Search

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., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: Biomarker-driven master protocols represent a new paradigm in oncology clinical trials, but their complex designs and wide-ranging genomic results returned can be difficult to communicate to participants. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate patient knowledge and expectations related to return of genomic results in the Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP)., Methods: Eligible participants with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were recruited from patients enrolled in Lung-MAP. Participants completed a 38-item telephone survey ≤ 30 days from Lung-MAP consent. The survey assessed understanding about the benefits and risks of Lung-MAP participation and knowledge of the potential uses of somatic testing results returned. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios for associations between demographic factors and correct responses to survey items were assessed., Results: From August 1, 2017, to June 30, 2019, we recruited 207 participants with a median age of 67, 57.3% male, and 94.2% White. Most participants "strongly/somewhat agreed" with statements that they "received enough information to understand" Lung-MAP benefits (82.6%) and risks (69.5%). In items asking about potential uses of Lung-MAP genomic results, 87.0% correctly indicated that the results help to select cancer treatment, but < 20% correctly indicated that the results are not used to confirm cancer diagnosis, would not reveal risk of developing diseases besides cancer, and would not indicate if family members had increased cancer risk. There were no associations between sociodemographic factors and proportions providing correct responses., Conclusion: In a large National Clinical Trials Network biomarker-driven master protocol, most participants demonstrated incorrect knowledge and expectations about the uses of genomic results provided in the study despite most indicating that they had enough information to understand benefits and risks., Competing Interests: Joshua A. RothEmployment: Genentech/RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Epigenomics, Seattle Genetics Meghna S. TrivediHonoraria: Onclive Stacy W. GrayStock and Other Ownership Interests: Magenta TherapeuticsHonoraria: Triptych Health PartnersConsulting or Advisory Role: Magenta Therapeutics Donald L. PatrickHonoraria: Grail, AllakosConsulting or Advisory Role: Philip Morris International Mary W. RedmanConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca Vassiliki PapadimitrakopoulouEmployment: PfizerHonoraria: RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Clovis Oncology, Genentech, Merck, Biothera, Lilly, Janssen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, ARIAD, Nektar, Loxo, Araxes Pharma, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, TRM Oncology, Tesaro, Arrys Therapeutics, Gritstone Oncology, Leads Biolabs, Bolt Biotherapeutics, G2 InnovationResearch Funding: Merck, Novartis, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen Oncology, ACEA Biosciences, Nektar, Roche, Lilly, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Guardant HealthTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche, RocheOther Relationship: Roche Karen KellyConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Symphogen, Inivata, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, EMD Serono, Takaeda, Lilly, Amgen, EMD Serono, Genmab, Targeted Oncology, Genentech, Debiopharm Group, Abbvie, Daiichi Sanko, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKlineResearch Funding: EMD Serono, Genentech, Abbvie, Five Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Astellas Pharma, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc, Lilly, Novartis, AmgenPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Author Royalties for UpToDate, an evidence based, peer reviewed information resource, available via the web, desktop, and PDATravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Regeneron, Lilly, Abbvie, EMD Serono David GandaraHonoraria: AstraZeneca, MJH Life Sciences Healthcare, CBPartnersConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, OncoCyte, Amgen, IObiotech, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Inivata, LillyResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, Merck, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim Roy S. HerbstLeadership: Junshi PharmaceuticalsConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, Abbvie, Biodesix, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, EMD Serono, Heat Biologics, Junshi Pharmaceuticals, Loxo, Nektar, NextCure, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, TESARO, Neon Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, ARMO Biosciences, Genmab, Halozyme, Tocagen, Bolt Biotherapeutics, I-Mab, Immunocore, Mirati Therapeutics, Takeda, Cybrexa Therapeutics, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Candel Therapeutics, Inc, Oncternal Therapeutics, STCube Pharmaceuticals, Inc, WindMIL, XencorResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Merck, Lilly, Genentech/Roche Dawn L. HershmanConsulting or Advisory Role: AIM Specialty Health Scott D. RamseyEmployment: Flatiron HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, BiovicaResearch Funding: Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MicrosoftTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer Schering Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Flatiron Health, Bayer, GRAILNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Excess sugar consumption has been linked to numerous negative health outcomes, such as obesity and type II diabetes. Reducing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption may reduce sugar intake and thus improve health. The aim of the study was to test the impact of the potentially different rewarding nature of water or diet drinks as replacements for SSB, using a habit and implementation intention-based intervention., Method: An online randomised, two-arm parallel design was used. One hundred and fifty-eight participants (mainly from the UK and USA) who regularly consumed SSBs (M age  = 31.5, 51% female) were advised to create implementation intentions to substitute their SSB with either water or a diet drink. Measures of SSB consumption, habit strength and hedonic liking were taken at baseline and at 2 months. Water or diet drink consumption was only measured at 2 months., Results: There was a large and significant reduction in SSB consumption and self-reported SSB habits for both the water and diet drink groups, but no difference between groups. There were no differences in hedonic liking for the alternative drink, alternative drink consumption and alternative drink habit between the two groups. Reduction in SSB hedonic liking was associated with reduced SSB consumption and habit., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that an implementation intention-based intervention achieved substantial reductions in SSB consumption and habits. It also indicates that hedonic liking for SSBs and alternative drinks are associated with changes in consumption behaviour. Substituting SSBs with water or diet drinks was equally as effective in reducing SSB consumption.

