Influence of Enema and Dietary Restrictions on Prostate MR Image Quality: A Multireader Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of enema and dietary restrictions on prostate MR image quality metrics and to assess inter-reader agreement for these metrics. METHODS: This retrospective study included 195 men divided into groups based on their compliance with preparation instructions before prostate MRI (Enema + Diet, n = 98; Enema, n = 42; Diet, n = 35; Control [no compliance], n = 20). Four readers independently assessed six image quality metrics on a 5-point scale. Between-group comparisons were made using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Inter-reader agreement was calculated using Fleiss' kappa. RESULTS: Compared with the Control group, image quality with respect to rectal stool/gas, distortion of diffusion-weighted images, overall image quality, and confidence in assessment was higher in the Enema + Diet, Enema, and Diet groups (p  < 0.05 for all comparisons). The Enema + Diet and Enema groups had significantly higher scores than the Diet group for rectal stool/gas (p < 0.001 and 0.005, respectively). The Enema + Diet and Diet groups had higher scores than the Control group for rectal peristalsis (p = 0.027 and 0.009, respectively), but there were no significant differences in motion artifacts on T2-weighted images. Agreement among readers was fair, with kappa values ranging from 0.25 to 0.37. CONCLUSION: Enema and dietary restriction can improve the quality of prostate MRI by decreasing rectal distension and distortion of diffusion-weighted images and by increasing reader confidence in image assessment. Inter-reader agreement using subjective criteria for analysis of MRI quality is fair.

Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features.

Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Downgrading from Biopsy Grade Group 4 Prostate Cancer in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for High or Very High Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We examined rates of Grade Group 4 downgrading at radical prostatectomy among men diagnosed with high and very high risk prostate cancer at biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pooled cohort of 1,776 patients from 3 tertiary referral centers who underwent radical prostatectomy for National Comprehensive Cancer Network® high risk (prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml, or Grade Group 4-5, or clinical stage T3 or greater) or very high risk (primary Gleason pattern 5, or more than 4 biopsy cores with Grade Group 4-5, or 2 or more high risk features) disease from 2005 to 2015 were reviewed. Overall 893 patients with Grade Group 4 disease at biopsy were identified and 726 patients were available for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to determine factors associated with downgrading to Grade Group 3 or less at radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Overall 333 (45%) cases were downgraded to Grade Group 3 or less at radical prostatectomy. Of these cases 198 (27%) had concordant Grade Group 4 biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology and 195 (27%) were upgraded at radical prostatectomy to Grade Group 5. Of high risk cases with biopsy Grade Group 4 disease 49% had any downgrading vs 29% of very high risk cases (p <0.0001). Downgrading to Grade Group 2 or less occurred in 16% (98 of 604) of high risk and 7% (8 of 122) of very high risk cases (p <0.01). Downgraded cases had a lower prostate specific antigen, fewer positive biopsy cores and lower clinical stage (p <0.01). On multivariable analysis fewer positive biopsy cores were significantly associated with downgrading at radical prostatectomy (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with high risk/very high risk prostate cancer, downgrading from biopsy Grade Group 4 at radical prostatectomy occurred less frequently than in other published reports. Any downgrading was significantly less common in very high risk compared to high risk patients, and downgrading to Grade Group 2 or less occurred in a minority of cases in high risk and very high risk patients.

Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to validate Decipher to predict adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) favorable-intermediate risk (F-IR) prostate cancer (PCa), and to better select F-IR candidates for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: In all, 647 patients diagnosed with NCCN very low/low risk (VL/LR) or F-IR prostate cancer were identified from a multi-institutional PCa biopsy database; all underwent RP with complete postoperative clinicopathological information and Decipher genomic risk scores. The performance of all risk assessment tools was evaluated using logistic regression model for the endpoint of AP, defined as grade group 3-5, pT3b or higher, or lymph node invasion. RESULTS: The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 56-66) for 220 patients with NCCN F-IR disease, 53% classified as low-risk by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA 0-2) and 47% as intermediate-risk (CAPRA 3-5). Decipher classified 79%, 13% and 8% of men as low-, intermediate- and high-risk with 13%, 10%, and 41% rate of AP, respectively. Decipher was an independent predictor of AP with an odds ratio of 1.34 per 0.1 unit increased (p value = 0.002) and remained significant when adjusting by CAPRA. Notably, F-IR with Decipher low or intermediate score did not associate with significantly higher odds of AP compared to VL/LR. CONCLUSIONS: NCCN risk groups, including F-IR, are highly heterogeneous and should be replaced with multivariable risk-stratification. In particular, incorporating Decipher may be useful for safely expanding the use of AS in this patient population.

Validation of the Decipher Test for predicting adverse pathology in candidates for prostate cancer active surveillance.

ABSTACT: BACKGROUND: Many men diagnosed with prostate cancer are active surveillance (AS) candidates. However, AS may be associated with increased risk of disease progression and metastasis due to delayed therapy. Genomic classifiers, e.g., Decipher, may allow better risk-stratify newly diagnosed prostate cancers for AS. METHODS: Decipher was initially assessed in a prospective cohort of prostatectomies to explore the correlation with clinically meaningful biologic characteristics and then assessed in diagnostic biopsies from a retrospective multicenter cohort of 266 men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) very low/low and favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Decipher and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) were compared as predictors of adverse pathology (AP) for which there is universal agreement that patients with long life-expectancy are not suitable candidates for AS (primary pattern 4 or 5, advanced local stage [pT3b or greater] or lymph node involvement). RESULTS: Decipher from prostatectomies was significantly associated with adverse pathologic features (p-values < 0.001). Decipher from the 266 diagnostic biopsies (64.7% NCCN-very-low/low and 35.3% favorable-intermediate) was an independent predictor of AP (odds ratio 1.29 per 10% increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.61, p-value 0.025) when adjusting for CAPRA. CAPRA area under curve (AUC) was 0.57, (95% CI 0.47-0.68). Adding Decipher to CAPRA increased the AUC to 0.65 (95% CI 0.58-0.70). NPV, which determines the degree of confidence in the absence of AP for patients, was 91% (95% CI 87-94%) and 96% (95% CI 90-99%) for Decipher thresholds of 0.45 and 0.2, respectively. Using a threshold of 0.2, Decipher was a significant predictor of AP when adjusting for CAPRA (p-value 0.016). CONCLUSION: Decipher can be applied to prostate biopsies from NCCN-very-low/low and favorable-intermediate risk patients to predict absence of adverse pathologic features. These patients are predicted to be good candidates for active surveillance.

Low Tristetraprolin Expression Is Associated with Lethal Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is linked to prostate cancer progression and is mediated by NF-κB. Tristetraprolin is a key node of NF-κB activation and we investigated its biological and prognostic role in lethal prostate cancer. METHODS: In vitro assays assessed the function of tristetraprolin and the association between low mRNA tristetraprolin levels and lethal prostate cancer (metastatic disease or death) was assessed across independent prostatectomy cohorts: (i) nested case-control studies from Health Professionals Follow-up Study and Physicians' Health Study, and (ii) prostatectomy samples from Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Tristetraprolin expression levels in prostatectomy samples from patients with localized disease and biopsies of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were assessed in a Cornell University cohort. RESULTS: In vitro tristetraprolin expression was inversely associated with NF-κB-controlled genes, proliferation, and enzalutamide sensitivity. Men with localized prostate cancer and lower quartile of tumor tristetraprolin expression had a significant, nearly two-fold higher risk of lethal prostate cancer after adjusting for known clinical and histologic prognostic features (age, RP Gleason score, T-stage). Tristetraprolin expression was also significantly lower in mCRPC compared with localized prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Lower levels of tristetraprolin in human prostate cancer prostatectomy tissue are associated with more aggressive prostate cancer and may serve as an actionable prognostic and predictive biomarker. IMPACT: There is a clear need for improved biomarkers to identify patients with localized prostate cancer in need of treatment intensification, such as adjuvant testosterone suppression, or treatment de-intensification, such as active surveillance. Tristetraprolin levels may serve as informative biomarkers in localized prostate cancer.

Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

Heterogeneity in Definitions of High-risk Prostate Cancer and Varying Impact on Mortality Rates after Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Multiple definitions of high-risk prostate cancer (PC) exist in clinical practice. Prior studies have primarily evaluated the variability in prediction of biochemical recurrence. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of different definitions on mortality after radical prostatectomy (RP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of 6477 men with clinically localized disease undergoing RP at Barnes-Jewish Hospital (St. Louis, MO, USA) and Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, OH, USA) between 1995 and 2007. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Seven pretreatment definitions of high-risk PC (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥20ng/ml, biopsy Gleason score 8-10, clinical stage ≥T2c, cT3, D'Amico definition, National Comprehensive Cancer Network definition, Kattan nomogram) were evaluated. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to generate unadjusted survival estimates. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models (controlling for age) were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall mortality (OM) in the high-risk group compared to men with lower risk not meeting that definition. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: 6477 men were treated with RP from 1995 to 2007 and were followed for a median of 67 mo. Depending on the definition, patients with high-risk PC comprised between 0.7% (when using cT3 as the criterion) and 8.2% (when using the D'Amico criterion) of the population. The 10-yr PC survival estimates varied from 89.7% (PSA ≥20ng/ml) to 69.7% (cT3) and overall survival ranged from 83.4% to 58.1%. On multivariable analysis, all high-risk definitions were associated with a higher risk of PCSM compared to lower risk (HR ranging from 4.38 for PSA ≥20ng/ml to 19.97 for cT3; all p<0.001). All definitions of high risk except for preoperative PSA ≥20ng/ml were associated with a higher risk of OM (HR 1.72 for D'Amico to 3.31 for cT3; all p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in outcomes existed, depending on the pretreatment definition of high-risk PC. Clinical stage T3 and Gleason score 8-10 were most strongly associated with PCSM and OM. PATIENT SUMMARY: There is variability in prostate cancer outcomes after surgery, depending on the definition of pretreatment high-risk disease used. Clinical stage T3 and high Gleason score were most strongly associated with prostate cancer-specific mortality and overall mortality.

Genomic Scores are Independent of Disease Volume in Men with Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Choosing Men for Active Surveillance.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether disease volume at prostate biopsy would correlate with genomic scores among men with favorable risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all men with NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) very low and low risk disease who underwent Oncotype DX® prostate testing at our institution from 2013 to 2016. Disease volume was characterized as the percent of positive cores, the number of cores with greater than 50% involvement, the largest involvement of any single core and prostate specific antigen density. Nonparametric testing was performed to compare the median Genomic Prostate Score™ and the likelihood of favorable pathology findings between quartiles of disease volume. RESULTS: We identified 112 (37.8%) and 184 men (62.2%) at NCCN very low and low risk, respectively. Median scores did not differ significantly between disease volume quartiles (all p >0.05). However, the median likelihood of favorable pathology findings statistically differed between volume quartiles (all <0.05). Seven of the 105 men (6.3%) with very low risk disease were reclassified at low risk and 13 of 181 (7.2%) with low risk disease were reclassified at intermediate risk. Genomic disease reclassification did not depend on biopsy tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NCCN very low and low risk prostate cancer genomic scores did not demonstrate meaningfully significant differences by volume based on clinically established cutoff points. Moreover, genomic scores identified and reclassified men with higher risk disease despite generally acceptable surveillance characteristics in this group according to grade and volume. This suggests that in patients at low risk the tumor biological potential measured by genomics rather than by volume should inform decisions on active surveillance candidacy.

