The recently published report of the SELECT evaluation of selenium and vitamin E provided strong evidence that selenium 200 μg per day in the form of selenomethionine does not protect selenium-replete men against prostate or any other cancer. This seems to refute the result of the much smaller Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (NPC) trial of selenium. Because SELECT did not test the NPC agent, it is possible that the difference between the two trials stems partly from the use of different agents: selenomethionine in SELECT, and selenized yeast in the NPC trial. One of the organic selenium forms suspected of having strong chemopreventive effects, and which may have been present in the NPC agent, is methyl selenocysteine. This study characterizes the single-dose pharmacokinetics of methyl selenocysteine. Cancer Prev Res; 4(11); 1938–44. ©2011 AACR.

Selenium is an essential nutrient (1); inadequate selenium nutrition has been associated with increased cancer vulnerability (2–6). However, the results of chemoprevention trials using different forms of selenium at supranutritional levels have been largely disappointing.

In the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (NPC) trial, administration of 200 μg selenium per day in selenized yeast to nonmelanoma skin cancer patients was associated, after 7.4 years, with substantially decreased total cancer incidence, especially of the lung, colon, and prostate, and with decreased total cancer mortality (7–9). These endpoints were, to be sure, secondary to the primary endpoint of nonmelanoma skin cancer recurrence: supplementation actually increased recurrence (10). The association of selenium supplementation with decreased risk was especially marked for prostate cancer (8). In a large trial largely motivated by NPC, Karp and colleagues randomized more than 1,500 patients with resected non–small-cell lung cancer to selenized yeast or to placebo; the trial, designed for a 4-year treatment period, was halted after futility analysis showed that the endpoints of second primary tumors and progression-free survival were not likely to be different in selenium and placebo groups (11). In the much larger SELECT study, closed after subjects were followed for an average of 5.5 years, a 200 μg per day supplement of selenium in the form of selenomethionine (SeMet) had no impact on the incidence of prostate or any other cancer (12). Comparisons between the NPC and SELECT studies bring to light 2 differences of potential importance to the outcomes of the 2 studies. First, different forms of selenium were used in the 2 tria ls (7,12,13): SeMet in SELECT, and selenized yeast in NPC. On the other hand, the agent of the randomized trial led by Karp and colleagues was selenized yeast (largely selenomethionine; ref. 11) and that showed no evidence of effectiveness. Another possible source of differences among these trials is that substantial numbers of the subjects in the NPC trial were close to being selenium deficient, whereas few of those in the lung cancer trial or SELECT were close to being selenium deficient; the mean baseline plasma selenium level of NPC participants was approximately 115 ng/mL and that of SELECT participants approximately 136 ng/mL (7, 8, 12).

The mechanisms by which selenium might inhibit carcinogenesis or otherwise serve as a chemopreventive agent are not known. It has been proposed, but not proven, that a key mechanism may be protection against oxidative stress (14–20). Selenium supplies important proteins that provide protection against oxidative stress (14, 21) so that those with inadequate selenium stores might be at increased risk; whether supranutritional doses of selenium would decrease oxidative stress further and thus protect against carcinogenesis is less clear.

Two major forms of selenium have been widely used in supplementation: SeMet and selenite. SeMet and selenite are metabolized to hydrogen selenide and then to methylselenol: both of these metabolites may exert chemopreventive activity (22–25). Hydrogen selenide is critical to the formation of selenoproteins (25, 26). Methyl selenol, with redox activity and possible effects on signaling, may be a key selenium metabolite in cancer prevention (21). SeMet is incorporated into cellular proteins in place of the sulfur-containing amino acid methionine. Given that methionine is common to all proteins, the displacement of a functionally important sulfur atom by selenium has the potential to alter protein structure and function. With continued ingestion, the pool of SeMet accumulates over time within the body; plasma levels increase, virtually without limit, even if toxicity develops (27). Selenite is nonorganic; approximately 35% of a single 200 μg dose is excreted in urine or feces within 12 days (22). In contrast, only approximately 15% of SeMet will have been similarly excreted within 12 days (23). Plasma selenium from these forms reaches a peak at approximately 8 hours and persists for up to 24 hours. Approximately equal amounts of selenium in selenite are recovered from urine and feces (22), whereas twice as much selenium in SeMet is recovered from urine as from feces. An unidentified selenium isoform present in the NPC yeast, possibly methyl selenocysteine (MSC), may have been at least partly responsible for its apparent effects (13).

