BACKGROUND: Studies show that women with low vitamin D levels have an increased risk of breast cancer (BC) incidence and mortality, but there is a lack of research examining vitamin D levels and prognostic variables in BC patients. The aim of this study is to examine 25-OH vitamin D levels between BC cases and controls and by prognostic indicators among BC cases. METHODS: 25-OH vitamin D levels were collected from 194 women who underwent BC surgery and 194 cancer-free (CF) controls at the University of Rochester between January 2009 and October 2010. Mean 25-OH vitamin D levels and odds ratios (OR) were calculated by case/control status for the overall cohort and by prognostic indicators (invasiveness, ER status, triple-negative status, Oncotype DX score, molecular phenotype) for BC cases. RESULTS: BC cases had significantly lower 25-OH vitamin D levels than CF controls (BC: 32.7 ng/mL vs. CF: 37.4 ng/mL; P = .02). In case-series analyses, women with suboptimal 25-OH vitamin D concentrations (<32 ng/mL) had significantly higher odds of having ER- (OR = 2.59, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.08-6.23) and triple-negative cancer (OR = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.05-9.49) than those with optimal 25-OH D concentrations. Women with basal-like phenotype had lower 25-OH vitamin D levels than women luminal A phenotype (basal-like: 24.2 ng/mL vs. luminal A: 32.8 ng/mL; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: BC patients with a more aggressive molecular phenotype (basal-like) and worse prognostic indicators (ER- and triple-negative) had lower mean 25-OH vitamin D levels. Further research is needed to elucidate the biological relationship between vitamin D and BC progression.
BACKGROUND: Studies show that women with low vitamin D levels have an increased risk of breast cancer (BC) incidence and mortality, but there is a lack of research examining vitamin D levels and prognostic variables in BC patients. The aim of this study is to examine 25-OH vitamin D levels between BC cases and controls and by prognostic indicators among BC cases. METHODS:25-OH vitamin D levels were collected from 194 women who underwent BC surgery and 194 cancer-free (CF) controls at the University of Rochester between January 2009 and October 2010. Mean 25-OH vitamin D levels and odds ratios (OR) were calculated by case/control status for the overall cohort and by prognostic indicators (invasiveness, ER status, triple-negative status, Oncotype DX score, molecular phenotype) for BC cases. RESULTS: BC cases had significantly lower 25-OH vitamin D levels than CF controls (BC: 32.7 ng/mL vs. CF: 37.4 ng/mL; P = .02). In case-series analyses, women with suboptimal 25-OH vitamin D concentrations (<32 ng/mL) had significantly higher odds of having ER- (OR = 2.59, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.08-6.23) and triple-negative cancer (OR = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.05-9.49) than those with optimal 25-OH D concentrations. Women with basal-like phenotype had lower 25-OH vitamin D levels than women luminal A phenotype (basal-like: 24.2 ng/mL vs. luminal A: 32.8 ng/mL; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: BC patients with a more aggressive molecular phenotype (basal-like) and worse prognostic indicators (ER- and triple-negative) had lower mean 25-OH vitamin D levels. Further research is needed to elucidate the biological relationship between vitamin D and BC progression.
Authors: Z Chen; M Maricic; A K Aragaki; C Mouton; L Arendell; A M Lopez; T Bassford; R T Chlebowski Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-09-03 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: H A Bischoff-Ferrari; B Dawson-Hughes; H B Staehelin; J E Orav; A E Stuck; R Theiler; J B Wong; A Egli; D P Kiel; J Henschkowski Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-10-01
Authors: Kathleen M Wesa; Neil H Segal; Angel M Cronin; Daniel D Sjoberg; Gria N Jacobs; Marci I Coleton; Martin Fleisher; Ann M Dnistrian; Leonard B Saltz; Barrie R Cassileth Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: Akiko Chiba; Rachna Raman; Alexandra Thomas; Pierre-Jean Lamy; Marie Viala; Stephane Pouderoux; Sarah L Mott; Mary C Schroeder; Simon Thezenas; William Jacot Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Julia E Inglis; Po-Ju Lin; Sarah L Kerns; Ian R Kleckner; Amber S Kleckner; Daniel A Castillo; Karen M Mustian; Luke J Peppone Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2019-01-26 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: Elizabeth M Poole; XiaoOu Shu; Bette J Caan; Shirley W Flatt; Michelle D Holmes; Wei Lu; Marilyn L Kwan; Sarah J Nechuta; John P Pierce; Wendy Y Chen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 4.872