Ability of a Genomic Classifier to Predict Metastasis and Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality after Radiation or Surgery based on Needle Biopsy Specimens.

BACKGROUND: Decipher is a validated genomic classifier developed to determine the biological potential for metastasis after radical prostatectomy (RP). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of biopsy Decipher to predict metastasis and Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in primarily intermediate- to high-risk patients treated with RP or radiation therapy (RT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and thirty-five patients treated with either RP (n=105) or RT±androgen deprivation therapy (n=130) with available genomic expression profiles generated from diagnostic biopsy specimens from seven tertiary referral centers. The highest-grade core was sampled and Decipher was calculated based on a locked random forest model. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Metastasis and PCSM were the primary and secondary outcomes of the study, respectively. Cox analysis and c-index were used to evaluate the performance of Decipher. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With a median follow-up of 6 yr among censored patients, 34 patients developed metastases and 11 died of prostate cancer. On multivariable analysis, biopsy Decipher remained a significant predictor of metastasis (hazard ratio: 1.37 per 10% increase in score, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-1.78, p=0.018) after adjusting for clinical variables. For predicting metastasis 5-yr post-biopsy, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score had a c-index of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.69), while Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment plus biopsy Decipher had a c-index of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60-0.82). National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group had a c-index of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.53-0.77), while National Comprehensive Cancer Network plus biopsy Decipher had a c-index of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66-0.82). Biopsy Decipher was a significant predictor of PCSM (hazard ratio: 1.57 per 10% increase in score, 95% CI: 1.03-2.48, p=0.037), with a 5-yr PCSM rate of 0%, 0%, and 9.4% for Decipher low, intermediate, and high, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy Decipher predicted metastasis and PCSM from diagnostic biopsy specimens of primarily intermediate- and high-risk men treated with first-line RT or RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: Biopsy Decipher predicted metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality risk from diagnostic biopsy specimens.

Prostate cancer screening practices in a large, integrated health system: 2007-2014.

OBJECTIVES: To assess prostate cancer screening practices in primary care since the initial United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for older men, and to assess primary provider variation associated with prostate cancer screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our study population included 160 211 men aged ≥40 years with at least one visit to a primary care clinic in any of the study years in a large, integrated health system. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical record data from January 2007 to December 2014. Yearly rates of screening PSA testing by primary care providers (PCPs), rates of re-screening, and rates of prostate biopsies were assessed. RESULTS: Annual PSA-screening testing declined from 2007 to 2014 in all age groups, as did biennial and quadrennial screening. Yearly rates declined for men aged ≥70 years, from 22.8% to 8.9%; ages 50-69 years, from 39.2% to 20%; and ages 40-49 years, from 11% to 4.6%. Overall rates were lower for African-American (A-A) men vs non-A-A men; for men with a family history of prostate cancer, rates were similar or slightly higher than for those without a family history. PCP variation associated with ordering of PSA testing did not substantially change after the USPSTF recommendations. While the number of men screened and rates of follow-up prostate cancer screening declined in 2011-2014 compared to 2007-2010, similar re-screening rates were noted for men aged 45-75 years with initial PSA levels of <1 ng/mL or 1-3 ng/mL in both the earlier and later cohorts. For men aged >75 years with initial PSA levels of <3 ng/mL screened in both cohorts, follow-up screening rates were similar. Rates of prostate biopsy declined for men aged ≥70 years in 2014 compared to 2007. For men who had PSA screening, rates of first prostate biopsy increased in later years for A-A men and men with a family history of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer screening declined from 2007 to 2014 even in higher-risk groups and follow-up screening rates were not related to previous PSA level. However, rates of first prostate biopsy in men who were screened with a PSA test were higher for men with an increased risk of prostate cancer in later years. Variation in PSA testing was noted among PCPs. Future work should further explore sources of variation in screening practices and implementation of risk-based strategies for prostate cancer screening in primary care.

