Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT.

Background: Emollients are recommended for children with eczema (atopic eczema/dermatitis). A lack of head-to-head comparisons of the effectiveness and acceptability of the different types of emollients has resulted in a 'trial and error' approach to prescribing. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema. Design: Four group, parallel, individually randomised, superiority randomised clinical trials with a nested qualitative study, completed in 2021. A purposeful sample of parents/children was interviewed at ≈ 4 and ≈ 16 weeks. Setting: Primary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England. Participants: Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema, of at least mild severity, and with no known sensitivity to the study emollients or their constituents. Interventions: Study emollients sharing the same characteristics in the four types of lotion, cream, gel or ointment, alongside usual care, and allocated using a web-based randomisation system. Participants were unmasked and the researcher assessing the Eczema Area Severity Index scores was masked. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 52 weeks, Eczema Area Severity Index score at 16 weeks, quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, scores), Dermatitis Family Impact and satisfaction levels at 16 weeks. Results: A total of 550 children were randomised to receive lotion (analysed for primary outcome 131/allocated 137), cream (137/140), gel (130/135) or ointment (126/138). At baseline, 86.0% of participants were white and 46.4% were female. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (2-8) years and the median Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure score was 9.3 (SD 5.5). There was no evidence of a difference in mean Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over the first 16 weeks between emollient types (global p = 0.765): adjusted Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure pairwise differences - cream-lotion 0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.48 to 1.32), gel-lotion 0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.75 to 1.09), ointment-lotion -0.01 (95% confidence interval -0.93 to 0.91), gel-cream -0.25 (95% confidence interval -1.15 to 0.65), ointment-cream -0.43 (95% confidence interval -1.34 to 0.48) and ointment-gel -0.18 (95% confidence interval -1.11 to 0.75). There was no effect modification by parent expectation, age, disease severity or the application of UK diagnostic criteria, and no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. Median weekly use of allocated emollient, non-allocated emollient and topical corticosteroids was similar across groups. Overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. There was no difference in the number of adverse reactions and there were no significant adverse events. In the nested qualitative study (n = 44 parents, n = 25 children), opinions about the acceptability of creams and ointments varied most, yet problems with all types were reported. Effectiveness may be favoured over acceptability. Parents preferred pumps and bottles over tubs and reported improved knowledge about, and use of, emollients as a result of taking part in the trial. Limitations: Parents and clinicians were unmasked to allocation. The findings may not apply to non-study emollients of the same type or to children from more ethnically diverse backgrounds. Conclusions: The four emollient types were equally effective. Satisfaction with the same emollient types varies, with different parents/children favouring different ones. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollient types to find one that suits them. Future work: Future work could focus on how best to support shared decision-making of different emollient types and evaluations of other paraffin-based, non-paraffin and 'novel' emollients. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 15/130/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

One in five children in the UK have eczema, a long-term, itchy, dry skin condition. It can significantly affect both the child and their family. Most children are diagnosed and looked after by their family doctor (general practitioner) and are prescribed moisturisers (also called emollients) to relieve skin dryness and other creams (topical corticosteroids) to control flare-ups. However, there are many different types of emollients and, to our knowledge, limited research to show which is better. In the Best Emollients for Eczema clinical trial, we compared the four main types of moisturisers ­ lotions, creams, gels and ointments. These types vary in their consistency, from thin to thick. We recruited 550 children (most of whom were white and had moderate eczema) and randomly assigned them to use one of the four different types as their main moisturiser for 16 weeks. We found no difference in effectiveness. Parent-reported eczema symptoms, eczema severity and quality of life were the same for all the four types of moisturisers. However, overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. Ointments may need to be used less and cause less stinging. We interviewed 44 parents and 25 children who took part. Opinions of all four types of moisturisers varied. What one family liked about a moisturiser was not necessarily the same for another and preferences were individual to each user. Sometimes there was a tension between how well a moisturiser worked (effectiveness) and how easy it was to use (acceptability). In these cases, effectiveness tended to decide whether or not parents kept using it. People found moisturisers in pumps and bottles easier to use than those in tubs. A number of participants valued the information they were given about how to use moisturisers. Our results suggest that the type of moisturiser matters less than finding one that suits the child and family.

Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic obstruction: the UNBLOCS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) vaporises and resects the prostate using a technique similar to TURP. The small amount of existing literature suggests that there may be potential advantages of ThuVARP over TURP. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not the outcomes from ThuVARP are equivalent to the outcomes from TURP in men with BPO treated in the NHS. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled parallel-group trial, with an embedded qualitative study and economic evaluation. SETTING: Seven UK centres - four university teaching hospitals and three district general hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged ≥ 18 years who were suitable to undergo TURP, presenting with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention secondary to BPO. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised 1 : 1 to receive TURP or ThuVARP and remained blinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two co-primary outcomes - patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and clinical measure of maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months post surgery. RESULTS: In total, 410 men were randomised, 205 to each arm. The two procedures were equivalent in terms of IPSS [adjusted mean difference 0.28 points higher for ThuVARP (favouring TURP), 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 1.49 points]. The two procedures were not equivalent in terms of Qmax (adjusted mean difference 3.12 ml/second in favour of TURP, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.79 ml/second), with TURP deemed superior. Surgical outcomes, such as complications and blood transfusion rates, and hospital stay were similar for both procedures. Patient-reported urinary and sexual symptoms were also similar between the arms. Qualitative interviews indicated similar patient experiences with both procedures. However, 25% of participants in the ThuVARP arm did not undergo their randomised allocation, compared with 2% of participants in the TURP arm. Prostate cancer was also detected less frequently from routine histology after ThuVARP (65% lower odds of detection) in an exploratory analysis. The adjusted mean differences between the arms were similar for secondary care NHS costs (£9 higher for ThuVARP, 95% CI -£359 to £376) and quality-adjusted life-years (0.01 favouring TURP, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Complications were recorded in prespecified categories; those not prespecified were excluded owing to variable reporting. Preoperative Qmax and IPSS data could not be collected for participants with indwelling catheters, making adjustment for baseline status difficult. CONCLUSIONS: TURP was superior to ThuVARP in terms of Qmax, although both operations resulted in a Qmax considered clinically successful. ThuVARP also potentially resulted in lower detection rates of prostate cancer as a result of the smaller volume of tissue available for histology. Length of hospital stay after ThuVARP, anticipated to be a key benefit, was equal to that after TURP in this trial. Overall, both ThuVARP and TURP were effective procedures for BPO, with minor benefits in favour of TURP. Therefore, the results suggest that it may be appropriate that new treatment alternatives continue to be compared with TURP. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up to assess reoperation rates over time, and research into the comparative effectiveness of ThuVARP and TURP in large prostates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00788389. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An enlarged prostate can make it difficult, or even impossible, for a man to pass urine by blocking the urine flow from the bladder. This can cause significant problems, and 25,000 men in the UK each year are treated with an operation to relieve their symptoms. The standard operation [transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)], which uses electricity to shave off the enlarged prostate, is successful, but it can have some complications. There is some evidence to suggest that laser surgery can lead to less blood loss and a shorter stay in hospital, but laser operations can be difficult for surgeons to carry out. This trial has looked at a procedure using a new type of laser called thulium, which uses a very similar surgical technique to TURP and has shown promising results so far. A total of 410 men needing a prostate operation received either TURP or a laser operation. Participants were unaware of which operation they received until the end of the study to ensure a fair comparison. Seven hospitals across the UK were involved over 4 years. The trial mainly assessed the benefits of the operations using a urinary symptom questionnaire completed by participants, and by measuring the speed of passing urine after surgery. Overall, both procedures achieved positive results, and participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the outcomes. Participants who had either operation reported a similar improvement in urinary symptoms in their questionnaires. However, although both operations did a good job of improving the speed of passing urine, TURP was better. Participants experienced few complications, and the complications that did occur were similar after both operations, including levels of bleeding and time spent in hospital. The cost of the two operations to the NHS was also similar. Overall, we concluded that both operations are suitable for patients with prostate enlargement, with TURP showing some minor additional benefits.

Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate for men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention (UNBLOCS): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) is a technique with suggested advantages over TURP, including reduced complications and hospital stay. We aimed to investigate TURP versus ThuVARP in men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. METHODS: In this randomised, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic equivalence trial, men in seven UK hospitals with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction were randomly assigned (1:1) at the point of surgery to receive ThuVARP or TURP. Patients were masked until follow-up completion. Centres used their usual TURP procedure (monopolar or bipolar). All trial surgeons underwent training on the ThuVARP technique. Co-primary outcomes were maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12-months post-surgery. Equivalence was defined as a difference of 2·5 points or less for IPSS and 4 mL per s or less for Qmax. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN00788389. FINDINGS: Between July 23, 2014, and Dec 30, 2016, 410 men were randomly assigned to ThuVARP or TURP, 205 per study group. TURP was superior for Qmax (mean 23·2 mL per s for TURP and 20·2 mL per s for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means -3·12, 95% CI -5·79 to -0·45). Equivalence was shown for IPSS (mean 6·3 for TURP and 6·4 for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means 0·28, -0·92 to 1·49). Mean hospital stay was 48 h in both study groups. 91 (45%) of 204 patients in the TURP group and 96 (47%) of 203 patients in the ThuVARP group had at least one complication. INTERPRETATION: TURP and ThuVARP were equivalent for urinary symptom improvement (IPSS) 12-months post-surgery, and TURP was superior for Qmax. Anticipated laser benefits for ThuVARP of reduced hospital stay and complications were not observed. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Best emollients for eczema (BEE) - comparing four types of emollients in children with eczema: protocol for randomised trial and nested qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis/eczema affects around 20% of children and is characterised by inflamed, dry, itchy skin. Guidelines recommend 'leave-on' emollients that are applied directly to the skin to add or trap moisture and used regularly, they can soothe, enhance the skin barrier and may prevent disease 'flares'. However, the suitability of the many different emollients varies between people and there is little evidence to help prescribers and parents and carers decide which type to try first. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised, parallel group superiority trial of four types of emollient (lotions, creams, gel or ointments). SETTING: general practitioner surgeries in England. PARTICIPANTS: children aged over 6 months and less than 12 years with mild-to-severe eczema and no known sensitivity to study emollients. INTERVENTIONS: study-approved lotion, cream, gel or ointment as the only leave-on emollient for 16 weeks, with directions to apply twice daily and as required. Other treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, used as standard care. FOLLOW-UP: 52 weeks. PRIMARY OUTCOME: validated patient-orientated eczema measure measured weekly for 16 weeks. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: eczema signs (Eczema Area Severity Index) by masked researcher, treatment use, parent satisfaction, adverse events, child and family quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility 9D and Dermatitis Family Impact). SAMPLE SIZE: 520 participants (130 per group). ANALYSIS: intention-to-treat using linear mixed models for repeated measures.Nested qualitative study: audio-recording of sample of baseline appointments and up to 60 interviews with participants at 4 and 16 weeks, interviews to be transcribed and analysed thematically. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval granted by the NHS REC (South West - Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee 17/SW/0089). Findings will be presented at conferences, published in open-access peer-reviewed journals and the study website; and summaries shared with key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN84540529.

ProDiet: A Phase II Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial of Green Tea Catechins and Lycopene in Men at Increased Risk of Prostate Cancer.

Epidemiologic studies suggest that diet can alter prostate cancer risk. This study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of dietary modification in men at increased risk of prostate cancer. Men were invited with a PSA level of 2.0-2.95 ng/mL or 3.0-19.95 ng/mL with negative prostate biopsies. Randomization (3 × 3 factorial design) to daily green tea and lycopene: green tea drink (3 cups, unblinded) or capsules [blinded, 600 mg flavan-3-ol ()-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) or placebo] and lycopene-rich foods (unblinded) or capsules (blinded, 15 mg lycopene or placebo) for 6 months. Primary endpoints were randomization rates and intervention adherence (blinded assessment of metabolites) at 6 months with secondary endpoints of acceptability (from interviews), safety, weight, blood pressure, and PSA. A total of 133 of 469 (28.4%) men approached agreed to be randomized and 132 were followed-up (99.2%). Mean lycopene was 1.28 [95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.09-1.50, P = 0.003] times higher in the lycopene capsule group and 1.42 (95% CI, 1.21-1.66; P < 0.001) times higher in the lycopene-enriched diet group compared with placebo capsules. Median EGCG was 10.7 nmol/L (95% CI, 7.0-32.0) higher in in the active capsule group and 20.0 nmol/L (95% CI, 0.0-19.0) higher in the green tea drink group compared with placebo capsules (both P < 0.001). All interventions were acceptable and well tolerated although men preferred the capsules. Dietary prevention is acceptable to men at risk of prostate cancer. This intervention trial demonstrates that a chemoprevention clinical trial is feasible. Cancer Prev Res; 11(11); 687-96. ©2018 AACR.

Post-diagnosis serum insulin-like growth factors in relation to dietary and lifestyle changes in the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial.