MSC is water-soluble, absorbed in mammals from the gastrointestinal tract, and readily transformed to methylselenol (21, 24, 28). Methylselenol can be demethylated to yield selenide (29, 30) or methylated to yield dimethyl selenide and then released in the breath; methylated again, it yields trimethyl selenonium, which is excreted in urine. The role of selenium in cancer risk would be clarified by increased understanding of the pharmacokinetics of this methylated selenium compound. The purpose of this study was to characterize the toxicity and the pharmacokinetics of MSC in humans.

An Institutional Review Board–approved, phase I single-dose, dose-escalation pharmacokinetic/toxicity study of MSC was conducted at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI). Healthy male volunteers were recruited as subjects by public announcement in Buffalo, NY. After granting informed consent verbally and in writing, subjects were randomized, double-blinded, to receive either a single dose of MSC at 1 of 3 different concentrations or placebo. In the first wave, 5 patients received 400 μg of selenium and 1 received placebo; in the second wave, 5 patients received 800 μg of selenium and 1 received placebo; in the third wave, 5 patients received 1,200 μg of selenium and 1 received placebo. The intent of placebo group inclusion was to decrease the likelihood of participant reporting of inconsequential, subjective symptoms. The placebo arm experience is included in the results, although the statistical precision of estimates, with only 3 subjects, is very limited. Subjects were required to have normal hepatic, renal, and bone marrow functions as assessed by history, physical, and clinical chemistry analysis. They could not have given blood within 30 days of MSC administration, had to be 18 years or older, had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (31) of 0 or 1, and to weigh between 50 and 115 kg. Eligibility was restricted to males, because the most powerful effect of selenium was believed to be against prostate cancer. Subjects could not be taking prescription or nonprescription drugs, vitamins, or herbal supplements known to affect gastric acidity within 3 days of drug administration. Subjects arrived at RPCI at 7:00 AM on the day of their pharmacokinetic analysis after a fast beginning at 10:00 PM the previous night. After a brief review of concurrent medications, vital signs, and symptoms, subjects had an intravenous catheter placed in one arm. A baseline predose blood sample was drawn through the catheter, after which subjects ingested the assigned agent along with 8 ounces of water, under direct supervision. Subjects remained in hospital for 12 hours, returning at 24 and 48 hours. In each cohort of 6 men, 5 were randomized to MSC and 1 to placebo. Blood was drawn at baseline and at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0, 12.0, 24, and 48 hours after dosing. Urine was collected within time spans of 0–4, 4–8, and 8–12 hours and at 12 and 24 hours. Subjects in the first, second, and third cohorts received 400, 800, and 1,200 μg of selenium in the form of MSC or placebo, respectively. All subjects in each cohort were treated and evaluated for toxicity before treating subjects on the next cohort. The occurrence of grade 2 or greater toxicity thought at least possibly due to drug was to preclude escalation to the next higher dose.

Methods: Statistics

Quantitative descriptors of subjects—age, race, baseline plasma selenium, toenail selenium, height, weight, and ECOG performance status (31)—were compared by means and SDs. Statistical significance of between-group differences was evaluated by one-way ANOVA. The statistical significance of category variation in race (white or nonwhite) among the treatment groups was considered by the χ2 test. Baseline comparisons among the 4 different treatment groups showed no statistically or substantively significant difference in age, race, plasma or toenail selenium levels, height, weight, or ECOG performance status (Table 1). The ECOG score ranges from 0 to 5, with zero indicating that the subject is fully active and able to carry on all activities of daily living without restriction and 5 indicating death. That the mean ECOG score was zero means that subjects were in general quite healthy, experiencing no noteworthy limitations.

Table 1.

