BACKGROUND: Whether or not hypovitaminosis D can influence the prognosis of cancer patients and whether or not vitamin D (vitD) supplementation improves outcome remain controversial. DESIGN: Studies evaluating the prognostic role of vitD and vitD receptor (VDR) in cancer patients and trials evaluating the efficacy of vitD administration on patient outcome were identified by a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library through June 2010. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included. A negative prognostic role for low serum vitD level was observed in five cohort studies including patients with breast cancer (one study), colon cancer (two studies), prostate cancer (one study), and melanoma (one study), but not in two studies on non-small cell lung cancer and one study on breast cancer. Three of four studies showed that VDR(+) tumors carry a better prognosis than VDR(-) tumors, whereas VDR polymorphisms were significantly associated with prognosis in five of 10 studies. A significant interaction between serum vitD level and VDR polymorphism was observed in one study. Three randomized trials involving advanced prostate cancer patients explored the prognostic role of vitD supplementation. A meta-analysis of these trials showed no effect on survival (pooled risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.93-1.23), with strong heterogeneity among studies. CONCLUSION: Hypovitaminosis D seems to be associated with a worse prognosis in some cancers, but vitD supplementation failed to demonstrate a benefit in prostate cancer patients. The currently available evidence is insufficient to recommend vitD supplementation in cancer patients in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Whether or not hypovitaminosis D can influence the prognosis of cancerpatients and whether or not vitamin D (vitD) supplementation improves outcome remain controversial. DESIGN: Studies evaluating the prognostic role of vitD and vitD receptor (VDR) in cancerpatients and trials evaluating the efficacy of vitD administration on patient outcome were identified by a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library through June 2010. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included. A negative prognostic role for low serum vitD level was observed in five cohort studies including patients with breast cancer (one study), colon cancer (two studies), prostate cancer (one study), and melanoma (one study), but not in two studies on non-small cell lung cancer and one study on breast cancer. Three of four studies showed that VDR(+) tumors carry a better prognosis than VDR(-) tumors, whereas VDR polymorphisms were significantly associated with prognosis in five of 10 studies. A significant interaction between serum vitD level and VDR polymorphism was observed in one study. Three randomized trials involving advanced prostate cancerpatients explored the prognostic role of vitD supplementation. A meta-analysis of these trials showed no effect on survival (pooled risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.93-1.23), with strong heterogeneity among studies. CONCLUSION:Hypovitaminosis D seems to be associated with a worse prognosis in some cancers, but vitD supplementation failed to demonstrate a benefit in prostate cancerpatients. The currently available evidence is insufficient to recommend vitD supplementation in cancerpatients in clinical practice.
Authors: A Staal; A J van Wijnen; J C Birkenhäger; H A Pols; J Prahl; H DeLuca; M P Gaub; J B Lian; G S Stein; J P van Leeuwen; J L Stein Journal: Mol Endocrinol Date: 1996-11
Authors: E M Colin; A E Weel; A G Uitterlinden; C J Buurman; J C Birkenhäger; H A Pols; J P van Leeuwen Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Yue Xu; Atsuko Shibata; John E McNeal; Thomas A Stamey; David Feldman; Donna M Peehl Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Heinric Williams; Isaac J Powell; Susan J Land; Wael A Sakr; Mark R Hughes; Nimesh P Patel; Lance K Heilbrun; Richard B Everson Journal: Prostate Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Pentti Tuohimaa; Leena Tenkanen; Merja Ahonen; Sonja Lumme; Egil Jellum; Göran Hallmans; Pär Stattin; Sverre Harvei; Timo Hakulinen; Tapio Luostarinen; Joakim Dillner; Matti Lehtinen; Matti Hakama Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Stephanie J Weinstein; Alison M Mondul; Kai Yu; Tracy M Layne; Christian C Abnet; Neal D Freedman; Racheal Z Stolzenberg-Solomon; Unhee Lim; Mitchell H Gail; Demetrius Albanes Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Katherine Van Loon; Kouros Owzar; Chen Jiang; Hedy L Kindler; Mary F Mulcahy; Donna Niedzwiecki; Eileen M O'Reilly; Charles Fuchs; Federico Innocenti; Alan P Venook Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Hu Wang; Tin Oo Khor; Limin Shu; Zheng-Yuan Su; Francisco Fuentes; Jong-Hun Lee; Ah-Ng Tony Kong Journal: Anticancer Agents Med Chem Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.505