Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 23, No 32 (November 10), 2005: pp. 8161-8164
© 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.7987
Phase III Prostate Cancer Prevention Trials: Are the Costs Justified?
Ian M. Thompson,
Catherine M. Tangen,
Eric A. Klein,
Scott M. Lippman
From the Department of Urology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio; Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Section of Urologic Oncology, Glickman Urological Institute; Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH
Address reprint requests to Ian M. Thompson, MD, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr, San Antonio, TX 78229; e-mail: thompsoni{at}uthscsa.edu.
One randomized, prospective clinical trial for chemoprevention of prostate cancer has been completed, and two additional trials are ongoing. The investment, time, and effort for these trials are substantial. We reviewed the outcomes of these trials to address the value of the investment. The outcomes of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (testing finasteride) and the design of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT; testing vitamin E and selenium) trial as well as the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) trial (testing dutasteride) were reviewed. From a public health standpoint, there is tremendous potential for benefit from large-scale cancer prevention trials. Because of the volume of data that are collected, potential discoveries related to the biology of the disease are substantial. Translational scientific efforts are direct outgrowths of these studies. Prospective, randomized chemoprevention trials for prostate and other cancers are expensive and require long periods of time to conduct, yet the rewards are on a par with the investment.
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
W. Demark-Wahnefried, S. L George, B. R Switzer, D. C Snyder, J. F Madden, T. J Polascik, M. T Ruffin IV, and R. T Vollmer
Overcoming challenges in designing and implementing a phase II randomized controlled trial using a presurgical model to test a dietary intervention in prostate cancer
Clinical Trials,
June 1, 2008;
5(3):
262 - 272.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Raina, M.-J. Blouin, R. P. Singh, N. Majeed, G. Deep, L. Varghese, L. M. Glode, N. M. Greenberg, D. Hwang, P. Cohen, et al.
Dietary Feeding of Silibinin Inhibits Prostate Tumor Growth and Progression in Transgenic Adenocarcinoma of the Mouse Prostate Model
Cancer Res.,
November 15, 2007;
67(22):
11083 - 11091.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. B Rajput, M. A Miller, A. De Luca, N. Boyd, S. Leung, A. Hurtado-Coll, L. Fazli, E. C Jones, J. B Palmer, M. E Gleave, et al.
Frequency of the TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion is increased in moderate to poorly differentiated prostate cancers
J. Clin. Pathol.,
November 1, 2007;
60(11):
1238 - 1243.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Svatek, J. J. Lee, C. G. Roehrborn, S. M. Lippman, and Y. Lotan
The cost of prostate cancer chemoprevention: a decision analysis model.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.,
August 1, 2006;
15(8):
1485 - 1489.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M. Lippman and J. J. Lee
Reducing the "Risk" of Chemoprevention: Defining and Targeting High Risk--2005 AACR Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation Award Lecture.
Cancer Res.,
March 15, 2006;
66(6):
2893 - 2903.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. J. Small and E. A. Klein
Challenges and Future Directions in the Prevention and Management of Prostate Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
November 10, 2005;
23(32):
8143 - 8145.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