Comparison of placebo and selenium groups at baseline

Study assignment (n)
CharacteristicsPlacebo (n = 3)400 μg (n = 5)800 μg (n = 5)1,200 μg (n = 5)
Age, y 39 (17) 28 (8.0) 33 (14.1) 33 (14.5) 
Race (% European American) 100 80 100 100 
Plasma selenium, ng/mL 134 (3.8) 136 (17.1) 127 (18.8) 114 (14.3) 
Toenail selenium, μg/g 0.89 (0.122) 0.94 (0.063) 0.90 (0.050) 0.99 (0.146) 
Height, m 1.89 (0.091) 1.83 (0.140) 1.80 (0.084) 1.78 (0.124) 
Weight, kg 103 (12.9) 97 (14.9) 82 (15.1) 98.9 (19.1) 
ECOG performance status (0–5); ref. 39 
Study assignment (n)
CharacteristicsPlacebo (n = 3)400 μg (n = 5)800 μg (n = 5)1,200 μg (n = 5)
Age, y 39 (17) 28 (8.0) 33 (14.1) 33 (14.5) 
Race (% European American) 100 80 100 100 
Plasma selenium, ng/mL 134 (3.8) 136 (17.1) 127 (18.8) 114 (14.3) 
Toenail selenium, μg/g 0.89 (0.122) 0.94 (0.063) 0.90 (0.050) 0.99 (0.146) 
Height, m 1.89 (0.091) 1.83 (0.140) 1.80 (0.084) 1.78 (0.124) 
Weight, kg 103 (12.9) 97 (14.9) 82 (15.1) 98.9 (19.1) 
ECOG performance status (0–5); ref. 39 

NOTE: All values are mean (SD).

The pharmacokinetic parameters of maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve (AUC) were compared using one-way ANOVA, with α = 0.05. Paired comparisons were used to evaluate the significance of mean differences of each treatment group from the placebo group. The pharmacokinetic program WinNonlin was used to estimate half-life for each dose-specific treatment group. Box-plot graphics were also used to describe in more detail differences in Cmax and AUC. As the statistical power of the comparison of each group to the placebo patients is limited by the small number of placebo patients, interpretation of the findings is necessarily conservative.

Toxicity was evaluated in all subjects. History was reviewed at baseline; physical examinations were conducted at baseline, at 12 hours, and at 1 week postdose. Vital signs were checked at baseline, at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, and 48 hours, and at 1 week postdose. Clinical laboratory studies, which included a hemogram, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase, total bilirubin, serum electrolytes with blood urea nitrogen and creatinine, and urinalysis, were conducted at baseline, 24 hours, and 1 week postdose. At 30 days postdose, subjects were contacted by telephone for toxicity assessments. All toxicities for all consented subjects were recorded and graded according to the National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) version 3.0.

The primary endpoint of this study was toxicity. A total of 25 adverse events were reported in 18 subjects (Table 2); all were grade 1. We observed no association between assignment to MSC and the occurrence of adverse events, nor was any association between the dose of MSC and the occurrence of adverse events apparent.

Table 2.

Adverse events in subjects on study

Adverse event
MSC doseTypeGradeaNumber of subjects
Placebo Hypercholes terolemia 
 Hyperkalemia 
 Elevated aspartate aminotransferase 
400 μg Anemia 
 Hypernatremia 
 Skin abrasion 
 Blurry vision 
 Hyperglycemia 
 Headache 
 Hyperkalemia 
 Musculoskeletal pain 
 Light headed (during blood draw) 
800 μg Dysgeusia 
 Urinary frequency 
 Hyperkalemia 
 Diarrhea 
 Sore throat 
 Hypercholesterolemia 
 Hyperglycemia 
 Leukopenia 
1,200 μg Sore throat 
 Bronchospasm 
 Hypernatremia 
 Hyperglycemia 
 Headache 
Adverse event
MSC doseTypeGradeaNumber of subjects
Placebo Hypercholes terolemia 
 Hyperkalemia 
 Elevated aspartate aminotransferase 
400 μg Anemia 
 Hypernatremia 
 Skin abrasion 
 Blurry vision 
 Hyperglycemia 
 Headache 
 Hyperkalemia 
 Musculoskeletal pain 
 Light headed (during blood draw) 
800 μg Dysgeusia 
 Urinary frequency 
 Hyperkalemia 
 Diarrhea 
 Sore throat 
 Hypercholesterolemia 
 Hyperglycemia 
 Leukopenia 
1,200 μg Sore throat 
 Bronchospasm 
 Hypernatremia 
 Hyperglycemia 
 Headache 

aNCI CTC version 3.0.

