ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2016
Is There a Future for Chemoprevention of Prostate Cancer?
Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Dietary Methylseleninic Acid and Se-Methylselenocysteine on Carcinogen-Induced, Androgen-Promoted Prostate Carcinogenesis in Rats.Nutrition and cancer · 2022Trial
- Germline genetic variation in prostate susceptibility does not predict outcomes in the chemoprevention trials PCPT and SELECT.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2020Trial
- Co-carcinogenic effects of vitamin E in prostate.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Flaxseed Lignans as Important Dietary Polyphenols for Cancer Prevention and Treatment: Chemistry, Pharmacokinetics, and Molecular Targets.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Organoids Increase the Predictive Value ofFrontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- A unifying biology of sex steroid-induced apoptosis in prostate and breast cancers.Endocrine-related cancer · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The outcome of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial, demonstrating harm and no preventive activity of selenomethionine and α-tocopherol for prostate cancer, and the lack of approval by the FDA for the use of 5α-reductase inhibitors to prevent prostate cancer have cast doubt about the future of chemoprevention of prostate cancer. This article attempts to critically assess whether the notion that chemoprevention of prostate cancer has no future is warranted. Risk of prostate cancer is modifiable and chemoprevention of prostate cancer, particularly fatal/lethal cancer, is both needed and possible. However, the approach to prostate cancer-chemopreventive agent development has not followed a rational and systematic process. To make progress, the following steps are necessary: (i) identification of intermediate biomarkers predictive of fatal/lethal disease; (ii) development of a rational approach to identification of candidate agents, including high-throughput screening and generation of information on mechanism and biology of candidate agents and potential molecular targets; and (iii) systematic evaluation of the predictive value of preclinical models, phase II trials, and intermediate biomarkers for the outcome of phase III trials. New phase III trials should be based on adequate preclinical and phase II studies. Cancer Prev Res; 9(8); 642-7. ©2016 AACR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.