Jiawei Xu1, Kelie Chen1, Fan Zhao2, Dongdong Huang3, Honghe Zhang3, Zhiqin Fu4, Jinming Xu5, Yongfeng Wu2,5, Hui Lin1, Yexinyi Zhou2, Weiguo Lu6, Yihua Wu7, Dajing Xia8. 1. Department of Toxicology of School of Public Health, and Department of Gynecologic Oncology of Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310058, China. 2. Department of Toxicology, Zhejiang University School of Public Health, Hangzhou, 310058, China. 3. Department of Pathology, Key Laboratory of Disease Proteomics of Zhejiang Province, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China. 4. Department of Gynecological Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, 310022, China. 5. Department of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310003, China. 6. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Women's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310006, China. 7. Department of Toxicology of School of Public Health, and Department of Gynecologic Oncology of Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310058, China. georgewu@zju.edu.cn. 8. Department of Toxicology of School of Public Health, and Department of Gynecologic Oncology of Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310058, China. dxia@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between vitamin D/calcium and risk of ovarian cancer is still a debatable point. The aim of our study was to systematically investigate the association between vitamin D/calcium, and the risk of ovarian cancer and estimate their dose-response association quantitatively. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify relevant observational studies. Two investigators screened citations and extracted data independently. Data were extracted and the association between vitamin D/calcium and ovarian cancer risk was estimated by calculating pooled relative risks (RRs). Subgroup analyses, publication bias estimation, and dose-response analyses were carried out as well. RESULTS: In total, 21 articles involving 980,008 participants were included in our present study. No significant association was observed between total vitamin D intake and ovarian cancer risk (RR: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.16, p = 0.81). Further subgroup analysis suggested that neither dietary vitamin D intake (RR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.62-1.03, p = 0.09) nor supplementary vitamin D intake (RR: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.13, p = 0.80) was associated with the risk of ovarian cancer. As for calcium, total calcium intake was found to be statistically inversely associated with ovarian cancer risk in case-control studies (RR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86, p < 0.001) but not in cohort studies (RR: 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.24, p = 0.52). Besides, supplementation with calcium plus vitamin D was not effective for the prevention of ovarian cancer (p = 0.98). Of note, dose-response analysis based on cohort studies suggested a potential inverse U-shape relationship between calcium intake (including total calcium and dietary calcium) and ovarian cancer risk, which indicated that low dose of calcium intake might reduce ovarian cancer risk while high dose of calcium intake might not. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, vitamin D could not decrease the risk of ovarian cancer. The role of calcium intake was not proven for reducing ovarian cancer risk. Besides, no evidence showed combinative use of calcium and vitamin D have additional benefits for ovarian cancer prevention.
BACKGROUND: The association between vitamin D/calcium and risk of ovarian cancer is still a debatable point. The aim of our study was to systematically investigate the association between vitamin D/calcium, and the risk of ovarian cancer and estimate their dose-response association quantitatively. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify relevant observational studies. Two investigators screened citations and extracted data independently. Data were extracted and the association between vitamin D/calcium and ovarian cancer risk was estimated by calculating pooled relative risks (RRs). Subgroup analyses, publication bias estimation, and dose-response analyses were carried out as well. RESULTS: In total, 21 articles involving 980,008 participants were included in our present study. No significant association was observed between total vitamin D intake and ovarian cancer risk (RR: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.16, p = 0.81). Further subgroup analysis suggested that neither dietary vitamin D intake (RR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.62-1.03, p = 0.09) nor supplementary vitamin D intake (RR: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.13, p = 0.80) was associated with the risk of ovarian cancer. As for calcium, total calcium intake was found to be statistically inversely associated with ovarian cancer risk in case-control studies (RR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86, p < 0.001) but not in cohort studies (RR: 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.24, p = 0.52). Besides, supplementation with calcium plus vitamin D was not effective for the prevention of ovarian cancer (p = 0.98). Of note, dose-response analysis based on cohort studies suggested a potential inverse U-shape relationship between calcium intake (including total calcium and dietary calcium) and ovarian cancer risk, which indicated that low dose of calcium intake might reduce ovarian cancer risk while high dose of calcium intake might not. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, vitamin D could not decrease the risk of ovarian cancer. The role of calcium intake was not proven for reducing ovarian cancer risk. Besides, no evidence showed combinative use of calcium and vitamin D have additional benefits for ovarian cancer prevention.
Authors: Melissa A Merritt; Elizabeth M Poole; Susan E Hankinson; Walter C Willett; Shelley S Tworoger Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jue-Sheng Ong; Gabriel Cuellar-Partida; Yi Lu; Peter A Fasching; Alexander Hein; Stefanie Burghaus; Matthias W Beckmann; Diether Lambrechts; Els Van Nieuwenhuysen; Ignace Vergote; Adriaan Vanderstichele; Jennifer Anne Doherty; Mary Anne Rossing; Jenny Chang-Claude; Ursula Eilber; Anja Rudolph; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Marc T Goodman; Natalia Bogdanova; Thilo Dörk; Matthias Dürst; Peter Hillemanns; Ingo B Runnebaum; Natalia Antonenkova; Ralf Butzow; Arto Leminen; Heli Nevanlinna; Liisa M Pelttari; Robert P Edwards; Joseph L Kelley; Francesmary Modugno; Kirsten B Moysich; Roberta B Ness; Rikki Cannioto; Estrid Høgdall; Claus K Høgdall; Allan Jensen; Graham G Giles; Fiona Bruinsma; Susanne K Kjaer; Michelle At Hildebrandt; Dong Liang; Karen H Lu; Xifeng Wu; Maria Bisogna; Fanny Dao; Douglas A Levine; Daniel W Cramer; Kathryn L Terry; Shelley S Tworoger; Meir Stampfer; Stacey Missmer; Line Bjorge; Helga B Salvesen; Reidun K Kopperud; Katharina Bischof; Katja Kh Aben; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Leon Fag Massuger; Angela Brooks-Wilson; Sara H Olson; Valerie McGuire; Joseph H Rothstein; Weiva Sieh; Alice S Whittemore; Linda S Cook; Nhu D Le; C Blake Gilks; Jacek Gronwald; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubiński; Tomasz Kluz; Honglin Song; Jonathan P Tyrer; Nicolas Wentzensen; Louise Brinton; Britton Trabert; Jolanta Lissowska; John R McLaughlin; Steven A Narod; Catherine Phelan; Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Diana Eccles; Ian Campbell; Simon A Gayther; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Usha Menon; Susan J Ramus; Anna H Wu; Agnieszka Dansonka-Mieszkowska; Jolanta Kupryjanczyk; Agnieszka Timorek; Lukasz Szafron; Julie M Cunningham; Brooke L Fridley; Stacey J Winham; Elisa V Bandera; Elizabeth M Poole; Terry K Morgan; Harvey A Risch; Ellen L Goode; Joellen M Schildkraut; Celeste L Pearce; Andrew Berchuck; Paul Dp Pharoah; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Puya Gharahkhani; Rachel E Neale; Penelope M Webb; Stuart MacGregor Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2016-09-04 Impact factor: 7.196