Effects of vitamin D supplementation on a deep learning-based mammographic evaluation in SWOG S0812.

Deep learning-based mammographic evaluations could noninvasively assess response to breast cancer chemoprevention. We evaluated change in a convolutional neural network-based breast cancer risk model applied to mammograms among women enrolled in SWOG S0812, which randomly assigned 208 premenopausal high-risk women to receive oral vitamin D3 20 000 IU weekly or placebo for 12 months. We applied the convolutional neural network model to mammograms collected at baseline (n = 109), 12 months (n = 97), and 24 months (n = 67) and compared changes in convolutional neural network-based risk score between treatment groups. Change in convolutional neural network-based risk score was not statistically significantly different between vitamin D and placebo groups at 12 months (0.005 vs 0.002, P = .875) or at 24 months (0.020 vs 0.001, P = .563). The findings are consistent with the primary analysis of S0812, which did not demonstrate statistically significant changes in mammographic density with vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo. There is an ongoing need to evaluate biomarkers of response to novel breast cancer chemopreventive agents.

Accrual Quality Improvement Program for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Hypothesized versus Observed Effect Sizes in Early Phase Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials.

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. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: 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.

Water Insecurity, Water Borrowing, and Psychosocial Stress Among Daasanach Pastoralists in Northern Kenya.

This article quantifies Daasanach water insecurity experiences in Northern Kenya, examines how water insecurity is associated with water borrowing and psychosocial stress, and evaluates if water borrowing mitigates the stress from water insecurity. Of 133 households interviewed in 7 communities, 94% were water insecure and 74.4% borrowed water three or more times in the prior month. Regression analyses demonstrate water borrowing frequency moderates the relationship between water insecurity and psychosocial stress. Only those who rarely or never borrowed water reported greater stress with higher water insecurity. The coping mechanism of water borrowing may help blunt water insecurity-related stress.

Lessons Learned from the Impact of COVID-19 on NCI-sponsored Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials: Moving Toward Participant-centric Study Designs.

The COVID-19 pandemic overloaded health care systems around the globe and brought travel restrictions and other mandates. These effects critically impacted cancer care and conduct of clinical trials, and required medical and research communities to incorporate changes and novel flexible workflows within clinical trials and regulations to improve efficiency. We report the impact of the pandemic on cancer prevention clinical trials managed by the Division of Cancer Prevention within the NCI, focusing on participant-centric, study staff-centric and regulatory elements. Learning lessons from this challenging period, the cancer prevention community has the opportunity to incorporate many of these necessitated novel approaches to future design of clinical trials, to streamline and improve clinical trial efficiency and impact.

Report from an NCI Roundtable: Cancer Prevention in Primary Care.

The Division of Cancer Prevention in the NCI sponsored a Roundtable with primary care providers (PCP) to determine barriers for integrating cancer prevention within primary care and discuss potential opportunities to overcome these barriers. The goals were to: (i) assess the cancer risk assessment tools available to PCPs; (ii) gather information on use of cancer prevention resources; and (iii) understand the needs of PCPs to facilitate the implementation of cancer prevention interventions beyond routine screening and interventions. The Roundtable discussion focused on challenges and potential research opportunities related to: (i) cancer risk assessment and management of high-risk individuals; (ii) cancer prevention interventions for risk reduction; (iii) electronic health records/electronic medical records; and (iv) patient engagement and information dissemination. Time constraints and inconsistent/evolving clinical guidelines are major barriers to effective implementation of cancer prevention within primary care. Social determinants of health are important factors that influence patients' adoption of recommended preventive interventions. Research is needed to determine the best means for implementation of cancer prevention across various communities and clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to develop tools that can help providers collect clinical data that can enable them to assess patients' cancer risk and implement appropriate preventive interventions.

A Polygenic Risk Score Predicts Incident Prostate Cancer Risk in Older Men but Does Not Select for Clinically Significant Disease.

