Vitamin D roled questioned

cp418

 

Study indicates calcium, vitamin D does not lower breast-cancer risk in postmenopausal women.

HealthDay (11/11, Gordon) reported that, "although calcium and vitamin D may keep your bones strong, these vital nutrients don't appear to help postmenopausal women lower their risk of breast cancer," according to a study expected to be published Nov. 19 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The study of patients with no breast-cancer history "was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that included 36,282 postmenopausal women." Powel Brown, director of the cancer prevention program at the Lester and Sue Smith Breast Center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, encouraged further investigation and "said that, although the current study was very well-done, he doesn't think that researchers 'can definitively say that vitamin D isn't helpful for the prevention of breast cancer.'"

        USA Today (11/12, Szabo) adds, "In their paper, authors say it's possible that the women didn't take the supplements long enough, given that cancer can take decades to develop." In addition, the authors "note that they also don't know the effect of taking either calcium or vitamin D alone, because women in the study took them together."

        "The women were followed for seven years, on average," WebMD (11/11, Hitti) reported. Over the years, "similar numbers of women in each group developed breast cancer."

        According to the Los Angeles Times (11/12, Kaplan), "Over the course of the study, 528 of the 18,176 women, or 2.9 percent, who got the combined pill developed invasive breast cancer compared with 546 of the 18,106 who got the placebo, or 3.0 percent." The Times notes that other studies have suggested the daily dose of vitamin D "should be between 1,000 and 2,000 IUs per day, well above the amount used in this trial." In addition, Brown noted the supplements "might also prove valuable to premenopausal women."

 http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iTxVzCuHRFxtdQOFPUaxjdXEblOw

TenderIsOurMight

Thanks for this cp418. You sure have it down on finding interesting information and how you post it. Very professional. 

 

I think for now, I will continue to take my 2000IU of Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol, not plant vit D) in a non-soy form (yes, gelatins may contain soy, a no-no for we ER+ ladies). I also have advised family to take it, and in higher doses (1 to 2000 IU per day). Some evidence Vitamin D may be helpful in preventing 5 epithelial cancers including breast and skin cancer. As toxicity seems a low risk (we make 10,000 IU's from full body sun exposure over 30 minutes), until further information comes out, it seems the benefit may outweigh the risk. Just my opinion.

 

It's November already. The San Antonio Breast Cancer Conference starts in about a month. Should here some updates on Vitamin D and breast cancer then.

 

Best, 

Tender 

cp418

Tender - I question these news articles.  I'll continue to take my Vitamin D for all the good benefits.  Joann

Waving

Yes whether or not vitamin D might play a role in reducing the risk of breast or other cancers, current medical knowledge suggests it's not good for our health to be deficient in vitamin D (and nor is it good to megadose on vitamin D).
I've put a post about vitamin D and vitamin D deficiency, including some valuable links, here
http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/6/topic/724334?page=0#post_1119375

AccidentalTourist

Can anyone please explain what does D2 and D3 stand for.  Thank you.

cp418

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/12/no_breast_cancer_benefit_from_vitamins/

Another article - looks like this topic will be in the news alot now.  It makes you wonder how they come up with all the previous studies showing benefit and now additional studies are contradict the previous findings. Looks like it is all in the numbers and how you select the criteria to evaluate.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/11/13/ep.vitamin.primer/index.html

mginger

   Well, I hate these controversial studies!  I liked the idea of taking that 1000IU vitamin D supplement every day, which is what the canadian cancer society suggest, based on many studies. I note the fact that in this trial, the level of vitamin D daily intake was probably not sufficient...

Katie2u

I'm sure that big PHARMA would say that Vitamin D has no relationship to cancer.   Anything that could be a threat or doesn't benefit their pocketbook will be discredited.  This has happened with holistic treatments as well.  It is PHARMA propoganda and the majority of people go right along with it.  I will continue to take my Vitamin D3 as my level was very low.  I know several BC women who are now taking as much as 15,000 IU's per day and doing good with it.

elisabeth

Hi.  I have, what may seem like a stupid question, but how did you find out your VitD levels?  Also, do your doctors/oncs talk to you about D.  Not one of my doctors/oncs have mentioned this and they are all very good and very open minded.  What do you think?