Figure 1 describes the courses of mean plasma selenium concentration among subjects. Each subject's plasma selenium is expressed as a deviation from its baseline level. The most distinct concentration curve is for the 1,200 μg dose, although the curve of the 800 μg dose slightly exceeds that of the 400 μg dose and that of the 400 μg dose exceeds that of placebo. For those receiving MSC, maximum concentration times are similar, ranging between 3 and 5 hours for the 400 through 1,200 μg cohorts.

Figure 1.

Mean plasma selenium concentration versus time by dose.

Figure 1.

Mean plasma selenium concentration versus time by dose.

Close modal

The pharmacokinetic parameter estimates of those curves are in Table 3. Mean Cmax for the placebo group reflects values of 9, 10, and 11 ng/mL; 2 of these maximum values are seen near 24 hours, and the other at around 4 hours. The mean Cmax increases in a dose–response fashion from 10 for placebo to 22.8, 30.75, and 63.2 ng/mL for 400, 800, and 1,200 μg dose subjects, respectively. Mean Cmax for the 1,200 μg dose subjects is significantly and substantially greater than that of placebo subjects: approximately twice that of subjects who received the 800 μg dose. For those receiving MSC, mean Cmax times are similar, ranging between 3 and 5 hours for the 400 to 1,200 μg cohorts. The time of Cmax for the 1,200 μg cohort is in fact the shortest.

Table 3.

Pharmacokinetic parameter estimates

Cmax, ng/mLAUC, ng h/mL
Placebo   
 Mean (SD) 10.0 (1.00) <0 (x
 Median 10.0 <0 
 CV% 10.0 – 
400 μg   
 Mean (SD) 22.8 (9.9) 427.1 (276.5) 
 Median 21.0 435.5 
 95% CI (−25.5 to 51.1) (−79.6 to 934.0) 
800 μg   
 Mean (SD) 30.75 (8.4) 567.5 (243.0)a 
 Median 30.5 648.75 
 95% CI (−19.3 to 60.8) (37.6 to 1,100) 
1,200 μg   
 Mean (SD) 63.2 (27.8)a 1,077.9 (203.3)a 
 Median 57.0 1,055.3 
 95% CI (14.9–91.5) (571–1,580) 
Cmax, ng/mLAUC, ng h/mL
Placebo   
 Mean (SD) 10.0 (1.00) <0 (x
 Median 10.0 <0 
 CV% 10.0 – 
400 μg   
 Mean (SD) 22.8 (9.9) 427.1 (276.5) 
 Median 21.0 435.5 
 95% CI (−25.5 to 51.1) (−79.6 to 934.0) 
800 μg   
 Mean (SD) 30.75 (8.4) 567.5 (243.0)a 
 Median 30.5 648.75 
 95% CI (−19.3 to 60.8) (37.6 to 1,100) 
1,200 μg   
 Mean (SD) 63.2 (27.8)a 1,077.9 (203.3)a 
 Median 57.0 1,055.3 
 95% CI (14.9–91.5) (571–1,580) 

aP < 0.05; determined by comparison of each dose group (400, 800, and 1,200 μg) with placebo group.

Figure 2 describes in greater detail the pattern of Cmax among the 4 treatment groups. In this box-plot graphic, the longest horizontal bar refers to the median, and the shorter bars to the 25th and 75th percentile values. The individual subject values are displayed with distinct symbols for the different doses. It can be seen that Cmax increases substantially with increased selenium dose. The increase is not monotonic, however, as median Cmax of the 1,200 μg dose is roughly 3 times that of the 400 μg dose, twice that of the 800 μg dose.

Figure 2.

Selenium Cmax* adjusted for baseline levels by dose group.

Figure 2.

Selenium Cmax* adjusted for baseline levels by dose group.

Close modal

AUC values are also given in Table 3. The mean and median values for the 400 and 800 μg cohorts are greater than those of the placebo cohort, and their excesses over those of placebo statistically significant. However, the mean and median AUC of the 1,200 μg cohort are nearly twice those of the 800 μg cohort. It is not possible to derive convergent estimates of half-life for subjects receiving the 400 or 800 μg doses; for those who received 1,200 μg, however, half-life is estimated to be 29 hours (not shown). Figure 3 graphically describes this analysis: the AUCs of both the 400 and 800 μg doses are elevated, although the difference is slight; the elevation of the 800 μg dose is significantly greater than that of the placebo. On the other hand, the AUC for the 1,200 μg dose is significantly greater than that of placebo, nearly twice that of the 800 μg dose.

