using specific agents that target only one pathway usually fail in cancer therapy. The combination treatments using chemotherapeutic agents with distinct molecular mechanisms are considered more promising for higher efficacy; however, using multiple agents contributes to added toxicity. Emerging evidence has shown that some "natural products" such as isoflavones, indole-3-carbinol (I3C) and its in vivo dimeric product 3,3'-diindolylmethane (DIM), and curcumin among many others, have growth inhibitory and apoptosis inducing effects on human and animal cancer cells mediated by targeting multiple cellular signaling pathways in vitro without causing unwanted toxicity in normal cells. Therefore, these non-toxic "natural products" from natural resources could be useful in combination with conventional chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human malignancies with lower toxicity and higher efficacy. In fact, recently increasing evidence from pre-clinical in vivo studies and clinical trials have shown some success in support of the use of rational design of multi-targeted therapies for the treatment of cancers using conventional chemotherapeutic agents in combination with "natural products". These studies have provided promising results and further opened-up newer avenues for cancer therapy. In this review article, we have succinctly summarized the known effects of "natural products" especially by focusing on isoflavones, indole-3-carbinol (I3C) and its in vivo dimeric product 3,3'-diindolylmethane (DIM), and curcumin, and provided a comprehensive view on the molecular mechanisms underlying the principle of cancer therapy using combination of "natural products" with conventional therapeutics.

Prostatic soy isoflavone concentrations exceed serum levels after dietary supplementation

BACKGROUND

The effects of soy isoflavones on prostate cancer may be concentration-dependent. The impact of soy supplementation on isoflavone concentrations in prostate tissues and serum remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare concentrations of soy isoflavones in prostate tissue and serum among 19 men with prostate cancer who had elected to undergo radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to receive either daily soy supplements (82 mg/day aglycone equivalents) or placebos for 2 weeks (14 days) prior to surgery. Serum samples were obtained at the time of the surgery. Isoflavone concentrations were measured by HPLC/ESI-MS-MS.

RESULTS

The median (25th, 75th percentile) total isoflavone concentration in the isoflavone-supplemented group was 2.3 micromol/L (1.2, 6.9) in the prostate tissue and 0.7 micromol/L (0.2, 1.2) in the serum. Total isoflavone concentrations in this group were an average of approximately 6-fold higher in prostate tissue compared to serum; the tissue versus serum ratio was significantly lower for genistein than daidzein, 4-fold versus 10-fold, P = 0.003. Tissue and serum levels of isoflavones among the placebo group were negligible with a few exceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from the present study suggest that prostate tissue may have the ability to concentrate dietary soy isoflavones to potentially anti-carcinogenic levels.

A systematic review of the effect of diet in prostate cancer prevention and treatment

Dietary therapy has been proposed as a cost effective and noninvasive means of reducing the risk of prostate cancer (PC) and its progression. There is a large volume of published studies describing the role of diet in the prevention and treatment of PC. This article systematically reviews the data for dietary-based therapy in the prevention of PC, as well as in the management of patients with PC, aiming to provide clarity surrounding the role of diet in preventing and treating PC. Although conclusive evidence is limited, the current data are indicative that a diet low in fat, high in vegetables and fruits, and avoiding high energy intake, excessive meat, excessive dairy products and calcium intake, is possibly effective in preventing PC. However, caution must be taken to ensure that members of the public do not take excessive amounts of dietary supplements because there may be adverse affects associated with their over consumption. The dietary recommendations for patients diagnosed with PC are similar to those aiming to reduce their risk of PC.

Broccoli consumption interacts with GSTM1 to perturb oncogenic signalling pathways in the prostate

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological studies suggest that people who consume more than one portion of cruciferous vegetables per week are at lower risk of both the incidence of prostate cancer and of developing aggressive prostate cancer but there is little understanding of the underlying mechanisms. In this study, we quantify and interpret changes in global gene expression patterns in the human prostate gland before, during and after a 12 month broccoli-rich diet.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Volunteers were randomly assigned to either a broccoli-rich or a pea-rich diet. After six months there were no differences in gene expression between glutathione S-transferase mu 1 (GSTM1) positive and null individuals on the pea-rich diet but significant differences between GSTM1 genotypes on the broccoli-rich diet, associated with transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGFbeta1) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) signalling pathways. Comparison of biopsies obtained pre and post intervention revealed more changes in gene expression occurred in individuals on a broccoli-rich diet than in those on a pea-rich diet. While there were changes in androgen signalling, regardless of diet, men on the broccoli diet had additional changes to mRNA processing, and TGFbeta1, EGF and insulin signalling. We also provide evidence that sulforaphane (the isothiocyanate derived from 4-methylsuphinylbutyl glucosinolate that accumulates in broccoli) chemically interacts with TGFbeta1, EGF and insulin peptides to form thioureas, and enhances TGFbeta1/Smad-mediated transcription.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that consuming broccoli interacts with GSTM1 genotype to result in complex changes to signalling pathways associated with inflammation and carcinogenesis in the prostate. We propose that these changes may be mediated through the chemical interaction of isothiocyanates with signalling peptides in the plasma. This study provides, for the first time, experimental evidence obtained in humans to support observational studies that diets rich in cruciferous vegetables may reduce the risk of prostate cancer and other chronic disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00535977.

Clinical utility of the PCA3 urine assay in European men scheduled for repeat biopsy

BACKGROUND

The Prostate CAncer gene 3 (PCA3) assay has shown promise as an aid in prostate cancer (pCA) diagnosis in identifying men with a high probability of a positive (repeat) biopsy.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the clinical utility of the PROGENSA PCA3 assay.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This European prospective, multicentre study enrolled men with one or two negative biopsies scheduled for repeat biopsy.

MEASUREMENTS

After digital rectal examination (DRE), first-catch urine was collected to measure PCA3 mRNA concentration and to calculate the PCA3 score. The PCA3 score was compared to biopsy outcome. The diagnostic accuracy of the PCA3 assay was compared to percent of free prostate-specific antigen (%fPSA).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In 463 men, the positive repeat biopsy rate was 28%. The higher the PCA3 score, the greater the probability of a positive repeat biopsy. The PCA3 score (cut-off of 35) had a greater diagnostic accuracy than %fPSA (cut-off of 25%). The PCA3 score was independent of the number of previous biopsies, age, prostate volume, and total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. Moreover, the PCA3 score was significantly higher in men with high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) versus those without HGPIN, clinical stage T2 versus T1, Gleason score >or=7 versus <7, and "significant" versus "indolent" (clinical stage T1c, PSA density [PSAD] <0.15ng/ml, Gleason score in biopsy

CONCLUSIONS

The probability of a positive repeat biopsy increases with rising PCA3 scores. The PCA3 score was superior to %fPSA for predicting repeat prostate biopsy outcome and may be indicative of clinical stage and significance of pCa.

Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Alexander Haese Department of Urology, University Clinic Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Alexandre de la Taille
Hendrik van Poppel
Michael Marberger
Arnulf Stenzl
Peter F A Mulders
Hartwig Huland
Clément-Claude Abbou
Mesut Remzi
Martina Tinzl
Susan Feyerabend
Alexander B Stillebroer
Martijn P M Q van Gils
Jack A Schalken

Collapse