Ian M. Thompson

Bio: Ian M. Thompson is an academic researcher from University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. The author has contributed to research in topics: Prostate cancer & Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. The author has an hindex of 99, co-authored 771 publications receiving 46524 citations. Previous affiliations of Ian M. Thompson include Karolinska Institutet & University of Michigan.

The Influence of Finasteride on the Development of Prostate Cancer

Abstract: background Androgens are involved in the development of prostate cancer. Finasteride, an inhibitor of 5 a -reductase, inhibits the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, the primary androgen in the prostate, and may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. methods In the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, we randomly assigned 18,882 men 55 years of age or older with a normal digital rectal examination and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 3.0 ng per milliliter or lower to treatment with finasteride (5 mg per day) or placebo for seven years. Prostate biopsy was recommended if the annual PSA level, adjusted for the effect of finasteride, exceeded 4.0 ng per milliliter or if the digital rectal examination was abnormal. It was anticipated that 60 percent of participants would have prostate cancer diagnosed during the study or would undergo biopsy at the end of the study. The primary end point was the prevalence of prostate cancer during the seven years of the study. results Prostate cancer was detected in 803 of the 4368 men in the finasteride group who had data for the final analysis (18.4 percent) and 1147 of the 4692 men in the placebo group who had such data (24.4 percent), for a 24.8 percent reduction in prevalence over the seven-year period (95 percent confidence interval, 18.6 to 30.6 percent; P<0.001). Tumors of Gleason grade 7, 8, 9, or 10 were more common in the finasteride group (280 of 757 tumors [37.0 percent], or 6.4 percent of the 4368 men included in the final analysis) than in the placebo group (237 of 1068 tumors [22.2 percent], P<0.001 for the comparison between groups; or 5.1 percent of the 4692 men included in the final analysis, P=0.005 for the comparison between groups). Sexual side effects were more common in finasteride-treated men, whereas urinary symptoms were more common in men receiving placebo. conclusions Finasteride prevents or delays the appearance of prostate cancer, but this possible benefit and a reduced risk of urinary problems must be weighed against sexual side effects and the increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer.

Prevalence of Prostate Cancer among Men with a Prostate-Specific Antigen Level ≤4.0 ng per Milliliter

Abstract: Background The optimal upper limit of the normal range for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is unknown. We investigated the prevalence of prostate cancer among men in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial who had a PSA level of 4.0 ng per milliliter or less. Methods Of 18,882 men enrolled in the prevention trial, 9459 were randomly assigned to receive placebo and had an annual measurement of PSA and a digital rectal examination. Among these 9459 men, 2950 men never had a PSA level of more than 4.0 ng per milliliter or an abnormal digital rectal examination, had a final PSA determination, and underwent a prostate biopsy after being in the study for seven years. Results Among the 2950 men (age range, 62 to 91 years), prostate cancer was diagnosed in 449 (15.2 percent); 67 of these 449 cancers (14.9 percent) had a Gleason score of 7 or higher. The prevalence of prostate cancer was 6.6 percent among men with a PSA level of up to 0.5 ng per milliliter, 10.1 percent among those with values of 0.6 to 1.0 ng per mi...

Effect of selenium and vitamin E on risk of prostate cancer and other cancers: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).

