Cancer chemoprevention is defined as the use of specific chemical
compounds to prevent, inhibit, or reverse carcinogenesis. As shown
in Figure 1, cancer development in humans requires an average
of 20 to 40 years,[1-6] and the scope of chemoprevention encompasses
all phases of this process--from healthy subjects at normal risk;
to populations at intermediate risk from environmental and lifestyle
factors, genetic predisposition, and precancerous lesions; to
previous cancer patients at high risk for second primary malignancies.
Chemoprevention is a relatively new medical science. It is only
during the past 5 years that results of clinical intervention
trials with chemopreventive drugs have begun to appear in the
literature. For example, a 1990 seminal trial by Hong and colleagues
demonstrated that 13-cis-retinoic acid (iso-retinoin [Accutane])
prevented second primary cancers in patients with previous squamous-cell
carcinoma of the head and neck. Second primaries were seen
in 24% (12 patients) of the placebo group but in only 4% (2 patients)
of the treatment group.
Of course, such clinical trials represent only a fraction of current
knowledge about human chemoprevention. Epidemiologic studies,
ranging from descriptive assessment of dietary influences to prospective
case-control analyses with specific micronutrients and drugs,
have provided and continue to furnish leads for definitive intervention
trials. For example, the protective effects of aspirin in the
colon were substantiated by such studies.[8-10]
Chemoprevention is not the same as cancer chemotherapy. These
two treatment modalities are compared and contrasted in Table
1. A primary distinction is the timing and duration of intervention.
Chemoprevention is applied throughout the long process of carcinogenesis
depicted in Figure 1, before invasive disease develops. Chemopreventive
treatment is intended to be long term, conceivably up to a lifetime
in high-risk subjects. A consequence of this long duration of
treatment in relatively healthy subjects is a requirement for
agents with very low toxicity. In contrast, chemotherapeutic agents
are administered after invasive disease is detected. Many such
agents are given to cancer patients for short periods or in discrete
cycles under conditions in which side effects are expected and
carefully monitored and palliative treatment can be administered
to lessen their immediate impact.
A second fundamental distinction relates to the goals of the two
treatment modalities relative to cancer. Chemotherapy seeks to
increase survival and remission of invasive disease and to prevent
metastases, whereas chemoprevention tries to prevent or prolong
the time to the onset of cancer. Because of these differences,
the developmental paths for chemotherapeu- tic and chemopreventive
agents are divergent. In particular, cancer incidence generally
is not a feasible end point for the evaluation of chemopreventive
drugs because of the long time needed for carcinogenesis and the
relatively low incidences of cancers, even in high-risk populations.
Despite the differences between chemoprevention and chemotherapy,
there are areas of conceptual and practical overlap between the
two modalities. For instance, chemopreventive agents can be used
as adjuvant therapies to prevent recurrences or new primary tumors
in patients who have already been treated for cancer. This use
was defined by Hong et al in the trial with isotretinoin cited
Also, some of the mechanisms of chemopreventive and chemotherapeutic
action are similar. Cytotoxicity was the primary mechanism of
early chemotherapeutic agents. Many newer chemotherapeutic agents
are cytostatic and have mechanisms similar to those of some chemopreventive
agents; ie, they slow the growth and progression of dysplastic
cells (eg, by inducing terminal differentiation or apoptosis).
A significant feature of chemoprevention is that it intervenes
at the early stages of carcinogenesis when normal cell order and
function are partially preserved. Chemoprevention strategies can
be designed to target these preserved pathways before they are
lost during the accelerating disorder that ends in the uncontrolled
cell growth of cancer.
As suggested above, a significant aspect of chemoprevention is
the end points selected for intervention trials. Numerous chemoprevention
studies have used well-recognized precancerous lesions as end
points. For example, patients with familial adenomatous polyposis
(FAP) develop large numbers of colorectal adenomas beginning in
their teens and, if untreated, have a 90% chance of progressing
to colorectal cancer by 50 years of age. In a small phase
II trial in patients with FAP, Giardiello et al showed that
9 months of sulindac (150 mg bid) caused a mean decrease in polyp
number to 44% of baseline (p = .014) and a mean reduction in polyp
diameter to 35% of baseline (P less than .001), although no patient
had complete resolution of all polyps. During the 3-month follow-up,
polyp size and incidence increased but remained significantly
lower than baseline. Also, Meyskens et al showed that all-trans-retinoic
acid (Vesanoid) was effective in causing regression of cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), a precursor to cervical carcinoma.