Opportunities and challenges in incorporating ancillary studies into a cancer prevention randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prostate cancer prevention study funded by the National Cancer Institute and conducted by SWOG (Southwest Oncology Group). A total of 35,533 men were assigned randomly to one of four treatment groups (vitamin E + placebo, selenium + placebo, vitamin E + selenium, placebo + placebo). At the time of the trial's development, NIH had invested substantial resources in evaluating the potential benefits of these antioxidants. To capitalize on the knowledge gained from following a large cohort of healthy, aging males on the effects of selenium and/or vitamin E, ancillary studies with other disease endpoints were solicited. METHODS: Four ancillary studies were added. Each drew from the same population but had independent objectives and an endpoint other than prostate cancer. These studies fell into two categories: those prospectively enrolling and following participants (studies of Alzheimer's disease and respiratory function) and those requiring a retrospective medical record review after a reported event (cataracts/age-related macular degeneration and colorectal screening). An examination of the challenges and opportunities of adding ancillary studies is provided. The impact of the ancillary studies on adherence to SELECT was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: While the addition of ancillary studies appears to have improved participant adherence to the primary trial, this did not come without added complexity. Activation of the ancillary studies happened after the SELECT randomizations had begun resulting in accrual problems to some of the studies. Study site participation in the ancillary trials varied greatly and depended on the interest of the study site principal investigator. Procedures for each were integrated into the primary trial and all monitoring was done by the SELECT Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. The impact of the early closure of the primary trial was different for each of the ancillary trials. CONCLUSIONS: The ancillary studies allowed study sites to broaden the research opportunities for their participants. Their implementation was efficient because of the established infrastructure of the primary trial. Implementation of these ancillary trials took substantial planning and coordination but enriched the overall primary trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00006392-S0000 : Selenium and Vitamin E in Preventing Prostate Cancer (SELECT) (4 October 2000). NCT00780689-S0000A :  Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease by Vitamin E and Selenium (PREADVISE) (25 June 2002). NCT00784225-S0000B : Vitamin E and/or Selenium in Preventing Cataract and Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Men on SELECT SWOG-S0000 (SEE) (31 October 2008). NCT00706121-S0000D : Effect of Vitamin E and/or Selenium on Colorectal Polyps in Men Enrolled on SELECT Trial SWOG-S0000 (ACP) (26 June 2008). NCT00063453-S0000C : Vitamin E and/or Selenium in Preventing Loss of Lung Function in Older Men Enrolled on SELECT Clinical Trial SWOG-S0000 (26 June 2003).

Selenium- or Vitamin E-Related Gene Variants, Interaction with Supplementation, and Risk of High-Grade Prostate Cancer in SELECT.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies and secondary analyses of randomized trials supported the hypothesis that selenium and vitamin E lower prostate cancer risk. However, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) showed no benefit of either supplement. Genetic variants involved in selenium or vitamin E metabolism or transport may underlie the complex associations of selenium and vitamin E. METHODS: We undertook a case-cohort study of SELECT participants randomized to placebo, selenium, or vitamin E. The subcohort included 1,434 men; our primary outcome was high-grade prostate cancer (N = 278 cases, Gleason 7 or higher cancer). We used weighted Cox regression to examine the association between SNPs and high-grade prostate cancer risk. To assess effect modification, we created interaction terms between randomization arm and genotype and calculated log likelihood statistics. RESULTS: We noted statistically significant (P < 0.05) interactions between selenium assignment, SNPs in CAT, SOD2, PRDX6, SOD3, and TXNRD2, and high-grade prostate cancer risk. Statistically significant SNPs that modified the association of vitamin E assignment and high-grade prostate cancer included SEC14L2, SOD1, and TTPA In the placebo arm, several SNPs, hypothesized to interact with supplement assignment and risk of high-grade prostate cancer, were also directly associated with outcome. CONCLUSION: Variants in selenium and vitamin E metabolism/transport genes may influence risk of overall and high-grade prostate cancer, and may modify an individual man's response to vitamin E or selenium supplementation with regards to these risks. IMPACT: The effect of selenium or vitamin E supplementation on high-grade prostate cancer risk may vary by genotype. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(7); 1050-8. ©2016 AACR.