E 

cp418

Many doctors will not discuss Vitamin and supplements because it is outside their expertise.  My onc didn't even warn me that Femara may incease my cholesterol levels or that I should take calcium supplements to minimaize bone loss!  I had to do all the research myself.  He also would not run any of these blood tests to monitor me.  I had to go to my PCP and ask her to run the tests.  Vitamin D can be measured in a simple blood test  - - simply ask to have it done.

elisabeth

Hi cp418.  Thanks so much for the quick reply. I will do that.  My spouse has a call into my med. onc so we can ask him also.  Do you know if insurance pays for this type of test?  The only reason I ask is because, even though I have insurance, the bills are piling up.

thanks again.  e 

cp418

I've had no problems with my PCP ordering these tests and covered by insurance.  It is a simple blood test and I would even guess may cost less than a full chemistry profile.

DATO

I asked my onc about getting my vitamin D level checked and she added it to my standing order for blood work.  My vitamin D level was 50 (normal 30 - 100). I take a 1,000 mg vit D3 and I get more D in my calcium and multivitamin, so I'm getting about 1,800 mg a day.  Some docs stay up on this stuff more than others.  I was talking to my girlfriend about vitamin D levels and BC. She just had a checkup and her doc ordered a vit D test.  She said she would have wondered why if we hadn't talked about the relationship of low D levels and BC. 

Darlene

Anonymous

Hmmm. I wonder what's preventing Big Pharma from making Vit. D pills and making money off that.

Katie2u

http://www.psa-rising.com/med/chemo/dexamethasone032004.htm

How about Decadron protecting cancer cells from chemotherapy?    They knew this 4 years ago and haven't done anything to remedy the situation.   Most of the allergies are caused by the solution with which the chemotherapy is mixed.  This is something that can be changed.  Abraxene is one of those meds that is similar to Taxol/Taxotere but mixed in something simple.  However it is only approved for metastatic disease. 

dlb823

LJ13... What's preventing it is that they can't patent something that naturally exists in nature, like Vitamin D.  That is the primary reason Big Pharma has no interest in nutrition and does everything they can to discredit the benefit of nutritional therapy.   Deanna 

Anonymous

Interesting, though, that companies make profits off of drugs whose patents have expired. The patent allows them to recover the costs of drugs they risked their money on developing. Only seems fair.

However, lots of companies are able to profit from making supplements and generic drugs.

And considering that the studies cited show no benefit in BC prevention to using Vit. D, it would seem they are using "good business sense" in not wanting to make vitamins as a cancer preventive. 

PSK07

My PCP ordered a check of my Vit D levels with my normal annual bloodwork. While Vitamin D deficiency may or may not have anything to do with BC, my levels were very low. I had 50,000 IU of Vit D to take weekly for 8 weeks, and since then have been on 1000 IU/day, and will have my levels checked again this week. Taking too much is dangerous - it is not water soluble.

I don't know about big pharma, but the big vitamin industry doesn't seem to have any problem with charging high prices for vitamins.

I have had numerous discussions my PCP and recent discussion with new oncologist on what supplements I'm taking and how they interact with prescription meds I'm on.

snowyday

LIke most above I too will continue my Vitamin D, I somehow forgot to take for a few weeks and boy did I notice a difference in my mood, maybe I'm just weird, but I find that when I take my D vitamins I feel better mentally.  Why do "they" redo these studies you would think that the money they spend to discredit Vitamins and Nutrition, could be used for a better purpose, like say clinical trials for DCA.  Just dreaming ladies.

rubytuesday

Here is Life Extension Foundation's response to the latest media blast:

Media also attacks vitamin D
Not content to bash only vitamins C and E, the media the very next day in November ran a headline story stating that "Supplements don't reduce breast cancer risk". This story was based on a study of women who received only 400 IU a day of supplemental vitamin D.

As has been reported for years in this and other health publications, 400 IU a day of vitamin D is clearly inadequate. To reduce breast cancer risk by around 50%, a daily dose of 1000 IU and higher is required. The major flaw in this study is that participants in the active and placebo group were allowed to take vitamin D outside the study, which rendered the findings meaningless even if the proper dose has been given.

The fact that the media made this study headline news is regrettable because only about 20% of the study population achieved a 25-hydroxy vitamin D at the minimum dose required to prevent breast cancer (greater than 30 ng/mL). In other words, most participants in the active or placebo group failed to achieve even the minimal blood concentrations of vitamin D that other studies document are needed to protect against breast cancer. So all this study did was help confirm what vitamin D experts have been saying for over five years now, i.e. a minimum of 800 IU to 1000 IU of vitamin D a day is required.