Despite the high prevalence of prostate cancer in older men, the predictive value of a polygenic risk score (PRS) remains uncertain in men aged ≥70 years. We used a 6.6 million-variant PRS to predict the risk of incident prostate cancer in a prospective study of 5701 men of European descent aged ≥70 years (mean age 75 years) enrolled in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial. The study endpoint was prostate cancer, including metastatic or non-metastatic disease, confirmed by an expert panel. After excluding participants with a history of prostate cancer at enrolment, we used a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess the association between the PRS and incident prostate cancer risk, adjusting for covariates. Additionally, we examined the distribution of Gleason grade groups by PRS group to determine if a higher PRS was associated with higher grade disease. We tested for interaction between the PRS and aspirin treatment. Logistic regression was used to independently assess the association of the PRS with prevalent (pre-trial) prostate cancer, reported in medical histories. During a median follow-up time of 4.6 years, 218 of the 5701 participants (3.8%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. The PRS predicted incident risk with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.52 per standard deviation (SD) (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-1.74, p < 0.001). Men in the top quintile of the PRS distribution had an almost three times higher risk of prostate cancer than men in the lowest quintile (HR = 2.99 (95% CI 1.90-4.27), p < 0.001). However, a higher PRS was not associated with a higher Gleason grade groups. We found no interaction between aspirin treatment and the PRS for prostate cancer risk. The PRS was also associated with prevalent prostate cancer (odds ratio = 1.80 per SD (95% CI 1.65-1.96), p < 0.001).While a PRS for prostate cancer is strongly associated with incident risk in men aged ≥70 years, the clinical utility of the PRS as a biomarker is currently limited by its inability to select for clinically significant disease.

Effect of Metformin and Lifestyle Interventions on Mortality in the Diabetes Prevention Program and Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether metformin or lifestyle modification can lower rates of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the Diabetes Prevention Program and Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: From 1996 to 1999, 3,234 adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes were randomized to an intensive lifestyle intervention, masked metformin, or placebo. Placebo and lifestyle interventions stopped in 2001, and a modified lifestyle program was offered to everyone, but unmasked study metformin continued in those originally randomized. Causes of deaths through 31 December 2018 were adjudicated by blinded reviews. All-cause and cause-specific mortality hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from Cox proportional hazards regression models and Fine-Gray models, respectively. RESULTS: Over a median of 21 years (interquartile range 20-21), 453 participants died. Cancer was the leading cause of death (n = 170), followed by cardiovascular disease (n = 131). Compared with placebo, metformin did not influence mortality from all causes (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.79, 1.25]), cancer (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.72, 1.52]), or cardiovascular disease (HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.70, 1.66]). Similarly, lifestyle modification did not impact all-cause (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81, 1.28]), cancer (HR 1.07 [95% CI 0.74, 1.55]), or cardiovascular disease (HR 1.18 [95% CI 0.77, 1.81]) mortality. Analyses adjusted for diabetes status and duration, BMI, cumulative glycemic exposure, and cardiovascular risks yielded results similar to those for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer was the leading cause of mortality among adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes. Although metformin and lifestyle modification prevented diabetes, neither strategy reduced all-cause, cancer, or cardiovascular mortality rates.

Establishing a Primary Care Alliance for Conducting Cancer Prevention Clinical Research at Community Sites.

In September 2020, the National Cancer Institute convened the first PARTNRS Workshop as an initiative to forge partnerships between oncologists, primary care professionals, and non-oncology specialists for promoting patient accrual into cancer prevention trials. This effort is aimed at bringing about more effective accrual methods to generate decisive outcomes in cancer prevention research. The workshop convened to inspire solutions to challenges encountered during the development and implementation of cancer prevention trials. Ultimately, strategies suggested for protocol development might enhance integration of these trials into community settings where a diversity of patients might be accrued. Research Bases (cancer research organizations that develop protocols) could encourage more involvement of primary care professionals, relevant prevention specialists, and patient representatives with protocol development beginning at the concept level to improve adoptability of the trials within community facilities, and consider various incentives to primary care professionals (i.e., remuneration). Principal investigators serving as liaisons for the NCORP affiliates and sub-affiliates, might produce and maintain "Prevention Research Champions" lists of PCPs and non-oncology specialists relevant in prevention research who can attract health professionals to consider incorporating prevention research into their practices. Finally, patient advocates and community health providers might convince patients of the benefits of trial-participation and encourage "shared-decision making."