Abstract: Context Secondary analyses of 2 randomized controlled trials and supportive epidemiologic and preclinical data indicated the potential of selenium and vitamin E for preventing prostate cancer. Objective To determine whether selenium, vitamin E, or both could prevent prostate cancer and other diseases with little or no toxicity in relatively healthy men. Design, Setting, and Participants A randomized, placebo-controlled trial (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial [SELECT]) of 35 533 men from 427 participating sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico randomly assigned to 4 groups (selenium, vitamin E, selenium + vitamin E, and placebo) in a double-blind fashion between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Baseline eligibility included age 50 years or older (African American men) or 55 years or older (all other men), a serum prostate-specific antigen level of 4 ng/mL or less, and a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer. Interventions Oral selenium (200 μg/d from L-selenomethionine) and matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate) and matched selenium placebo, selenium + vitamin E, or placebo + placebo for a planned follow-up of minimum of 7 years and a maximum of 12 years. Main Outcome Measures Prostate cancer and prespecified secondary outcomes, including lung, colorectal, and overall primary cancer. Results As of October 23, 2008, median overall follow-up was 5.46 years (range, 4.17-7.33 years). Hazard ratios (99% confidence intervals [CIs]) for prostate cancer were 1.13 (99% CI, 0.95-1.35; n = 473) for vitamin E, 1.04 (99% CI, 0.87-1.24; n = 432) for selenium, and 1.05 (99% CI, 0.88-1.25; n = 437) for selenium + vitamin E vs 1.00 (n = 416) for placebo. There were no significant differences (all P>.15) in any other prespecified cancer end points. There were statistically nonsignificant increased risks of prostate cancer in the vitamin E group (P = .06) and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the selenium group (relative risk, 1.07; 99% CI, 0.94-1.22; P = .16) but not in the selenium + vitamin E group. Conclusion Selenium or vitamin E, alone or in combination at the doses and formulations used, did not prevent prostate cancer in this population of relatively healthy men. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00006392Published online December 9, 2008 (doi:10.1001/jama.2008.864).

Vitamin E and the Risk of Prostate Cancer: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)

Abstract: Context The initial report of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) found no reduction in risk of prostate cancer with either selenium or vitamin E supplements but a statistically nonsignificant increase in prostate cancer risk with vitamin E. Longer follow-up and more prostate cancer events provide further insight into the relationship of vitamin E and prostate cancer. Objective To determine the long-term effect of vitamin E and selenium on risk of prostate cancer in relatively healthy men. Design, Setting, and Participants A total of 35 533 men from 427 study sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico were randomized between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Eligibility criteria included a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 4.0 ng/mL or less, a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer, and age 50 years or older for black men and 55 years or older for all others. The primary analysis included 34 887 men who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: 8752 to receive selenium; 8737, vitamin E; 8702, both agents, and 8696, placebo. Analysis reflect the final data collected by the study sites on their participants through July 5, 2011. Interventions Oral selenium (200 μg/d from L-selenomethionine) with matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate) with matched selenium placebo, both agents, or both matched placebos for a planned follow-up of a minimum of 7 and maximum of 12 years. Main Outcome Measures Prostate cancer incidence. Results This report includes 54 464 additional person-years of follow-up and 521 additional cases of prostate cancer since the primary report. Compared with the placebo (referent group) in which 529 men developed prostate cancer, 620 men in the vitamin E group developed prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 99% CI, 1.004-1.36, P = .008); as did 575 in the selenium group (HR, 1.09; 99% CI, 0.93-1.27; P = .18), and 555 in the selenium plus vitamin E group (HR, 1.05; 99% CI, 0.89-1.22, P = .46). Compared with placebo, the absolute increase in risk of prostate cancer per 1000 person-years was 1.6 for vitamin E, 0.8 for selenium, and 0.4 for the combination. Conclusion Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00006392

Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

Abstract: This article provides a status report on the global burden of cancer worldwide using the GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with a focus on geographic variability across 20 world regions There will be an estimated 181 million new cancer cases (170 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 96 million cancer deaths (95 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) in 2018 In both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer (116% of the total cases) and the leading cause of cancer death (184% of the total cancer deaths), closely followed by female breast cancer (116%), prostate cancer (71%), and colorectal cancer (61%) for incidence and colorectal cancer (92%), stomach cancer (82%), and liver cancer (82%) for mortality Lung cancer is the most frequent cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among males, followed by prostate and colorectal cancer (for incidence) and liver and stomach cancer (for mortality) Among females, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, followed by colorectal and lung cancer (for incidence), and vice versa (for mortality); cervical cancer ranks fourth for both incidence and mortality The most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, however, substantially vary across countries and within each country depending on the degree of economic development and associated social and life style factors It is noteworthy that high-quality cancer registry data, the basis for planning and implementing evidence-based cancer control programs, are not available in most low- and middle-income countries The Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development is an international partnership that supports better estimation, as well as the collection and use of local data, to prioritize and evaluate national cancer control efforts CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2018;0:1-31 © 2018 American Cancer Society

Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries.

