Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-SUP-122 standard review
Vitamin E, selenium status and prostate cancer (SELECT)
Baseline selenium status and effects of selenium and vitamin e supplementation on prostate cancer risk.
Overview
Kristal AR et al.. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014 · PMID 24563519 · DOI 10.1093/jnci/djt456
Vitamin E pills raised prostate cancer risk mainly in men who had low selenium levels.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
To see whether selenium status changes supplement effects.
- How was the study done?
Case-cohort analysis in a randomised trial.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
1,739 cases; 3,117 subcohort.
- What was actually found?
Vitamin E increased prostate cancer in low-selenium men.
- How large was the observed effect?
+63% total, +111% high-grade.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
High-dose vitamin E pills are not advisable for men.
- What are the study's limitations?
Subgroup analysis.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-SUP-03.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot prove the subgroup effect.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Kristal AR et al.
- Journal
- J Natl Cancer Inst
- Year
- 2014
- Identifier
- PMID 24563519 DOI 10.1093/jnci/djt456 · PMC3975165
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref works API 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
No COI statement in PubMed record; funding listed: NCI NIH HHS
2. Research question
Do effects of selenium and vitamin E on prostate cancer depend on baseline selenium status?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Randomised controlled trial – Case-cohort analysis within the SELECT randomised trial
- Population
SELECT participants (men)
- Country
North America (SELECT trial; sites not stated in abstract)
- Period
SELECT trial period
- Sample size
1,739 prostate cancer cases (489 high-grade); random subcohort 3,117
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
SELECT case-cohort
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Selenium and/or vitamin E (400 IU/day) supplementation by baseline toenail selenium
- Comparator
Placebo
- Endpoints
Total, low-grade and high-grade prostate cancer
- Statistical methods
Proportional hazards models within selenium quintiles
5. Actual results
- Results
Vitamin E alone had no effect in men with higher selenium status but increased total (63%, P=0.02), low-grade (46%, P=0.09) and high-grade (111%, P=0.008) prostate cancer in men with lower selenium status. Selenium increased high-grade prostate cancer by 91% (P=0.007) in men with higher selenium status.
- Absolute risks
not reported in abstract
- Authors' conclusion
Men should avoid selenium or vitamin E supplementation at doses exceeding recommended intakes.
6. Strengths
- Within a large randomised trial
7. Weaknesses
- Post-hoc subgroup analysis by baseline status
- Multiple comparisons
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- RoB 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Randomised comparison within subgroups; subgroup credibility moderate.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Subgroup findings; interaction not given in abstract.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports a prostate cancer hazard of high-dose vitamin E, concentrated in men with low selenium status.
11. Independent contrary findings
Subgroup analysis; ATBC found fewer prostate cancers with low-dose vitamin E.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Applicable.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Supportive but subgroup-based.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | not replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Replication.