Celecoxib for the prevention of sporadic colorectal adenomas.

BACKGROUND: Studies showing that drugs that inhibit cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) reduce the number of colorectal adenomas in animals and patients with familial adenomatous polyposis suggest that COX-2 inhibitors may also prevent sporadic colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who had adenomas removed before study entry to receive placebo (679 patients) or 200 mg (685 patients) or 400 mg (671 patients) of celecoxib twice daily. Randomization was stratified for the use of low-dose aspirin. Follow-up colonoscopies were performed at one and three years after randomization. The occurrence of newly detected colorectal adenomas was compared among the groups with the life-table extension of the Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: Follow-up colonoscopies were completed at year 1 in 89.5 percent of randomized patients, and at year 3 in 75.7 percent. The estimated cumulative incidence of the detection of one or more adenomas by year 3 was 60.7 percent for patients receiving placebo, as compared with 43.2 percent for those receiving 200 mg of celecoxib twice a day (risk ratio, 0.67; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.77; P<0.001) and 37.5 percent for those receiving 400 mg of celecoxib twice a day (risk ratio, 0.55; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.64; P<0.001). Serious adverse events occurred in 18.8 percent of patients in the placebo group, as compared with 20.4 percent of those in the low-dose celecoxib group (risk ratio, 1.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 1.3; P=0.5) and 23.0 percent of those in the high-dose group (risk ratio, 1.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.0 to 1.5; P=0.06). As compared with placebo, celecoxib was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (risk ratio for the low dose, 2.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 6.1; and risk ratio for the high dose, 3.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 7.9). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that celecoxib is an effective agent for the prevention of colorectal adenomas but, because of potential cardiovascular events, cannot be routinely recommended for this indication. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00005094 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

The fallacy of enrolling only high-risk subjects in cancer prevention trials: is there a "free lunch"?

BACKGROUND: There is a common belief that most cancer prevention trials should be restricted to high-risk subjects in order to increase statistical power. This strategy is appropriate if the ultimate target population is subjects at the same high-risk. However if the target population is the general population, three assumptions may underlie the decision to enroll high-risk subject instead of average-risk subjects from the general population: higher statistical power for the same sample size, lower costs for the same power and type I error, and a correct ratio of benefits to harms. We critically investigate the plausibility of these assumptions. METHODS: We considered each assumption in the context of a simple example. We investigated statistical power for fixed sample size when the investigators assume that relative risk is invariant over risk group, but when, in reality, risk difference is invariant over risk groups. We investigated possible costs when a trial of high-risk subjects has the same power and type I error as a larger trial of average-risk subjects from the general population. We investigated the ratios of benefit to harms when extrapolating from high-risk to average-risk subjects. RESULTS: Appearances here are misleading. First, the increase in statistical power with a trial of high-risk subjects rather than the same number of average-risk subjects from the general population assumes that the relative risk is the same for high-risk and average-risk subjects. However, if the absolute risk difference rather than the relative risk were the same, the power can be less with the high-risk subjects. In the analysis of data from a cancer prevention trial, we found that invariance of absolute risk difference over risk groups was nearly as plausible as invariance of relative risk over risk groups. Therefore a priori assumptions of constant relative risk across risk groups are not robust, limiting extrapolation of estimates of benefit to the general population. Second, a trial of high-risk subjects may cost more than a larger trial of average risk subjects with the same power and type I error because of additional recruitment and diagnostic testing to identify high-risk subjects. Third, the ratio of benefits to harms may be more favorable in high-risk persons than in average-risk persons in the general population, which means that extrapolating this ratio to the general population would be misleading. Thus there is no free lunch when using a trial of high-risk subjects to extrapolate results to the general population. CONCLUSION: Unless the intervention is targeted to only high-risk subjects, cancer prevention trials should be implemented in the general population.

Lack of effect of a low-fat, high-fruit, -vegetable, and -fiber diet on serum prostate-specific antigen of men without prostate cancer: results from a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a diet low in fat and high in fruits, vegetables, and fiber may be protective against prostate cancer by having an impact on serial levels of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA). METHODS: Six hundred eighty-nine men were randomized to the intervention arm and 661 to the control arm. The intervention group received intensive counseling to consume a diet low in fat and high in fiber, fruits, and vegetables. The control group received a standard brochure on a healthy diet. PSA in serum was measured at baseline and annually thereafter for 4 years, and newly diagnosed prostate cancers were recorded. RESULTS: The individual PSA slope for each participant was calculated, and the distributions of slopes were compared between the two groups. There was no significant difference in distributions of the slopes (P =.99). The two groups were identical in the proportions of participants with elevated PSA at each time point. There was no difference in the PSA slopes between the two groups (P =.34) and in the frequencies of elevated PSA values for those with elevated PSA at baseline. Incidence of prostate cancer during the 4 years was similar in the two groups (19 and 22 in the control and intervention arms, respectively). CONCLUSION: Dietary intervention over a 4-year period with reduced fat and increased consumption of fruits, vegetables, and fiber has no impact on serum PSA levels in men. The study also offers no evidence that this dietary intervention over a 4-year period affects the incidence of prostate cancer during the 4 years.