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.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Selenium and Vitamin ECancer 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.
Authors: Garnet L Anderson; Rowan T Chlebowski; Aaron K Aragaki; Lewis H Kuller; JoAnn E Manson; Margery Gass; Elizabeth Bluhm; Stephanie Connelly; F Allan Hubbell; Dorothy Lane; Lisa Martin; Judith Ockene; Thomas Rohan; Robert Schenken; Jean Wactawski-Wende Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Qian Shi; Y Nancy You; Heidi Nelson; Mark S Allen; David Winchester; Andrew Stewart; Tonia Young-Fadok; Paul A Decker; Erin M Green; Sara J Holton; Karla V Ballman Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Cara L Carty; Charles Kooperberg; Marian L Neuhouser; Lesley Tinker; Barbara Howard; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Shirley A A Beresford; Linda Snetselaar; Mara Vitolins; Matthew Allison; Nicole Budrys; Ross Prentice; Ulrike Peters Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Jean Y Tang; Katrina M Spaunhurst; Rowan T Chlebowski; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Elizabeth Keiser; Fridtjof Thomas; Matthew L Anderson; Nathalie C Zeitouni; Joseph C Larson; Marcia L Stefanick Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Andrea Z LaCroix; Rowan T Chlebowski; JoAnn E Manson; Aaron K Aragaki; Karen C Johnson; Lisa Martin; Karen L Margolis; Marcia L Stefanick; Robert Brzyski; J David Curb; Barbara V Howard; Cora E Lewis; Jean Wactawski-Wende Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Victor G Vogel; Joseph P Costantino; D Lawrence Wickerham; Walter M Cronin; Reena S Cecchini; James N Atkins; Therese B Bevers; Louis Fehrenbacher; Eduardo R Pajon; James L Wade; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; Joan James; Carolyn D Runowicz; Patricia A Ganz; Steven E Reis; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Leslie G Ford; V Craig Jordan; Norman Wolmark Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2010-04-19
Authors: Eric A Klein; Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; John J Crowley; M Scott Lucia; Phyllis J Goodman; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Howard L Parnes; J Michael Gaziano; Daniel D Karp; Michael M Lieber; Philip J Walther; Laurence Klotz; J Kellogg Parsons; Joseph L Chin; Amy K Darke; Scott M Lippman; Gary E Goodman; Frank L Meyskens; Laurence H Baker Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gary E Goodman; Mark D Thornquist; John Balmes; Mark R Cullen; Frank L Meyskens; Gilbert S Omenn; Barbara Valanis; James H Williams Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Richard J Kryscio; Erin L Abner; Allison Caban-Holt; Mark Lovell; Phyllis Goodman; Amy K Darke; Monica Yee; John Crowley; Frederick A Schmitt Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Demetrius Albanes; Cathee Till; Eric A Klein; Phyllis J Goodman; Alison M Mondul; Stephanie J Weinstein; Philip R Taylor; Howard L Parnes; J Michael Gaziano; Xiaoling Song; Neil E Fleshner; Powel H Brown; Frank L Meyskens; Ian M Thompson Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2014-06-24
Authors: Marco Vinceti; Catherine M Crespi; Carlotta Malagoli; Cinzia Del Giovane; Vittorio Krogh Journal: J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev Date: 2013 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Maria G Grammatikopoulou; Konstantinos Gkiouras; Stefanos Τ Papageorgiou; Ioannis Myrogiannis; Ioannis Mykoniatis; Theodora Papamitsou; Dimitrios P Bogdanos; Dimitrios G Goulis Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; Amy K Darke; Kathryn B Arnold; JoAnn Hartline; Monica Yee; Karen Anderson; Allison Caban-Holt; William G Christen; Patricia A Cassano; Peter Lance; Eric A Klein; John J Crowley; Lori M Minasian; Frank L Meyskens Journal: Trials Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 2.279