Figure 3.

Selenium AUC adjusted for baseline levels by dose group.

Figure 3.

Selenium AUC adjusted for baseline levels by dose group.

Close modal

Figure 4 describes urinary concentration of selenium for subjects receiving each dose by interval of excretion. Because the baseline levels of subjects were in general below the level of detection, those concentrations are not expressed as deviations from baseline levels. Most of the urine values for subjects receiving placebo remain below the limits of detection, so these are not presented. The mean values of subjects who received 400 or 800 μg of selenium exhibit discernible peaks 4 to 8 hours postdose. Excretion among subjects who received the 800 μg dose is slightly higher than that of subjects who received 400 μg. For subjects receiving 1,200 μg selenium, the mean peak concentration is approximately twice that of subjects who received 400 or 800 μg doses; the maximum point of this excretion is seen 8 to 12 hours postdose.

Figure 4.

Mean urine selenium concentration both by selenium dose and by time postadministration.

Figure 4.

Mean urine selenium concentration both by selenium dose and by time postadministration.

Close modal

These data represent a first examination of MSC as administered to humans. There was no evidence of toxicity.

A substantial body of preclinical data indicates that selenium is important to protection against oxidative stress (14–21, 29, 32–34). Selenium deficiency is also associated with increased cancer risk (22, 23, 35, 36); whether supplementation of those who are selenium deficient might decrease vulnerability to oxidative stress is not well known, as well as whether an agent that protects against oxidative stress would protect against carcinogenesis. SELECT suggests that among men who are selenium replete, selenium offers no such protection (12).

Preclinical toxicology studies of MSC—long and short term—have been conducted by the National Cancer Institute through the Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP) Rapid Access to Preventive Intervention Development (RAPID) Program (37). The studies conducted on rats and dogs showed dogs to be the most sensitive species. The no adverse effect level after 28 and after 90 days of dosing in dogs based on histopathologic and hematologic findings was 0.3 mg MSC/kg body weight per day (0.13 mg selenium/kg body weight per day); an equivalent value extrapolated to humans for a 70 kg person is 21,000 μg MSC per day, or 9,100 μg selenium per day. Single bolus doses of MSC were largely converted to excretory metabolites in breath and urine; even chronic high doses of MSC may lead to very modest tissue accumulations of selenium (34,36). NCI DCP–sponsored genotoxicity studies with MSC were negative (37).

Selenium is a natural dietary constituent so that varying baseline concentrations were present in the plasma of subjects. To accurately gauge the pharmacokinetic parameters, we took these baseline values into consideration. It will be important to take a similar approach in future investigations. This factor, along with the single-dose nature of the study design and the relatively low doses investigated, limits the conclusions that can be drawn. However, these are inherent to the study of a first-time in-human chemopreventive agent and represent safeguards purposefully built into the design of the study. These factors notwithstanding, this study provides some important initial findings.

There was little difference in the pharmacokinetic parameters of the 400 and 800 μg doses. The values observed were clearly above those observed in the placebo cohort. There are important differences when the 1,200 μg cohort is compared with the other 2 MSC cohorts. Together, they are consistent with the possibility of saturation in metabolism and/or excretion. This is supported by the finding of a shorter time of maximum concentration in the 1,200 μg cohort; this time trends downward as dose increases, and it is coupled with a delay in the peak urinary excretion time. The time of maximum concentration for the 1,200 μg dose of MSC seems to be shorter than for SeMet (23), although it needs to be evaluated in a direct pharmacokinetic comparison.

The Cmax and AUC for the 1,200 μg cohort are proportionally greater than the respective values for the 800 μg cohort. There are several potential implications to this for design of multidose studies. Specifically, given the possibility for accumulation, multidose studies should not exceed the 1,200 μg dose until additional information becomes available. This value is approximately one-eighth the value extrapolated from tests on the most sensitive nonhuman mammal. Second, this finding is not consistent with MSC moving into a large storage reservoir. This contrasts sharply with SeMet; as SeMet accumulates within essentially all proteins, the body provides a vast storage reservoir. This may explain why selenium concentration increases so directly with multiple doses of SeMet.