Adherence with protocol medication use and mortality from unrelated causes in a prevention trial.

Several studies have shown that non-adherence to medication use is associated with lower use of preventive services and increased mortality. We aimed to study the relationship between initial adherence to medication use and mortality in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT). The PCPT randomized men age 55 and over to a finasteride or placebo arm. Duration of treatment was seven years, followed by end-of-study prostate biopsy. Extended follow-up for mortality was performed by linkage to the National Death Index. Non-adherence was defined as taking under 80% of required pills during the first or second 6-month trial period. Proportional hazards models were used to assess the relationship between adherence and all-cause mortality (excluding prostate cancer deaths). Three models were developed as follows: Model I (controlling for demographics and trial arm), Model II (Model I factors plus specific medical conditions), Model III (Model II factors plus lifestyle factors). Of 18,667 men included in the analysis, 3082 (16.5%) were non-adherent. The most common reasons for non-adherence were side effects (33.9%) and forgetting to take pills (22%). Through 5 and 10 years of follow-up, 178 (5.9%) and 483 (15.7%) non-adherent men died versus 581 (3.7%) and 1887 (12.1%) adherent men. Hazard ratios (HRs) at 5 years were 1.62 (95% CI: 1.37-1.91), 1.55 (95% CI: 1.30-1.83) and 1.49 (95% CI: 1.25-1.76) for Models I-III. HRs at ten years were lower but still statistically significant. Non-adherence to taking protocol medications was associated with increased mortality from unrelated conditions.

Genomic Risk Prediction for Breast Cancer in Older Women.

Genomic risk prediction models for breast cancer (BC) have been predominantly developed with data from women aged 40-69 years. Prospective studies of older women aged ≥70 years have been limited. We assessed the effect of a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) for BC in 6339 older women aged ≥70 years (mean age 75 years) enrolled into the ASPREE trial, a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial investigating the effect of daily 100 mg aspirin on disability-free survival. We evaluated incident BC diagnoses over a median follow-up time of 4.7 years. A multivariable Cox regression model including conventional BC risk factors was applied to prospective data, and re-evaluated after adding the PRS. We also assessed the association of rare pathogenic variants (PVs) in BC susceptibility genes (BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2/CHEK2/ATM). The PRS, as a continuous variable, was an independent predictor of incident BC (hazard ratio (HR) per standard deviation (SD) = 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-1.6) and hormone receptor (ER/PR)-positive disease (HR = 1.5 (CI 1.2-1.9)). Women in the top quintile of the PRS distribution had over two-fold higher risk of BC than women in the lowest quintile (HR = 2.2 (CI 1.2-3.9)). The concordance index of the model without the PRS was 0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.68), which improved after addition of the PRS to 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.71). Among 41 (0.6%) carriers of PVs in BC susceptibility genes, we observed no incident BC diagnoses. Our study demonstrates that a PRS predicts incident BC risk in women aged 70 years and older, suggesting potential clinical utility extends to this older age group.

Effect of Aspirin on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of daily low-dose aspirin (100 mg) in older adults, showed an increase in all-cause mortality, primarily due to cancer. In contrast, prior randomized controlled trials, mainly involving younger individuals, demonstrated a delayed cancer benefit with aspirin. We now report a detailed analysis of cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: 19 114 Australian and US community-dwelling participants aged 70 years and older (US minorities 65 years and older) without cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability were randomly assigned and followed for a median of 4.7 years. Fatal and nonfatal cancer events, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were adjudicated based on clinical records. RESULTS: 981 cancer events occurred in the aspirin and 952 in the placebo groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for all incident cancers (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.14), hematological cancer (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.73 to 1.30), or all solid cancers (HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.15), including by specific tumor type. However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of incident cancer that had metastasized (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.43) or was stage 4 at diagnosis (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.45), and with higher risk of death for cancers that presented at stages 3 (HR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.03 to 4.33) or 4 (HR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: In older adults, aspirin treatment had an adverse effect on later stages of cancer evolution. These findings suggest that in older persons, aspirin may accelerate the progression of cancer and, thus, suggest caution with its use in this age group.

Standardization of lower extremity quantitative lymphedema measurements and associated patient-reported outcomes in gynecologic cancers.