Decipher Genomic Classifier Measured on Prostate Biopsy Predicts Metastasis Risk.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of the Decipher genomic classifier in predicting metastasis from analysis of prostate needle biopsy diagnostic tumor tissue specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with available biopsy specimens were identified from a cohort of 169 men treated with radical prostatectomy in a previously reported Decipher validation study at Cleveland Clinic. A Cox multivariable proportional hazards model and survival C-index were used to evaluate the performance of Decipher. RESULTS: With a median follow up of 8 years, 8 patients metastasized and 3 died of prostate cancer. The Decipher plus National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) model had an improved C-index of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.96) compared to NCCN alone (C-index 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.87). On multivariable analysis, Decipher was the only significant predictor of metastasis when adjusting for age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen and biopsy Gleason score (Decipher hazard ratio per 10% increase 1.72, 95% CI 1.07-2.81, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Biopsy Decipher predicted the risk of metastasis at 10 years post radical prostatectomy. While further validation is required on larger cohorts, preoperative knowledge of Decipher risk derived from biopsy could indicate the need for multimodality therapy and help set patient expectations of therapeutic burden.

Long-Term Efficacy and Toxicity of Low-Dose-Rate ¹²5I Prostate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy in Low-, Intermediate-, and High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To report long-term efficacy and toxicity for a single-institution cohort of patients treated with low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy permanent implant (PI) monotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 1996 to 2007, 1989 patients with low-risk (61.3%), intermediate-risk (29.8%), high-intermediate-risk (4.5%), and high-risk prostate cancer (4.4%) were treated with PI and followed up prospectively in a registry. All patients were treated with (125)I monotherapy to 144 Gy. Late toxicity was coded retrospectively according to a modified Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.0 scale. The rates of biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were calculated. We identified factors associated with late grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, bRFS, DMFS, OS, PCSM, and incontinence. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 67 years, and the median overall and prostate-specific antigen follow-up times were 6.8 years and 5.8 years, respectively. The overall 5-year rates for bRFS, DMFS, OS, and PCSM were 91.9%, 97.8%, 93.7%, and 0.71%, respectively. The 10-year rates were 81.5%, 91.5%, 76.1%, and 2.5%, respectively. The overall rates of late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity were 7.6% and 0.8%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, age and prostate length were significantly associated with increased risk of late grade ≥3 GU toxicity. The risk of incontinence was highly correlated with both pre-PI and post-PI transurethral resection of the prostate. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective treatment for low-risk and low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer and appears promising as a treatment for high-intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. Significant long-term toxicities are rare when brachytherapy is performed as monotherapy.

Development and clinical validation of an in situ biopsy-based multimarker assay for risk stratification in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer aggressiveness and appropriate therapy are routinely determined following biopsy sampling. Current clinical and pathologic parameters are insufficient for accurate risk prediction leading primarily to overtreatment and also missed opportunities for curative therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: An 8-biomarker proteomic assay for intact tissue biopsies predictive of prostate pathology was defined in a study of 381 patient biopsies with matched prostatectomy specimens. A second blinded study of 276 cases validated this assay's ability to distinguish "favorable" versus "nonfavorable" pathology independently and relative to current risk classification systems National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN and D'Amico). RESULTS: A favorable biomarker risk score of ≤0.33, and a nonfavorable risk score of >0.80 (possible range between 0 and 1) were defined on "false-negative" and "false-positive" rates of 10% and 5%, respectively. At a risk score ≤0.33, predictive values for favorable pathology in very low-risk and low-risk NCCN and low-risk D'Amico groups were 95%, 81.5%, and 87.2%, respectively, higher than for these current risk classification groups themselves (80.3%, 63.8%, and 70.6%, respectively). The predictive value for nonfavorable pathology was 76.9% at biomarker risk scores >0.8 across all risk groups. Increased biomarker risk scores correlated with decreased frequency of favorable cases across all risk groups. The validation study met its two coprimary endpoints, separating favorable from nonfavorable pathology (AUC, 0.68; P < 0.0001; OR, 20.9) and GS-6 versus non-GS-6 pathology (AUC, 0.65; P < 0.0001; OR, 12.95). CONCLUSIONS: The 8-biomarker assay provided individualized, independent prognostic information relative to current risk stratification systems, and may improve the precision of clinical decision making following prostate biopsy.