Preclinical research indicates that MSC provides a more efficient route than SeMet for the formation of methyl selenol, a metabolite that may impart a chemopreventive effect (24, 25, 35, 38). It will be important in the future to accurately speciate methyl selenol and related plasma selenium metabolites. This represents an evolving field, and work is actively progressing (30, 36). Once the technology is in place, it can be applied to stored samples. The major downstream protein products of selenium supplementation, selenoprotein P and glutathione peroxidase, which are the key and most abundant selenoproteins in plasma, can be readily evaluated. Indeed, given that the function of selenium resides primarily in the proteins to which it gives rise, a focus on these key selenoproteins may be highly informative (27). Analysis of these is under way.

The work by Ip and colleagues suggests that MSC might prove more physiologically relevant than SeMet or selenite. It has efficacy in preclinical prevention models, and it may therefore represent an important potential chemopreventive agent, if only for those who are selenium deficient (14, 21, 24–26, 28, 38). MSC is a close derivative of selenocysteine, which is referred to in the literature as the physiologic form of selenium (30). It is necessary for the synthesis of selenoproteins, and these proteins seem to be responsible for physiologic effects of selenium in humans.

The SELECT results leave little room for hope that selenium as SeMet will prove of chemopreventive efficacy for selenium-replete subjects (12). Whether supplementation will be of benefit to those who are not selenium replete is less clear. Moreover, the form of selenium administered in SELECT, SeMet, may have important limitations. It is important not to extrapolate without adequate evidence the findings of SELECT (i.e., SeMet) to all selenium compounds and all populations. Preclinical findings, as well as findings in humans now available through the current study, show in a corroborative fashion that there may be important differences between MSC and SeMet (21, 24–27). Taken together, prior studies and findings from this study support continued investigation of the role of MSC in cancer risk among humans.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

The authors thank Linda Schmieder (nurse practitioner), Roswell Park Cancer Institute, for her oversight of the protocol implementation and follow-up.

The work was supported by National Cancer Institute contract no. N01-CN-35157, NWU 04-4-02: “Phase I study of single oral dose of Se-methylseleno-l-cysteine (MSC) in adult men and by National Cancer Institute (NCI) grant P30 CA016056.”

