4.5 Review

Chemoprevention of prostate cancer through dietary agents: Progress and promise

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 16, Issue 11, Pages 2193-2203

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0942

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA 120451, R01 CA 78809, R01 CA 101039] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [P50 DK065303-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prostate cancer (CaP) is second only to lung cancer as the cause of cancer-related deaths in American men and is responsible for over 29,000 deaths per year. One promising approach to reduce the incidence of CaP is through chemoprevention, which has been recognized as a plausible and cost-effective approach to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality by inhibiting precancerous events before the occurrence of clinical disease. Indeed, CaP is an ideal candidate disease for chemoprevention because it is typically diagnosed in the elderly population with a relatively slower rate of growth and progression, and therefore, even a modest delay in the development of cancer, achieved through pharmacologic or nutritional intervention, could result in substantial reduction in the incidence of clinically detectable disease. In this review, we have summarized the recent investigations and mechanistic studies on CaP chemoprevention using dietary agents, such as selenium, vitamins D and E, lycopene, phytoestrogens, flavonoids, and green tea polyphenols. Well-designed trials are required to delineate the potential clinical usefulness of these agents through issues, such as determining the optimal period and route of administration, systemic bioavailability, optimal dosing and toxicity of the agent, and single or combinatorial approach. It is hoped that, combining the knowledge based on agents with targets, effective approaches for CaP chemoprevention can be established.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available