These studies represent the vanguard effort in clinical trial
design and evaluation of precancerous lesions and earlier biomarkers
as surrogate end points for chemoprevention. Hong and Lippman[16,17]
and Lipkin[13,18,19] were early contributors to the conceptualization
of intermediate biomarkers as end points for chemoprevention.
Our group and others have continued to expand this approach and
formalize its application to chemopreventive drug development.[12,20-26]
In the comparison between chemoprevention and chemotherapy above,
we noted the importance of the safety of chemopreventive drugs
during long-term administration. Approaches to eliminate toxicities
that would preclude the use of highly efficacious agents is another
significant component of chemopreventive drug development. The
objective of this paper is to describe these current strategies
and current progress in the development of chemopreventive drugs.
We have previously presented a multidisciplinary approach to the
development of chemopreventive drugs[12,23-27] and have collaborated
with the FDA to provide guidance for applying this approach.
The strategy considers experimental and epidemiologic evidence
that defines cancer risk at major target sites, as well as the
underlying molecular, cellular, and tissue level mechanisms that
contribute to the development and progression of human cancers.
As previously described, we have identified three critical
components to the successful development of chemopreventive drugs:
- Well-characterized agents with the potential for inhibiting
the target cancer;
- Biomarkers correlating with cancer incidence for measuring
chemopreventive effect; and
- Suitable cohorts for clinical efficacy studies.
The most important criterion for a chemopreventive agent is evidence
of chemopreventive efficacy, in particular, a high likelihood
that the agent will be active in preventing cancer at the target
site. We have already discussed the requirement for low toxicity,
and thus, evidence of a high margin of safety is also necessary
to warrant consideration of an agent for clinical evaluation.
This second criterion implies that sufficient prior clinical use
or preclinical efficacy, toxicity, and pharmacodynamics data are
available to allow estimation of an efficacy/safety ratio. Often,
studies to determine the optimal dose and dosing regimen are performed
as part of early clinical efficacy trials.
A third criterion is that there is a logical, presumed mechanism
of chemopreventive activity of the agent. Such mechanisms guide
the selection of both cohorts and end points for clinical trials.
For example, an antiproliferative agent such as 2-difluoromethylornithine
(DFMO [Eflornithine]) may be most effective against cancers with
a pronounced proliferative component, such as the development
of colon cancers from hyperproliferative tissue and adenomas.
An antimutagenic agent such as oltipraz may be more effectively
evaluated in a cohort such as smokers, who are constantly exposed
to the DNA-damaging effects of carcinogens. Likewise, indicators
of proliferation, such as S-phase fraction and proliferating cell
nuclear antigen (PCNA), may prove to be more reliable and easily
quantified measures of the effects of antiproliferative agents
than would be the identification of specific mutations.
Generally, biomarkers causally related to subsequent cancer are
more easily validated as end points than biomarkers for which
the relationship to cancer is indirect. Carcinogenesis is progressive,
and therefore, biomarkers appearing close in time to the cancer
and those exhibiting increasing or decreasing incidence or potency
during carcinogenesis are likely to be the most reliable surrogate
end points for cancer.
We have previously identified intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN)
as the intermediate biomarker that most closely meets these requirements,[12,20-22,24,27]
and histopathologic changes associated with the progression of
IEN should prove to be reliable end points for chemoprevention
trials. Including colorectal adenomas and CIN, which were cited
above, IEN lesions that have been and are currently being evaluated
in chemoprevention trials are listed in Table 2. Furthermore,
within IEN, other types of biomarkers--direct measures of proliferation
and differentiation, mutations, changes in expression and activity
of cell growth regulators, and, possibly, less direct biochemical
indicators of growth and proliferation (eg, hormone levels)--may
be evaluated as potential end points.