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., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Importance: Oxidative stress is an established dementia pathway, but it is unknown if the use of antioxidant supplements can prevent dementia., Objective: To determine if antioxidant supplements (vitamin E or selenium) used alone or in combination can prevent dementia in asymptomatic older men., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease by Vitamin E and Selenium (PREADViSE) trial began as a double-blind randomized clinical trial in May 2002, which transformed into a cohort study from September 2009 to May 2015. The PREADViSE trial was ancillary to the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), a randomized clinical trial of the same antioxidant supplements for preventing prostate cancer, which closed in 2009 owing to findings from a futility analysis. The PREADViSE trial recruited 7540 men, of whom 3786 continued into the cohort study. Participants were at least 60 years old at study entry and were enrolled at 130 SELECT sites, and Cox proportional hazards models were used in a modified intent-to-treat analysis to compare hazard rates among the study arms., Interventions: Participants were randomized to vitamin E, selenium, vitamin E and selenium, or placebo. While taking study supplements, enrolled men visited their SELECT site and were evaluated for dementia using a 2-stage screen. During the cohort study, men were contacted by telephone and assessed using an enhanced 2-stage cognitive screen. In both phases, men were encouraged to visit their physician if the screen results indicated possible cognitive impairment., Main Outcomes and Measures: Dementia case ascertainment relied on a consensus review of the cognitive screens and medical records for men with suspected dementia who visited their physician for an evaluation or by review of all available information, including a functional assessment screen., Results: The mean (SD) baseline age of the 7540 participants was 67.5 (5.3) years, with 3936 (52.2%) reporting a college education or better, 754 (10.0%) reporting black race, and 505 (6.7%) reporting Hispanic ethnicity. Dementia incidence (325 of 7338 men [4.4%]) was not different among the 4 study arms. A Cox model, which adjusted incidence for participant demographic information and baseline self-reported comorbidities, yielded hazard ratios of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.64-1.20) for vitamin E, 0.83 (0.60-1.13) for selenium, and 1.00 (0.75-1.35) for the combination compared with placebo., Conclusions and Relevance: Neither supplement prevented dementia. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the long-term association of antioxidant supplement use and dementia incidence among asymptomatic men.