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Monsen
ER
. 
Dietary reference intakes for the antioxidant nutrients: vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, and carotenoids
.
J Am Diet Assoc
2000
;
100
:
537
640
.
2.
Yoshizawa
K
,
Willett
WC
,
Morris
SJ
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Spiegelman
D
,
Rimm
EB
, et al
Study of prediagnostic selenium level in toenails and the risk of advanced prostate cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1998
;
90
:
1219
24
.
3.
Brooks
JD
,
Jeffrey
ME
,
Chan
DW
,
Sokoll
LJ
,
Landis
P
,
Nelson
WG
, et al
Plasma selenium level before diagnosis and the risk of prostate cancer development
.
J Urol
2001
;
166
:
2034
8
.
4.
Helzlsouer
KJ
,
Huang
HY
,
Alberg
AJ
,
Hoffman
S
,
Burke
A
,
Norkus
EP
, et al
Association between α-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol, selenium, and subsequent prostate cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2000
;
92
:
2018
23
.
5.
Li
H
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Giovannucci
EL
,
Morris
JS
,
Willett
WC
,
Gaziano
JM
, et al
A prospective study of plasma selenium levels and prostate cancer risk
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2004
;
96
:
696
703
.
6.
Nomura
AMY
,
Lee
J
,
Stemmermann
GN
,
Combs
GF
. 
Serum selenium and subsequent risk of prostate cancer
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2000
;
9
:
883
7
.
7.
Clark
LC
,
Combs
GF
,
Turnbull
BW
,
Slate
EH
,
Chalker
DK
,
Chow
J
, et al
Effects of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in patients with carcinoma of the skin A randomized controlled trial. Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Study Group
.
JAMA
1996
;
276
:
1957
63
.
8.
Duffield-Lillico
AJ
,
Dalkin
BL
,
Reid
ME
,
Turnbull
BW
,
Slate
EH
,
Jacobs
ET
, et al
Selenium supplementation, baseline plasma selenium status and incidence of prostate cancer: an analysis of the complete treatment period of the nutritional prevention of cancer trial
.
BJU Int
2003
;
91
:
608
12
.
9.
Duffield-Lillico
AJ
,
Reid
ME
,
Turnbull
BW
,
Combs
GF
,
Slate
EH
,
Fischbach
LA
, et al
Baseline characteristics and the effect of selenium supplementation on cancer incidence in a randomized clinical trial: a summary report of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2002
;
11
:
630
9
.
10.
Duffield-Lillico
AJ
,
Slate
EH
,
Reid
ME
,
Turnbull
BW
,
Wilkins
PA
,
Combs
GF
, et al
the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Study Group. Selenium supplementation and secondary prevention of nonmelanoma skin cancer in a randomized trial
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2003
;
95
:
1477
81
.
11.
Karp
DD
,
Lee
SJ
,
Shaw
Wright GL
,
Johnson
DH
,
Johnston
MR
, et al
A phase III, intergroup, randomized, double-blind, chemoprevention trial of selenium (Se) supplementation in resected stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
.
J Clin Oncol
2010
;
28 Suppl
:
8s
.
Abstr nr. CRA7004
.
12.
Lippman
SM
,
Klein
EA
,
Goodman
PJ
,
Lucia
MS
,
Thompson
IM
,
Ford
LG
, et al
Effect of selenium and vitamin E on risk of prostate cancer and other cancers the selenium and vitamin E cancer prevention trial (SELECT)
.
JAMA
2009
;
301
:
E1
E13
.
13.
Uden
PC
,
Boakye
HT
,
Kahakachchi
C
,
Hafezi
R
,
Nolibos
P
,
Block
E
, et al
Element selective characterization of stability and reactivity of selenium species in selenized yeast
.
J Anal At Spectrom
2004
;
19
:
65
73
.
14.
Poerschke
RL
,
Franklin
MR
,
Moos
PJ
. 
Modulation of redox status in human lung cell lines by organoselenocompounds: slenazolidines, selenomethionine, and methylseleninic acid
.
Toxicol In Vitro
2008
;
22
:
1761
7
.
15.
Rayman
MP
. 
Selenium in cancer prevention: a review of the evidence and mechanism of action
.
Proc Nutr Soc
2005
;
64
:
527
42
.
16.
Das
RK
,
Bhattacharya
S
. 
Anti-tumour promoting activity of diphenylmethyl selenocyanate against two-stage mouse skin carcinogenesis
.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev
2005
;
6
:
181
8
.
17.
Gopalakrishna
R
,
Gundimeda
U
. 
Antioxidant regulation of protein kinase C in cancer prevention
.
J Nutr
2002
;
132
:
3819s
23s