As has been elegantly described by Fearon and Vogelstein for the
development of colorectal cancer, carcinogenesis is a multipath,
stochastic process. Except for IEN, which essentially comprises
all the varying changes that occur, this multiplicity of pathways
complicates the validation of single intermediate biomarkers as
surrogate end points, since they may appear on only one or a few
of the many possible causal pathways. Consequently, panels of
biomarkers, particularly those representing the range of carcinogenesis
pathways, may prove more useful as surrogate end points.
Used alone, biomarkers representing isolated events that may or
may not be on the causal pathway or otherwise associated with
carcinogenesis are unlikely to be reliable. These include markers
of normal cellular processes that may be increased or expressed
during carcinogenesis. Examples are expression of receptors and
growth factors and activities of such enzymes as glutathione S-transferase
(GST) and ornithine decarboxylase (ODC). However, while these
biomarkers have the disadvantage of nonspecificity for cancer,
they may be useful as part of a panel of biomarkers and provide
important mechanistic measurements for identifying new chemopreventive
drugs. We have previously described a strategy for selecting and
prioritizing biomarkers to evaluate in chemoprevention trials;
this strategy is summarized in Table 3.
Clearly, it must be possible to change the expression of an intermediate
biomarker/surrogate end point with chemopreventive agents. Intraepithelial
neoplasia can be modulated, as demonstrated by the chemoprevention
trials cited above that used colorectal adenomas and CIN as end
points. While they will more often be risk biomarkers used primarily
for identifying cohorts for chemoprevention studies, genetic lesions
or their encoded products can also provide biomarkers that can
be modulated in certain circumstances. Although acquired genetic
lesions would not be excised by a chemopreventive agent, one can
assume that some agents will confer a selective advantage for
cells not carrying the lesion over those that do. In this instance,
the biomarker would be the quantitative reduction in genetically
altered cells at the tissue level.
The surrogate end point should have short latency compared with
cancer incidence--ideally, months or a few years, compared with
the 20- to 40-year period that may be required for cancer development.
Intraepithelial neoplasia, even in its early stages, would appear
to occur too late for effective chemoprevention studies in asymptomatic
subjects. However, as will be discussed below, some cohorts with
previous IEN are at high risk for recurrence or new lesions within
the time frame of a chemoprevention study.
Some cohorts chosen for chemoprevention trials may be available
for too short a period to allow modulation of the lesions most
closely related to cancer. For example, we are carrying out trials
in patients scheduled for surgery for early-stage prostate cancer
and for breast lesions. The biopsy samples in these trials may
be most useful for exploring changes in proliferation indices
and other early biomarkers rather than actual progression of histologic
lesions. Despite the brief duration of the associated trials (1
or 2 months), studies in these cohorts may provide valuable information
on modulation of selected biomarkers that are known to be associated
with cancer risk.
In early stages of chemopreventive drug evaluation, clinical research
efforts focus primarily on short-term phase II trials to measure
efficacy and to identify and standardize intermediate biomarker
end points. The chemopreventive agents must be able to affect
the disease or risk of disease within the relatively short treatment
duration of such trials (many span 6 months or less; some may
last up to 3 years). There are cohorts at high risk for cancer
who are not good candidates for phase II chemoprevention trials,
even though they will be targets for chemopreventive intervention.
An example is patients at risk because of germ-line mutations
(eg, BRCA1) or other family history who do not also have premalignant
From a practical standpoint, the chemopreventive effect should
also be easily measured in the subject population. Tissues that
are more accessible and that can be monitored in a relatively
noninvasive manner provide better sites for definitive efficacy
trials than do less accessible tissues. This does not mean that
chemopreventive agents will be ineffective in the more difficult
settings, but rather, that initial demonstration of activity may
be best carried out in situations where fewer obstacles to measurement
Often, the cohorts in these phase II chemoprevention clinical
trials are cancer patients or patients with previous high-risk
lesions who have undergone prior treatment. These patients are
constantly monitored for possible recurrences and new lesions.
It is important that chemoprevention trials work within the constraints
of standard treatment so that patients are not at unusual risk.