Selenium and vitamin E micronutrients have been advocated for the prevention of colorectal cancer. Colorectal adenoma occurrence was used as a surrogate for colorectal cancer in an ancillary study to the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) for prostate cancer prevention. The primary objective was to measure the effect of selenium (as selenomethionine) on colorectal adenomas occurrence, with the effect of vitamin E (as α-tocopherol) supplementation on colorectal adenoma occurrence considered as a secondary objective. Participants who underwent lower endoscopy while in SELECT were identified from a subgroup of the 35,533 men randomized in the trial. Adenoma occurrence was ascertained from the endoscopy and pathology reports for these procedures. Relative Risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of adenoma occurrence were generated comparing those randomized to selenium versus placebo and to vitamin E versus placebo based on the full factorial design. Evaluable endoscopy information was obtained for 6,546 participants, of whom 2,286 had 1+ adenomas. Apart from 21 flexible sigmoidoscopies, all the procedures yielding adenomas were colonoscopies. Adenomas occurred in 34.2% and 35.7%, respectively, of participants whose intervention included or did not include selenium. Compared with placebo, the RR for adenoma occurrence in participants randomized to selenium was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90-1.02; P = 0.194). Vitamin E did not affect adenoma occurrence compared with placebo (RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.10; P = 0.38). Neither selenium nor vitamin E supplementation can be recommended for colorectal adenoma prevention. Cancer Prev Res; 10(1); 45-54. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

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).

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 (NCI) and conducted by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG). A total of 35,533 men were assigned randomly to one of the four treatment groups (vitamin E + placebo, selenium + placebo, vitamin E + selenium, and placebo + placebo). The independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) recommended the discontinuation of study supplements because of the lack of efficacy for risk reduction and because futility analyses demonstrated no possibility of benefit of the supplements to the anticipated degree (25% reduction in prostate cancer incidence) with additional follow-up. Study leadership agreed that the randomized trial should be terminated but believed that the cohort should be maintained and followed as the additional follow-up would contribute important information to the understanding of the biologic consequences of the intervention. Since the participants no longer needed to be seen in person to assess acute toxicities or to be given study supplements, it was determined that the most efficient and cost-effective way to follow them was via a central coordinated effort., Purpose: A number of changes were necessary at the local Study Sites and SELECT Statistical Center to transition to following participants via a Central Coordinating Center. We describe the transition process from a randomized clinical trial to the observational Centralized Follow-Up (CFU) study., Methods: The process of transitioning SELECT, implemented at more than 400 Study Sites across the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, entailed many critical decisions and actions including updates to online documents such as the SELECT Workbench and Study Manual, a protocol amendment, reorganization of the Statistical Center, creation of a Transition Committee, development of materials for SELECT Study Sites, development of procedures to close Study Sites, and revision of data collection procedures and the process by which to contact participants., Results: At the time of the publication of the primary SELECT results in December 2008, there were 32,569 men alive and currently active in the trial. As of 31 December 2011, 17,761 participants had been registered to the CFU study. This number is less than had been anticipated due to unforeseen difficulties with local Study Site institutional review boards (IRBs). However, from this cohort, we estimate that an additional 580 prostate cancer cases and 215 Gleason 7 or higher grade cancers will be identified. Over 109,000 individual items have been mailed to participants. Active SELECT ancillary studies have continued. The substantial SELECT biorepository is available to researchers; requests to use the specimens are reviewed for feasibility and scientific merit. As of April 2012, 12 proposals had been approved., Limitations: The accrual goal of the follow-up study was not met, limiting our power to address the study objectives satisfactorily. The CFU study is also dependent on a number of factors including continued funding, continued interest of investigators in the biorepository, and the continued contribution of the participants. Our experience may be less pertinent to investigators who wish to follow participants in a treatment trial or participants in prevention trials in other medical areas., Conclusions: Extended follow-up of participants in prevention research is important to study the long-term effects of the interventions, such as those used in SELECT. The approach taken by SELECT investigators was to continue to follow participants centrally via an annual questionnaire and with a web-based option. The participants enrolled in the CFU study represent a large, well-characterized, generally healthy cohort. The CFU has enabled us to collect additional prostate and other cancer endpoints and longer follow-up on the almost 18,000 participants enrolled. The utility of the extensive biorepository that was developed during the course of the SELECT is enhanced by longer follow-up.