Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23064404›Full record

Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2013

Moving a randomized clinical trial into an observational cohort.

Phyllis J Goodman, Jo Ann Hartline, Catherine M Tangen, John J Crowley, Lori M Minasian, Eric A Klein, Elise D Cook, Amy K Darke, Kathryn B Arnold, Karen Anderson and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Friend or foe? The current epidemiologic evidence on selenium and human cancer risk.Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Environmental carcinogenesis & ecotoxicology reviews · 2013
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Phyllis J GoodmanSWOG Statistical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. pgoodman@fhcrc.org
Jo Ann Hartline
Catherine M Tangen
John J Crowley
Lori M Minasian
Eric A Klein
Elise D Cook
Amy K Darke
Kathryn B Arnold
Karen Anderson
Monica Yee
Frank L Meyskens
Laurence H Baker
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · USCancer Research And Biostatistics · USCleveland Clinic · USNational Cancer Institute · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

SWOG Foreign AccrualsU10CA037429 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI BLANKE, CHARLES D., MEYSKENS, FRANK L. · 1985 to 2014
$205.2M
Tissue and Pathology ResourcesU54CA168512 · NCI · SARC · PI REINKE, DENISE · 2012 to 2016
$11.0M
NCI NIH HHS CA37429NCI NIH HHS U10 CA037429NCI NIH HHS U54 CA168512
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsThe 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.

resultsAt 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.

conclusionsExtended 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.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesData CollectionDietary SupplementsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCanadaClinical Trials Data Monitoring CommitteesEndpoint DeterminationFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)PlacebosSeleniumVitamin E

Identifiers

PMID23064404
PMCPMC3636982
OpenAlexW2144697864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.