For example, in trials in patients with small colon adenomas (0.5
to 1.0 cm), this may result in frequent monitoring and removal
of any adenomas larger than 0.5 to 1.0 cm. As suggested above,
in early phase II trials where the primary goal is identification
and standardization of biomarkers as end points, normal treatment
may also lead to very short-term trials prior to surgery in patients
who are scheduled for excision of cancers or high-risk tissue,
eg, prostate carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the
In larger phase II trials and pivotal phase III trials, the eMPHasis
is on efficacy evaluation with the standardized and validated
biomarkers. These trials are generally of longer duration and
are carried out in cohorts that do not initially present IEN severe
enough to warrant surgery but are at high risk for progression
within a 1- to 5-year time frame. Examples are individuals with
atypical breast hyperplasia and multiple biomarker abnormalities,
such as estrogen (ER) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)
overexpression, p53 mutations, HER-2/neu, and aneu-ploidy;
patients with prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN); and
patients with previous colorectal adenomas or superficial
bladder cancers. Cohorts currently being studied in chemoprevention
trials that provide the characteristics for biomarker standardization
and efficacy evaluation have been discussed elsewhere[24,26,27]
and are listed in Table 2.
1. Frykberg ER, Bland KI: In situ breast carcinoma. Adv Surg 26:29-72,
2. Chanen W: The CIN saga. The biological and clinical significance
of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol
3. Day DW, Morson BC: The adenoma-carcinoma sequence, in Bennington
JL (ed): The Pathogenesis of Colorectal Cancer, pp 58-71. Philadelphia,
WB Saunders, 1978.
4. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, et al: Atypical hyperplastic
lesions of the female breast: A long-term follow-up study. Cancer
5. Bostwick DG: Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN): Current
concepts. J Cell Biochem 16H:10-19, 1992.
6. Bruzzi P, Bonelli L, Costantini M, et al: A multicenter study
of colorectal adenomas--Rationale, objectives, methods and characteristics
of the study cohort. Tumori 81:157-163, 1995.
7. Hong WK, Lippman SM, Itri LM, et al: Prevention of second primary
tumors with isotretinoin in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head
and neck. N Engl J Med 323:795-801, 1990.
8. Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, Heath CW Jr: Aspirin use and reduced
risk of fatal colon cancer. N Engl J Med 325:1593-1596, 1991.
9. Greenberg ER, Baron JA, Freeman DH Jr, et al: Reduced risk
of large-bowel adenomas among aspirin users. J Natl Cancer Inst
10. Giovannucci E, Egan KM, Hunter DJ, et al: Aspirin and the
risk of colorectal cancer in women. N Engl J Med 333:609-614,
11. O'Shaughnessy JA, Wittes RE, Burke G, et al: Commentary concerning
demonstration of safety and efficacy of investigational anticancer
agents in clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 9:2225-2232, 1991.
12. Kelloff GJ, Johnson JR, Crowell JA, et al: Approaches to the
development and marketing approval of drugs that prevent cancer.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 4:1-10, 1995.
13. Lipkin M: Biomarkers of increased susceptibility to gastrointestinal
cancer: New application to studies of cancer prevention in human
subjects. Cancer Res 48:235-245, 1988.
14. Giardiello FM, Hamilton SR, Krush AJ, et al: Treatment of
colonic and rectal adenomas with sulindac in familial adenomatous
polyposis. N Engl J Med 328:1313-1316, 1993.
15. Meyskens FL Jr, Surwit E, Moon TE et al: Enhancement of regression
of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II (moderated dysplasia)
with topically applied all-trans-retinoic acid: A randomized trial.
J Natl Cancer Inst 86:539-543, 1994.
16. Lippman SM, Lee JS, Lotan R, et al: Biomarkers as intermediate
end points in chemoprevention trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:555-560,
17. Lee JS, Lippman SM, Hong WK, et al: Determination of biomarkers
for intermediate end points in chemoprevention trials. Cancer
Res 52:2707S-2710S, 1992.
18. Lipkin M, Newmark H: Application of intermediate biomarkers
and the prevention of cancer of the large intestine. Prog Clin
Biol Res 279:135-150, 1988.
19. Lipkin M: Intermediate biomarkers and studies of cancer prevention
in the gastrointestinal tract. Prog Clin Biol Res 269:397-405,
20. Boone CW, Kelloff GJ, Steele VE: Natural history of intraepithelial
neoplasia in humans with implications for cancer chemoprevention
strategy. Cancer Res 52:1651-1659, 1992.