PURPOSE: The insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system is modifiable by diet and lifestyle, and has been linked to prostate cancer development and progression. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 621 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer to investigate the associations of dietary and lifestyle changes with post-diagnosis circulating levels of IGF-I and IGFBP-3. We used analysis of covariance to estimate the associations, controlling for baseline IGF-I or IGFBP-3, respectively. RESULTS: Mean IGF-I levels were 6.5% (95% CI -12.8, -0.3%, p = 0.04) lower in men who decreased their protein intake after diagnosis compared to men who did not change. Men who changed their fruit and vegetable intake had lower IGF-I levels compared to non-changers [Decreased intake: -10.1%, 95% CI -18.4, -1.8%, p = 0.02; Increased intake: -12.0%, 95% CI -18.4, -1.8%, p = 0.002]. IGFBP-3 was 14.6% (95% CI -24.5, -4.8%, p = 0.004) lower in men who achieved a healthy body mass index after diagnosis. Men who became inactive had 9.5% higher average IGF-I levels (95% CI 0.1, 18.9%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Decreased protein intake and body mass index, and increased physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake, following a prostate cancer diagnosis were associated with reduced post-diagnosis serum IGF-I and IGFBP-3. Counterintuitively, reduced fruit and vegetable intake was also associated with reduced IGF-I, but with weak statistical support, possibly implicating chance. If confirmed in other studies, our findings may inform potential lifestyle interventions in prostate cancer. ProtecT was registered at International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, http://isrctn.org as ISRCTN20141297.

A randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the National Health Service (NHS) - the UNBLOCS trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) for 40 years, with approximately 25,000 procedures performed annually, and has remained largely unchanged. It is generally a successful operation, but has well-documented risks for the patient. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) vaporises and resects the prostate using a surgical technique similar to TURP. The small amount of study data currently available suggests that ThuVARP may have certain advantages over TURP, including reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stay, earlier return to normal activities, and shorter duration of catheterisation. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial of ThuVARP versus standard TURP in men with BPO. Four hundred and ten men suitable for prostate surgery were randomised to receive either ThuVARP or TURP at four university teaching hospitals, and three district general hospitals. The key aim of the trial is to determine whether ThuVARP is equivalent to TURP judged on both the patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months post-surgery. DISCUSSION: The general population has an increased life expectancy. As men get older their prostates enlarge, potentially causing BPO, which often requires surgery. Therefore, as the population ages, more prostate operations are needed to relieve obstruction. There is hence sustained interest in the condition and increasing need to find safer techniques than TURP. Various laser techniques have become available but none are widely used in the NHS because of lengthy training required for surgeons or inferior performance on clinical outcomes. Promising initial evidence from one RCT shows that ThuVARP has equivalent clinical effectiveness when compared to TURP, as well as other potential advantages. As ThuVARP uses a technique similar to that used in TURP, the learning curve is short, potentially making it also very quickly generalisable. This randomised study is designed to provide the high-quality evidence, in an NHS setting, with a range of patient-reported, clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes, which will underpin and inform future NICE guidance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN00788389 . Registered on 20 September 2013.

The feasibility of the Prostate cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) dietary and physical activity modifications: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that low levels of physical activity and diets low in fruit and vegetables and high in meat and dairy products are risk factors for prostate cancer disease progression. The Prostate cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) aimed to assess a diet and physical activity intervention in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. The trial included a qualitative component to explore the experiences of men participating in the trial in order to understand the acceptability of the intervention and data collection methods. We report the qualitative findings of the trial and consider how these can be used to inform future research. METHODS: PrEvENT involved randomizing men to either a dietary and/or physical activity intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 17 men on completion of the 6 month trial. Interviews took place in clinic or as telephone interviews, if requested by the participant, and were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the thematic-based framework approach. Analysis was conducted throughout the data collection process to allow emergent themes to be further explored in subsequent interviews. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were identified: acceptability of the intervention, acceptability of the data collection methods and trial logistics. Participants were predominantly positive about both the dietary and physical activity interventions and most men found the methods of data collection appropriate. Recommendations for future trials include consideration of alternative physical activity options, such as cycling or gym sessions, increased information on portion sizes, the potential importance of including wives or partners in the dietary change process and the possibility of using the pedometer or other wearable technology as part of the physical activity intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We provide insight into the opinions and experiences of the acceptability of the PrEvENT diet and physical activity intervention from the participants themselves. The interventions delivered were acceptable to this sample of participants, as were the data collection methods utilized. We also highlight some considerations for further behavioural change interventions in prostate cancer and other similar populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN99048944 . Registered on 17 November 2014.