Age-related cataract in men in the selenium and vitamin e cancer prevention trial eye endpoints study: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Observational studies suggest a role for dietary nutrients such as vitamin E and selenium in cataract prevention. However, the results of randomized clinical trials of vitamin E supplements and cataract have been disappointing and are not yet available for selenium. OBJECTIVE: To test whether long-term supplementation with selenium and vitamin E affects the incidence of cataract in a large cohort of men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) Eye Endpoints Study was an ancillary study of the Southwest Oncology Group-coordinated SELECT, a randomized placebo-controlled 4-arm trial of selenium and vitamin E conducted among 35,533 men, 50 years and older for African American participants and 55 years and older for all other men, at 427 participating sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. A total of 11,267 SELECT participants from 128 SELECT sites participated in the SELECT Eye Endpoints ancillary study. INTERVENTIONS: Individual supplements of selenium (200 µg per day from L-selenomethionine) and vitamin E (400 IU per day of all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incident cataract was defined as a lens opacity, age related in origin, and responsible for a reduction in best-corrected visual acuity to 20/30 or worse based on self-reports confirmed by medical record review. Cataract extraction was defined as the surgical removal of an incident cataract. RESULTS: During a mean (SD) of 5.6 (1.2) years of treatment and follow-up, 389 cases of cataract were documented. There were 185 cataracts in the selenium group and 204 in the no selenium group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95 % CI, 0.75-1.11; P = .37). For vitamin E, there were 197 cases in the treated group and 192 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95 % CI, 0.84-1.25; P = .81). Similar results were observed for cataract extraction. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These data from a large cohort of apparently healthy men indicate that long-term daily supplementation with selenium and/or vitamin E is unlikely to have a large beneficial effect on age-related cataract. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00784225.

Plasma tocopherols and risk of prostate cancer in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).

The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) showed higher prostate cancer incidence in men supplemented with high-dose α-tocopherol. We, therefore, examined whether presupplementation plasma α-tocopherol or γ-tocopherol was associated with overall or high-grade prostate cancer. A stratified case-cohort sample that included 1,746 incident prostate cancer cases diagnosed through June 2009 and a subcohort of 3,211 men was derived from the SELECT trial of 35,533 men. Plasma was collected at entry from 2001 to 2004, and median follow-up was 5.5 years (range, 0-7.9 years). Incidence of prostate cancer as a function of plasma α-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol, and supplementation with α-tocopherol or selenomethionine was estimated by the hazard ratio (HR). Plasma γ-tocopherol was not associated with prostate cancer. Men with higher α-tocopherol concentrations seemed to have risk similar to that of men with lower concentrations [overall HR for fifth (Q5) vs. first quintile (Q1), 1.21; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.88-1.66; P-trend = 0.24; in the trial placebo arm, Q5 HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.44-1.62; P-trend = 0.66]. We found a strong positive plasma α-tocopherol association among men receiving the trial selenomethionine supplement [Q5 HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.29-3.22; P-trend = 0.005]. A positive plasma α-tocopherol-prostate cancer association also seemed limited to high-grade disease (Gleason grade, 7-10; overall Q5 HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.13-2.24; P-trend = 0.001; among men receiving selenomethionine, Q5 HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.32-3.40; P-trend = 0.0002). Our findings indicate that higher plasma α-tocopherol concentrations may interact with selenomethionine supplements to increase high-grade prostate cancer risk, suggesting a biologic interaction between α-tocopherol and selenium itself or selenomethionine.