21. Boone CW; Kelloff GJ: Intraepithelial neoplasia, surrogate
endpoint biomarkers, and cancer chemoprevention. J Cell Biochem
22. Boone CW, Kelloff GJ, Freedman LS: Intraepithelial and postinvasive
neoplasia as a stochastic continuum of clonal evolution, and its
relationship to mechanisms of chemopreventive drug action. J Cell
Biochem 17G:14-25, 1993.
23. Kelloff GJ, Boone CW, Crowell JA, et al: Chemopreventive drug
development: Perspectives and progress. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
Prev 3:85-98, 1994.
24. Kelloff GJ, Boone CW, Steele VE, et al: Progress in cancer
chemoprevention: Perspectives on agent selection and short-term
clinical intervention trials. Cancer Res 54:2015S-1024S, 1994.
25. Kelloff GJ, Boone CW, Steele VE, et al: Mechanistic considerations
in chemopreventive drug development. J Cell Biochem 20:1-24, 1994.
26. Kelloff GJ, Crowell JA, Boone CW, et al: Strategy and planning
for chemopreventive drug development: Clinical development plans.
J Cell Biochem 20:55-62, 1994.
27. Kelloff GJ, Boone CW, Crowell JA, et al: Surrogate endpoint
biomarkers for phase II cancer chemoprevention trials. J Cell
Biochem 19:1-9, 1994.
28. Fearon ER, Vogelstein B: A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis.
Cell 61:759-767, 1990.
29. Hofstad B Vatn M, Hoff G, et al: Growth of colorectal polyps:
design of a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled intervention
study in patients with colorectal polyps. Eur J Cancer Prev 1:415-422,
30. Fabian CJ, Zalles C, Kamel S: Biomarkers and cytologic abnormalities
in women at high and low risk for breast cancer. J Cell Biochem
31. Bostwick DG: Target populations and strategies for chemoprevention
trials of prostate cancer. J Cell Biochem 19:191-196, 1994.
32. Bostwick DG: Natural history of early bladder cancer. J Cell
Biochem 16I:31-38, 1992.
33. Oridate N, Lotan D, Mitchell MF, et al: Inhibition of proliferation
and induction of apoptosis in cervical carcinoma cells by retinoids:
Implications for chemoprevention. J Cell Biochem 23:80-86, 1995.
34. McCann PP, Pegg AE, Sjoerdsma A: Inhibition of Polyamine Metabolism:
Biological Significance and Basis for New Therapies. New York,
Academic Press, 1987.
35. Luk GD, Casero RA Jr: Polyamines in normal and cancer cells.
Adv Enzyme Regul 26:91-105, 1987.
36. ElAttar TM, Lin HS: Effect of retinoids and carotenoids on
prostaglandin formation by oral squamous carcinoma cells. Prostaglandins
Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 43:175-178, 1991.
37. Dillehay DL, Jiang XL, Lamon EW: Differential effects of retinoids
on pokeweed mitogen induced B-cell proliferation vs immunoglobulin
synthesis. Int J Immunopharmacol 13:1043-1048, 1991.
38. Radcliffe JD, Moon RC: Effect of N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)retinamide
on food intake, growth, and mammary gland development in rats
(41736). Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 174:270-275, 1983.
39. Moon RC, Thompson HJ, Becci PJ, et al: N-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)retinamide,
a new retinoid for prevention of breast cancer in the rat. Cancer
Res 39:1339-1346, 1979.
40. McCormick DL, Mehta RG, Thompson CA, et al: Enhanced inhibition
of mammary carcinogenesis by combined treatment with N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)retinamide
and ovariectomy. Cancer Res 42:508-512, 1982.
41. Steele VE, Moon RC, Lubet RA, et al: Preclinical efficacy
evaluation of potential chemopreventive agents in animal carcinogenesis
models: Methods and results from the NCI Chemoprevention Drug
Development Program. J Cell Biochem 20:32-54, 1994.
42. Kelloff GJ, Crowell JA, Boone CW, et al: Clinical development
plan: N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)retinamide (4-HPR). J Cell Biochem 20:176-196.
43. Costa A, Veronesi U, De Palo G, et al: Chemoprevention of
cancer with the synthetic retinoid fenretinide clinical trials
in progress at the Milan Cancer Institute, in Wattenberg L, Lipkin
M, Boone CW, Kelloff GJ (eds): Cancer Chemoprevention, pp 95-112.
Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, 1992.
44. Costa A, Formelli F, Chiesa F, et al: Prospects of chemoprevention
of human cancers with the synthetic retinoid fenretinide. Cancer
Res 54:2032S-2037S, 1994.
45. De Palo G, Veronesi U, Marubini E, et al: Controlled clinical
trials with fenretinide in breast cancer, basal cell carcinoma
and oral leukoplakia. J Cell Biochem 22:11-17, 1995.
46. De Palo G, Veronesi U, Camerini T, et al: Can fenretinide
protect women against ovarian cancer? J Natl Cancer Inst 87:146-147,
47. Dhingra K: A phase II chemoprevention trial design to identify
surrogate endpoint biomarkers in breast cancer. J Cell Biochem
48. Kelloff GJ, Crowell JA, Boone CW, et al: Clinical development
plan: 2-difluoromethylornithine (DFMO). J Cell Biochem 20:147-165,
49. Meyskens FL Jr, Emerson SS, Pelot D, et al: Dose de-escalation
chemoprevention trial of a-difluoromethylornithine in patients
with colon polyps. J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1122-1130, 1994.
50. Kelloff GJ, Crowell JA, Boone CW, et al: Clinical development
plan: Aspirin. J Cell Biochem 20:74-85, 1994.
51. Kelloff GJ, Crowell JA, Boone CW, et al: Clinical development
plan: Ibuprofen. J Cell Biochem 20:197-204, 1994.
52. Kelloff GJ, Crowell JA, Boone CW, et al: Clinical development
plan: piroxicam. J Cell Biochem 20:219-230, 1994.
53. Kelloff GJ, Crowell JA, Boone CW, et al: Clinical development
plan: Sulindac. J Cell Biochem 20:240-251, 1994.
54. Labayle D, Fischer D, Vielh P, et al: Sulindac causes regression
of rectal polyps in familial adenomatous polyposis. Gastroenterology
55. Mitchell JA, Akarasereenont P, Thiemermann C, et al: Selectivity
of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs as inhibitors of constitutive
and inducible cyclooxygenase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:11693-11697,
56. Klein T, Nusing RM, Pfeilschifter J, et al: Selective inhibition
of cyclooxygenase 2. Biochem Pharmacol 48:1605-1610, 1994.
57. Futaki N, Takahashi S, Yokoyama M, et al: NS-398, a new anti-inflammatory
agent, selectively inhibits prostaglandin G/H synthase/cyclooxygenase
(COX-2) activity in vitro. Prostaglandins 47:55-59, 1994.
58. Duffy MA: Physicians' Desk Reference, 48th Ed, pp 996-998,
2197-2199. Montvale, New Jersey, Medical Economics Data Production,
59. Graham DY, Agrawal NM, Roth SH: Prevention of NSAID-induced
gastric ulcer with misoprostol: Multicentre, double-blind placebo-controlled
trial. Lancet 2:1277-1280, 1988.
60. Ruffin MT, Krishnan K, Kraus E, et al: Aspirin as a chemopreventive
agent for colorectal cancer: Lowest dose of aspirin to suppress
rectal mucosal prostaglandins (abstract). Proc Am Assoc Cancer
Res 36:600, 1995.
61. Editors: Final report on the aspirin component of the ongoing
Physicians' Health Study. N Engl J Med 321:129-135, 1989.
62. Ahnen D, Hixson L, Alberts D, et al: Sulindac, and its sulfone
metabolite (FGN-1), both inhibit rat colon carcinogenesis but
neither inhibit colonic proliferation (abstract 3763) Proc Am
Assoc Cancer Res 35:631, 1994.
63. Alberts D, Hixson L, Ahnen D, et al: Do non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit rat azoxymethane (AOM) colon carcinogenesis
through inhibition of colonic mucosal prostaglandin synthesis?
(abstract). Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 35:632, 1994.
64. Thompson HJ, Briggs S, Paranka NS, et al: Inhibition of mammary
carcinogenesis in rats by sulfone metabolite of sulindac. J Natl
Cancer Inst 87:1259-1260, 1995.