Practice changing standardization of lower extremity lymphedema quantitative measurements with integrated patient reported outcomes will likely refine and redefine the optimal risk-reduction strategies to diminish the devastating limb-related dysfunction and morbidity associated with treatment of gynecologic cancers. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), Division of Cancer Prevention brought together a diverse group of cancer treatment, therapy and patient reported outcomes experts to discuss the current state-of-the-science in lymphedema evaluation with the potential goal of incorporating new strategies for optimal evaluation of lymphedema in future developing gynecologic clinical trials.

Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

As clinical guidelines for cancer prevention refer individuals to primary care physicians (PCP) for risk assessment and clinical management, PCPs may be expected to play an increasing role in cancer prevention. It is crucial that PCPs are adequately supported to assess an individual's cancer risk and make appropriate recommendations. The objective of this study is to assess use, familiarity, attitude, and behaviors of PCPs regarding breast and ovarian cancer risk and prevention, to better understand the factors that influence their prescribing behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of PCPs in the United States, recruited from an opt-in healthcare provider panel. Invitations were sent in batches until the target sample size of 750 respondents (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) was met. Self-reported use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessments was low (34.7%-59.2%) compared with discussion of cancer family history (96.9%), breast exams (87.1%), and mammograms (92.8%). Although most respondents (48.0%-66.8%) were familiar with cancer prevention interventions, respondents who reported to be less familiar were more likely to report cautious attitudes. When presented with hypothetical cases depicting patients at different breast/ovarian cancer risks, up to 34.0% of respondents did not select any of the clinically recommended course(s) of action. This survey suggests that PCP use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessment tools and ability to translate the perceived risks to clinical actions is variable. Improving implementation of cancer risk assessment and clinical management guidelines within primary care may be necessary to improve the appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions.Prevention Relevance: Primary care physicians are becoming more involved in cancer prevention management, so it is important that cancer risk assessment and medical society guideline recommendations for cancer prevention are better integrated into primary care to improve appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions and help reduce cancer risk.

A Phase IIa Trial of Metformin for Colorectal Cancer Risk Reduction among Individuals with History of Colorectal Adenomas and Elevated Body Mass Index.

Obesity is associated with risk of colorectal adenoma (CRA) and colorectal cancer. The signaling pathway activated by metformin (LKB1/AMPK/mTOR) is implicated in tumor suppression in ApcMin/+ mice via metformin-induced reduction in polyp burden, increased ratio of pAMPK/AMPK, decreased pmTOR/mTOR ratio, and decreased pS6Ser235/S6Ser235 ratio in polyps. We hypothesized that metformin would affect colorectal tissue S6Ser235 among obese patients with recent history of CRA. A phase IIa clinical biomarker trial was conducted via the U.S. National Cancer Institute-Chemoprevention Consortium. Nondiabetic, obese subjects (BMI ≥30) ages 35 to 80 with recent history of CRA were included. Subjects received 12 weeks of oral metformin 1,000 mg twice every day. Rectal mucosa biopsies were obtained at baseline and end-of-treatment (EOT) endoscopy. Tissue S6Ser235 and Ki-67 immunostaining were analyzed in a blinded fashion using Histo score (Hscore) analysis. Among 32 eligible subjects, the mean baseline BMI was 34.9. Comparing EOT to baseline tissue S6Ser235 by IHC, no significant differences were observed. Mean (SD) Hscore at baseline was 1.1 (0.57) and 1.1 (0.51) at EOT; median Hscore change was 0.034 (P = 0.77). Similarly, Ki-67 levels were unaffected by the intervention. The adverse events were consistent with metformin's known side-effect profile. Among obese patients with CRA, 12 weeks of oral metformin does not reduce rectal mucosa pS6 or Ki-67 levels. Further research is needed to determine what effects metformin has on the target tissue of origin as metformin continues to be pursued as a colorectal cancer chemopreventive agent.

Cancer Prevention in Primary Care: Perception of Importance, Recognition of Risk Factors and Prescribing Behaviors.