.
18.
Zhong
W
,
Oberley
TD
. 
Redox-mediated effects of selenium on apoptosis and cell cycle in the LNCaP human prostate cancer cell line
.
Cancer Res
2001
;
61
:
7071
8
.
19.
Zhao
R
,
Domann
FE
,
Zhong
W
. 
Apoptosis induced by selenomethionine and methionase is superoxide mediated and p53 dependent in human prostate cancer cells
.
Mol Cancer Ther
2006
;
5
:
3275
84
.
20.
Xiang
N
,
Zhao
R
,
Zhong
W
. 
Sodium selenite induces apoptosis by generation of superoxide via the mitochondrial-dependent pathway in human prostate cancer cells
.
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol
2009
;
63
:
351
62
.
21.
Ip
C
. 
Lessons from basic research in selenium and cancer prevention
.
J Nutr
1998
;
128
:
1845
54
.
22.
Patterson
BH
,
Levander
OA
,
Helzlsouer
KJ
,
McAdam
PA
,
Lewis
SA
,
Taylor
PR
, et al
Human selenite metabolism: a kinetic model
.
Am J Physiol
1989
;
257
:
556
67
.
23.
Swanson
CA
,
Patterson
BH
,
Levander
OA
,
Veillon
C
,
Taylor
PR
,
Helzlsouer
KJ
, et al
Human (74Se) selenomethionine metabolism: a kinetic model
.
Am J Clin Nutr
1991
;
54
:
917
26
.
24.
Ip
C
,
Birringer
M
,
Block
E
,
Kotrebai
M
,
Tyson
JF
,
Uden
PC
, et al
Chemical speciation influences comparative activity of selenium-enriched garlic and yeast in mammary cancer prevention
.
J Agric Food Chem
2000
;
48
:
2062
70
.
25.
Ip
C
,
Thompson
HJ
,
Zhu
Z
, et al
In vitro and in vivo studies of methylseleninic acid: evidence that a monomethylated selenium metabolite is critical for cancer chemoprevention
.
Cancer Res
2000
;
60
:
2882
6
.
26.
Dong
Y
,
Zhang
H
,
Hawthorn
L
,
Ganther
HE
,
Ip
C
. 
Delineation of the molecular basis for selenium-induced growth arrest in human prostate cancer cells by oligonucleotide array
.
Cancer Res
2003
;
63
:
52
9
.
27.
Burk
RF
,
Norsworthy
BK
,
Hill
KE
,
Motley
AK
,
Byrne
DW
. 
Effects of chemical form of selenium on plasma biomarkers in a high-dose human supplementation trial
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2006
;
15
:
804
10
.
28.
Ip
C
,
Zhu
Z
,
Thompson
HJ
,
Lisk
D
,
Ganther
H
. 
Chemoprevention of mammary cancer with Se-allylselenocysteine and other selenoamino acids in the rat
.
Anticancer Res
1999
;
19
:
2875
80
.
29.
Ganther
HE
. 
Selenium metabolism and mechanisms of cancer prevention
.
In: AICR, editor
. 
Nutrition and cancer prevention
.
New York
:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum
; 
2000
.
p. 119
30
.
30.
Ohta
Y
,
Suzuki
KT
. 
Methylation and demethylation of intermediates selenide and methylselenol in the metabolism of selenium
.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol
2008
;
226
:
169
77
.
31.
Oken
MM
,
Creech
RH
,
Tormey
DC
,
Horton
J
,
Davis
TE
,
McFadden
ET
, et al
Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
.
Am J Clin Oncol
1982
;
5
:
649
55
.
32.
Papp
LV
,
Lu
J
,
Holmgren
A
,
Khanna
KK
. 
Comprehensive invited review from selenium to selenoproteins: synthesis, identity, and their role in human health
.
Antioxid Redox Signal
2007
;
9
:
775
806
.
33.
Kryukov
GV
,
Castellano
S
,
Novoselov
SV
,
Lobanov
AV
,
Zehtab
O
,
Guigo
R
, et al
Characterization of mammalian selenoproteomes
.
Science
2003
;
300
:
1439
43
.
34.
Lee
BJ
,
Worland
PJ
,
Davis
JN
,
Stadtman
TC
,
Hatfield
DL
. 
Identification of a selenocysteyl-tRNA(ser) in mammalian cells that recognizes the nonsense codon, UGA
.
J Biol Chem
1989
;
264
:
9724
7
.
35.
Ip
C
,
Marshall
J
,
Park
YM
,
Zhang
H
,
Dong
Y
,
Wu
Y
, et al
Selenium and Cancer Prevention. In: Nutritional Oncology 2nd ed. Heber D, Blackburn GL, Go VLW, Milner J (eds) San Diego:
Academic Press, pp
.
573
81
.
36.
Jackson
MI
,
Combs
GFJ
. 
Selenium and anticarcinogenesis: underlying mechanisms
.
Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care
2008
;
11
:
718
26
.
37.
Johnson
WD
,
Morrissey
RL
,
Kapetanovic
I
,
Crowell
J
,
McCormick
DL
Subchronic oral toxicity studies of Se-methylselenocysteine, and organoselenium compound for breast cancer prevention. Food Chem Toxicol
. 
2008 Mar
;
46(3)
:
1068
78
Epub 2007 Nov 12
.
38.
Medina
D
,
Thompson
H
,
Ganther
H
,
Ip
C
. 
Se-methylselenocysteine: a new compound for chemoprevention of breast cancer
.
Nutr Cancer
2001
;
40
:
12
7
.