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

Original publication

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
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultslow
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitynot replicated
Consistency with the overall evidencemixed
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Replication.

15. Linked fact checks