A functional variant in NKX3.1 associated with prostate cancer risk in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).

NKX3.1 is an androgen-regulated prostate tumor suppressor protein. We previously found that antioxidant administration (N-acetylcysteine) in the Nkx3.1 knockout mouse model promoted prostate epithelial proliferation, suggesting that NKX3.1 activity modifies the effect of antioxidant administration on prostate carcinogenesis. Interestingly, administration of the antioxidant vitamin E significantly increased prostate cancer risk in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), suggesting that our animal experiments may be relevant to humans. To determine whether NKX3.1 played a role in increased human prostate cancer risk associated with antioxidant administration in SELECT, we investigated the joint risk of antioxidant administration and NKX3.1 genotypes previously found to be associated with decreased NKX3.1 mRNA expression (rs11781886) or DNA-binding activity in vitro (rs2228013) in the SELECT biomarker case-cohort substudy (1,866 cases; 3,135 non-cases). Multivariable COX regression models were developed to determine the joint association of NKX3.1 genotypes with administration of vitamin E, selenium, or the combination, compared with placebo. The CC genotype at rs11781886 combined with selenium administration was associated with increased overall prostate cancer risk [HR, 1.676; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.011-2.777; P = 0.045] and low-grade prostate cancer risk (HR, 1.811; 95% CI, 1.016-3.228; P = 0.0441). Similarly, the rs11781886 minor allele (CC+CT) combined with vitamin E administration was significantly associated with increased prostate cancer risk (HR, 1.450; 95% CI, 1.117-1.882; P = 0.0052). Our results indicate that variation in NKX3.1 expression combined with selenium or vitamin E treatment modifies the risk of prostate cancer. Genetic background may modulate the effects of antioxidant supplementation thought to act as chemoprevention agents.

Plasma vitamin D and prostate cancer risk: results from the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial.

BACKGROUND: In vitro, animal, and ecological studies suggest that inadequate vitamin D intake could increase prostate cancer risk, but results of biomarker-based longitudinal studies are inconsistent. METHODS: Data for this case (n = 1,731) and cohort (n = 3,203) analysis are from the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial. Cox proportional hazard models were used to test whether baseline plasma vitamin D (25-hydroxy) concentration, adjusted for season of blood collection, was associated with the risk of total and Gleason score 2-6, 7-10, and 8-10 prostate cancer. RESULTS: There were U-shaped associations of vitamin D with total cancer risk: compared with the first quintile, HRs were 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-1.03; P = 0.092], 0.74 (95% CI, 0.59-0.92; P = 0.008), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.69-1.07; P = 0.181), and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.78-1.21; P = 0.823), for the second through fifth quintiles, respectively. For Gleason 7-10 cancer, corresponding HRs were 0.63 (95% CI, 0.45-0.90; P = 0.010), 0.66 (95% CI, 0.47-0.92; P = 0.016), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.56-1.10; P = 0.165), and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.63-1.22; P = 0.436). Among African American men (n = 250 cases), higher vitamin D was associated with reduced risk of Gleason 7-10 cancer only: in the a posteriori contrast of quintiles 1-2 versus 3-5, the HR was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.31-0.97; P = 0.037), with no evidence of dose-response or a U-shaped association. CONCLUSIONS: Both low and high vitamin D concentrations were associated with increased risk of prostate cancer, and more strongly for high-grade disease. IMPACT: The optimal range of circulating vitamin D for prostate cancer prevention may be narrow. Supplementation of men with adequate levels may be harmful. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(8); 1494-504. ©2014 AACR.