PURPOSE: Acceptability and uptake of cancer preventive interventions is associated with physician recommendation, which is dependent on physician familiarity with available preventive options. The goal of this study is to evaluate cancer prevention perceptions, understanding of breast and ovarian cancer risk factors, and prescribing behaviors of primary care physicians. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional. Web-based survey of 750 primary care physicians (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) in the United States. Survey respondents were recruited from an opt-in health care provider panel. RESULTS: Perception of importance and the practice of recommending general and cancer-specific preventive screenings and interventions significantly differed by provider type. These perceptions and behaviors reflected the demographics of the population that the primary care physicians see within their respective practices. The majority of respondents recognized genetic/hereditary risk factors for breast or ovarian cancer, while epidemiologic or clinical risk factors were less frequently recognized. Prescribing behaviors were related to familiarity with the interventions, with physicians indicating that they more frequently reinforced a specialist's recommendation rather than prescribed a preventive intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer prevention perceptions, recognition of cancer risk factors, and prescribing behaviors differ among practice types and were related to familiarity with preventive options. Cancer prevention education and risk assessment resources should be more widely available to primary care physicians.

Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Biomarker Modulation Study of Vitamin D Supplementation in Premenopausal Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer (SWOG S0812).

Observational studies have reported an inverse association between vitamin D intake and breast cancer risk. We examined whether vitamin D supplementation in high-risk premenopausal women reduces mammographic density (MD), an established breast cancer risk factor. We conducted a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in premenopausal women at high risk for breast cancer [5-year risk ≥ 1.67%, lifetime risk ≥ 20%, lobular carcinoma in situ, prior stage 0-II breast cancer, hereditary breast cancer syndrome, or high MD (heterogeneously/extremely dense)], with a baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] ≤ 32 ng/mL. Participants were randomized to 12 months of vitamin D3 20,000 IU/week or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was change in MD from baseline to 12 months using the Cumulus technique. Secondary endpoints included serial blood biomarkers [25(OH)D, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)D), insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1, IGF-binding protein-3] and MD change at 24 months. Among 208 women randomized, median age was 44.6 years, 84% were white, 33% had baseline 25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL, and 78% had high baseline MD. Comparing the active and placebo groups at 12 months, MD changes were small and did not significantly differ. Mean MD changes at 12 and 24 months were -0.3% and -1.2%, respectively, in the active arm and +1.5% and +1.6% with placebo (P > 0.05). We observed a mean change in serum 25(OH)D of +18.9 versus +2.8 ng/mL (P < 0.01) and IGF-1 of -9.8 versus -1.8 ng/mL (P = 0.28), respectively. At 12 months, MD was positively correlated with serum IGF-1 and IGF-1/IGFBP-3 (P < 0.01). This trial does not support the use of vitamin D supplementation for breast cancer risk reduction.

Acceptability of Localized Cancer Risk Reduction Interventions Among Individuals at Average or High Risk for Cancer.

Individuals at high risk for cancer, including those already diagnosed with premalignant lesions, can potentially benefit from chemopreventive interventions to reduce cancer risk. However, uptake and acceptability have been hindered due to the risk of systemic toxicity and other adverse effects. Locally delivered chemopreventive agents, where direct action on the primary organ may limit systemic toxicity, are emerging as an option for high-risk individuals. While a number of clinical trials support the development of chemopreventive agents, it is crucial to understand the factors and barriers that influence their acceptability and use. We conducted 36 focus groups with 198 individuals at average and high risk of breast/ovarian, gynecologic, and head/neck/oral and lung cancers to examine the perceptions and acceptability of chemopreventive agents. Participants' willingness to use chemopreventive agents was influenced by several factors, including perceived risk of cancer, skepticism around prevention, previous knowledge of chemopreventive agents, support from trusted sources of health information, participation in other cancer-related risk-reduction activities, previous experience with similar modalities, cost, regimen, side effects, and perceived effectiveness of the preventive intervention. Our findings indicate that individuals may be more receptive to locally delivered chemopreventive agents if they perceive themselves to be at high risk for cancer and are given the necessary information regarding regimen and side effects to make an informed decision. Clinical trials that collect additional patient-centered data including side effects and how these interventions fit into an individual's lifestyle are imperative to improve uptake of chemopreventive agents.

Repurposing metformin for the prevention of cancer and cancer recurrence.

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.