Jessica L Tommie1, Susan M Pinney2, Laurie A Nommsen-Rivers1. 1. a Department of Rehabilitation, Exercise, and Nutritional Sciences , College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA. 2. b Department of Environmental Health , College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between vitamin D status and breast cancer risk is equivocal. No systematic reviews or meta-analyses have examined this association stratified by receptor status. Our objective is to conduct a systematic review to answer the question, "Is there a relationship between lower serum/plasma vitamin D levels and increased risk of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) specifically?" METHODS: We systematically searched Embase and PubMed databases for published original research studies examining the risk of a breast cancer diagnosis according to vitamin D status. We excluded studies that did not provide risk estimates stratified by receptor status. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met our criteria, including case-control, nested case-control, and case-series studies, reflecting the cumulative results of 13,135 breast cancer cases. When grouped by relevancy to TNBC, the proportion of analyses across all study types showing a significant association between vitamin D status and breast cancer diagnosis was 37% for non-TNBC analyses, 48% for analyses that included some TNBC cases, and 88% for TNBC analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that low vitamin D status may particularly increase the risk of TNBC, although more research is needed to determine if this association is causative. Women should be routinely screened for 25(OH)D deficiency.
BACKGROUND: The association between vitamin D status and breast cancer risk is equivocal. No systematic reviews or meta-analyses have examined this association stratified by receptor status. Our objective is to conduct a systematic review to answer the question, "Is there a relationship between lower serum/plasma vitamin D levels and increased risk of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) specifically?" METHODS: We systematically searched Embase and PubMed databases for published original research studies examining the risk of a breast cancer diagnosis according to vitamin D status. We excluded studies that did not provide risk estimates stratified by receptor status. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met our criteria, including case-control, nested case-control, and case-series studies, reflecting the cumulative results of 13,135 breast cancer cases. When grouped by relevancy to TNBC, the proportion of analyses across all study types showing a significant association between vitamin D status and breast cancer diagnosis was 37% for non-TNBC analyses, 48% for analyses that included some TNBC cases, and 88% for TNBC analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that low vitamin D status may particularly increase the risk of TNBC, although more research is needed to determine if this association is causative. Women should be routinely screened for 25(OH)D deficiency.
Authors: Maggie C U Cheang; Miguel Martin; Torsten O Nielsen; Aleix Prat; David Voduc; Alvaro Rodriguez-Lescure; Amparo Ruiz; Stephen Chia; Lois Shepherd; Manuel Ruiz-Borrego; Lourdes Calvo; Emilio Alba; Eva Carrasco; Rosalia Caballero; Dongsheng Tu; Kathleen I Pritchard; Mark N Levine; Vivien H Bramwell; Joel Parker; Philip S Bernard; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou; Angelo Di Leo; Lisa A Carey Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-04-23
Authors: Marcel J W Janssen; Jos P M Wielders; Corinne C Bekker; Lianne S M Boesten; Madelon M Buijs; Annemieke C Heijboer; Frans A L van der Horst; Ference J Loupatty; Johannes M W van den Ouweland Journal: Steroids Date: 2012-08-11 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: A Heather Eliassen; Donna Spiegelman; Bruce W Hollis; Ronald L Horst; Walter C Willett; Susan E Hankinson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Tilman Kühn; Rudolf Kaaks; Susen Becker; Piia-Piret Eomois; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Marina Kvaskoff; Laure Dossus; Anne Tjønneland; Anja Olsen; Kim Overvad; Jenny Chang-Claude; Annekatrin Lukanova; Brian Buijsse; Heiner Boeing; Antonia Trichopoulou; Pagona Lagiou; Christina Bamia; Giovanna Masala; Vittorio Krogh; Carlotta Sacerdote; Rosario Tumino; Amalia Mattiello; Genevieve Buckland; María-José Sánchez; Virginia Menéndez; María-Dolores Chirlaque; Aurelio Barricarte; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Fränzel J B van Duijnhoven; Carla H van Gils; Marije F Bakker; Elisabete Weiderpass; Guri Skeie; Magritt Brustad; Anne Andersson; Malin Sund; Nick Wareham; Kay Tee Khaw; Ruth C Travis; Julie A Schmidt; Sabina Rinaldi; Isabelle Romieu; Valentina Gallo; Neil Murphy; Elio Riboli; Jakob Linseisen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Nadeem Bilani; Leah Elson; Charles Szuchan; Elizabeth Elimimian; Mustafa Saleh; Zeina Nahleh Journal: In Vivo Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Marie E Wood; Heshan Liu; Elizabeth Storrick; David Zahrieh; H Carisa Le-Petross; Sin-Ho Jung; Patricia Zekan; M Margaret Kemeny; Jayne R Charlamb; Lili X Wang; Gary W Unzeitig; Candace S Johnson; Judy E Garber; James R Marshall; Isabelle Bedrosian Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2021-04-13
Authors: Troy W R Hiller; Dylan E O'Sullivan; Darren R Brenner; Cheryl E Peters; Will D King Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 9.031