Abstract: This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.

Global cancer statistics, 2012

Abstract: Cancer constitutes an enormous burden on society in more and less economically developed countries alike. The occurrence of cancer is increasing because of the growth and aging of the population, as well as an increasing prevalence of established risk factors such as smoking, overweight, physical inactivity, and changing reproductive patterns associated with urbanization and economic development. Based on GLOBOCAN estimates, about 14.1 million new cancer cases and 8.2 million deaths occurred in 2012 worldwide. Over the years, the burden has shifted to less developed countries, which currently account for about 57% of cases and 65% of cancer deaths worldwide. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among males in both more and less developed countries, and has surpassed breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer death among females in more developed countries; breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death among females in less developed countries. Other leading causes of cancer death in more developed countries include colorectal cancer among males and females and prostate cancer among males. In less developed countries, liver and stomach cancer among males and cervical cancer among females are also leading causes of cancer death. Although incidence rates for all cancers combined are nearly twice as high in more developed than in less developed countries in both males and females, mortality rates are only 8% to 15% higher in more developed countries. This disparity reflects regional differences in the mix of cancers, which is affected by risk factors and detection practices, and/or the availability of treatment. Risk factors associated with the leading causes of cancer death include tobacco use (lung, colorectal, stomach, and liver cancer), overweight/obesity and physical inactivity (breast and colorectal cancer), and infection (liver, stomach, and cervical cancer). A substantial portion of cancer cases and deaths could be prevented by broadly applying effective prevention measures, such as tobacco control, vaccination, and the use of early detection tests.

Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond

Abstract: Identification of key factors associated with the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and quantification of this risk using multivariable prediction algorithms are among the major advances made in preventive cardiology and cardiovascular epidemiology in the 20th century. The ongoing discovery of new risk markers by scientists presents opportunities and challenges for statisticians and clinicians to evaluate these biomarkers and to develop new risk formulations that incorporate them. One of the key questions is how best to assess and quantify the improvement in risk prediction offered by these new models. Demonstration of a statistically significant association of a new biomarker with cardiovascular risk is not enough. Some researchers have advanced that the improvement in the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) should be the main criterion, whereas others argue that better measures of performance of prediction models are needed. In this paper, we address this question by introducing two new measures, one based on integrated sensitivity and specificity and the other on reclassification tables. These new measures offer incremental information over the AUC. We discuss the properties of these new measures and contrast them with the AUC. We also develop simple asymptotic tests of significance. We illustrate the use of these measures with an example from the Framingham Heart Study. We propose that scientists consider these types of measures in addition to the AUC when assessing the performance of newer biomarkers.

Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Abstract: Background Sipuleucel-T, an autologous active cellular immunotherapy, has shown evidence of efficacy in reducing the risk of death among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 512 patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive either sipuleucel-T (341 patients) or placebo (171 patients) administered intravenously every 2 weeks, for a total of three infusions. The primary end point was overall survival, analyzed by means of a stratified Cox regression model adjusted for baseline levels of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and lactate dehydrogenase. Results In the sipuleucel-T group, there was a relative reduction of 22% in the risk of death as compared with the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.98; P = 0.03). This reduction represented a 4.1-month improvement in median survival (25.8 months in the sipuleucel-T group vs. 21.7 months in the placebo group). The 36-month survival probability was 31.7% in the sipuleucel-T group versus 23.0% in the placebo group. The treatment effect was also observed with the use of an unadjusted Cox model and a log-rank test (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.97; P = 0.02) and after adjustment for use of docetaxel after the study therapy (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.98; P = 0.03). The time to objective disease progression was similar in the two study groups. Immune responses to the immunizing antigen were observed in patients who received sipuleucel-T. Adverse events that were more frequently reported in the sipuleucel-T group than in the placebo group included chills, fever, and headache. Conclusions The use of sipuleucel-T prolonged overall survival among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. No effect on the time to disease progression was observed. (Funded by Dendreon; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00065442.)