Prostate cancer - evidence of exercise and nutrition trial (PrEvENT): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of observational evidence suggests that nutritional and physical activity interventions are associated with beneficial outcomes for men with prostate cancer, including brisk walking, lycopene intake, increased fruit and vegetable intake and reduced dairy consumption. However, randomised controlled trial data are limited. The 'Prostate Cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial' investigates the feasibility of recruiting and randomising men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer and eligible for radical prostatectomy to interventions that modify nutrition and physical activity. The primary outcomes are randomisation rates and adherence to the interventions at 6 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes are intervention tolerability, trial retention, change in prostate specific antigen level, change in diet, change in general physical activity levels, insulin-like growth factor levels, and a range of related outcomes, including quality of life measures. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial is factorial, randomising men to both a physical activity (brisk walking or control) and nutritional (lycopene supplementation or increased fruit and vegetables with reduced dairy consumption or control) intervention. The trial has two phases: men are enrolled into a cohort study prior to radical prostatectomy, and then consented after radical prostatectomy into a randomised controlled trial. Data are collected at four time points (cohort baseline, true trial baseline and 3 and 6 months post-randomisation). DISCUSSION: The Prostate Cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial aims to determine whether men with localised prostate cancer who are scheduled for radical prostatectomy can be recruited into a cohort and subsequently randomised to a 6-month nutrition and physical activity intervention trial. If successful, this feasibility trial will inform a larger trial to investigate whether this population will gain clinical benefit from long-term nutritional and physical activity interventions post-surgery. Prostate Cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) is registered on the ISRCTN registry, ref number ISRCTN99048944. Date of registration 17 November 2014.

A systematic review of dietary, nutritional, and physical activity interventions for the prevention of prostate cancer progression and mortality.

PURPOSE: Given the long-term, although potentially fatal, nature of prostate cancer, there is increasing observational evidence for the reduction in disease progression and mortality through changes in lifestyle factors. METHODS: We systematically reviewed dietary, nutritional, and physical activity randomized interventions aimed at modifying prostate cancer progression and disease-specific mortality, including a detailed assessment of risk of bias and methodological quality. RESULTS: Forty-four randomized controlled trials of lifestyle interventions, with prostate cancer progression or mortality outcomes, were identified. Substantial heterogeneity of the data prevented a meta-analysis. The included trials involved 3,418 prostate cancer patients, median 64 men per trial, from 13 countries. A trial of a nutritional supplement of pomegranate seed, green tea, broccoli, and turmeric; a trial comparing flaxseed, low-fat diet, flaxseed, and low-fat diet versus usual diet; and a trial supplementing soy, lycopene, selenium, and coenzyme Q10, all demonstrated beneficial effects. These trials were also assessed as having low risk of bias and high methodological quality (as were seven other trials with no evidence of benefit). The remaining trials were either underpowered, at high or unclear risk of bias, inadequately reported, of short duration or measured surrogate outcomes of unproven relationship to mortality or disease progression, which precluded any benefits reported being reliable. CONCLUSION: Large, well-designed randomized trials with clinical endpoints are recommended for lifestyle modification interventions.

A cross-sectional analysis of the association between diet and insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF-II, IGF-binding protein (IGFBP)-2, and IGFBP-3 in men in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of associations between insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), IGF-II, insulin-like binding protein-2 (IGFBP-2), IGFBP-3, and prostate cancer risk. This study examines the association between dietary factors associated with prostate cancer and serum levels of these peptides. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of self-reported 12-month dietary intake with serum IGF and IGFBP levels was performed using data from 1,798 subjects screened negative for prostate cancer as part of a UK multicenter trial comparing treatments for this condition. Multivariable linear regression models tested associations of diet with IGFs and IGFBPs. RESULTS: For a one standard deviation (SD) increase in dairy product and dairy protein intake, IGF-I increased by 5.28 ng/mL (95 % confidence interval: 2.64, 7.92 ng/mL) and 6.02 ng/mL (3.34, 8.71 ng/mL), respectively. A 25 % increase in calcium and selenium intake was associated with an increase in IGF-I of 5.92 ng/mL (3.77, 8.07 ng/mL) and 2.61 ng/mL (1.10, 4.13 ng/mL), respectively. A one SD increase in animal protein was associated with a decrease in IGFBP-2 of 6.20 % (-8.91, -3.41 %), and there was some evidence of an inverse association with dairy protein and calcium. There was no evidence of any dietary associations with IGFBP-3 or IGF-II. CONCLUSIONS: Diet is associated with IGF-I and IGFBP-2 levels in men in the UK, and these peptides warrant further investigation as part of randomized trials of dietary interventions to reduce the risk or progression of prostate cancer. There is no evidence that IGF-II or IGFBP-3 are mediators of dietary associations with prostate cancer.