Vitamin D and cancer

Options

Debates have started about how much D is optimal. This tweaks it a bit:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/308834.ph...



Comments

  • Mommato3
    Mommato3 Member Posts: 633
    edited April 2016

    Thanks for posting this. My MO just had my vitamin D levels checked Monday. It came back at 40. She was fine with that number but I was thinking maybe it should be higher. I'll probably up my vitamin slightly to try to get it in the 50-60 range.

  • Fallleaves
    Fallleaves Member Posts: 806
    edited April 2016

    Clever study. I'll keep popping the D. Thanks, Wallycat!

  • cp418
    cp418 Member Posts: 7,079
    edited April 2016

    Yes - I'll keep up with my Vit D levels too. Thanks for the link!

  • wallycat
    wallycat Member Posts: 3,227
    edited April 2016

    here's a copy/paste:


    Cancer risk falls with higher levels of vitamin D

    Written by Catharine Paddock PhD

    Published: Today

    Researchers suggest improving people's blood level of vitamin D could be an important tool for preventing cancer, after their study found that the risk of developing the disease rises as vitamin D levels fall. Vitamin D written in sand
    The study links low levels of vitamin D - produced by the body through exposure to sunshine - to higher risk of developing cancer.

    In the journal PLOS One, researchers from the University of California-San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine report how they analyzed the link between Health Benefits, Facts and Research" rel="nofollow">vitamin D and cancer to determine what blood level of vitamin D was required to effectively reduce cancer risk.

    The study included all invasive cancers, excluding skin cancer.

    One of the authors, Cedric Garland, adjunct professor in the UCSD School of Medicine Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, says their study is the first to put numbers on this relationship, as he explains:

    "We have quantitated the ability of adequate amounts of vitamin D to prevent all types of invasive cancer combined, which had been terra incognita until publication of this paper."

    Vitamin D, which is produced by the body through exposure to sunshine, helps the body control calcium and phosphate levels. It was Prof. Garland and his late brother Frank who first linked low vitamin D with cancer in the 1980s. They found people who lived at higher latitudes and thus had less access to sunlight had lower levels of vitamin D and were more likely to develop bowel cancer.

    Since then, further studies by the Garland brothers and others have found links between low vitamin D and other cancers, including cancers of the breast, lung and bladder.

    Much debate about recommended level of vitamin D

    The only accurate way to measure vitamin D in the body is to measure the level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the blood. The kidneys convert 25-hydroxyvitamin D into the active form that helps control calcium and phosphate levels.

    There has been much debate in recent years about what the recommended blood levels of vitamin D should be. In 2010, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended a target of 20 ng/ml for bone health, which could be met in most healthy adults (aged 19-70), with the equivalent of 600 IU of vitamin D each day.

    Since then, other groups have argued that the target level should be higher, at 50 ng/ml or more.

    In the new study, Prof. Garland and colleagues wanted to find out what blood level of vitamin D effectively reduces cancer risk.

    They took an approach that is not normally used. They used the results from two different types of study: one a clinical trial of 1,169 women and the other a prospective study of 1,135 women. For some of their analysis, they kept the two data sets separate and compared them, and in another part, they pooled the data to create a larger sample.

    Vitamin D level of 40 ng/ml or higher tied to 67% lower cancer risk

    The median blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the participants in the clinical trial was 30 ng/ml, and in the participants in the prospective study, it was 48 ng/ml.

    The researchers found that the rate of cancer incidence in the clinical study group (that had the lower median vitamin D level) was higher than in the prospective study group. The figures were 1,020 cases per 100,000 person-years and 722 per 100,000 person-years, respectively.

    They also found that cancer rates went down as 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels rose; women whose vitamin D level was 40 ng/ml or higher had a 67% lower risk of developing cancer than women whose vitamin D level was 20 ng/ml or lower.

    The researchers did not say what the optimum intake level of vitamin D should be - or how it should be generated, whether by greater exposure to sunlight, dietary changes or supplements.

    Prof. Garland says their findings simply show that it is possible to see reduced cancer risk when blood levels of vitamin D reach 40 ng/ml, and that higher than this, the risk drops even further. He and his colleagues conclude:

    "Primary prevention of cancer, rather than expanding early detection or improving treatment, will be essential to reversing the current upward trend of cancer incidence worldwide. This analysis suggests that improving vitamin D status is a key prevention tool."

    Last month, Medical News Today also learned of a study that found a link between low vitamin D and aggressiveness of prostate cancer.

    Written by Catharine Paddock PhD

  • muska
    muska Member Posts: 1,195
    edited April 2016

    Question for fellow vitamin D takers who read research on the subject. Have they proved the causal relationship between low vit D and cancer? Or is this purely based on the stats that show lower levels of D in the population that has higher levels of cancer? One might argue that with cancer or predisposition to cancer the body might produce less of D than in healthy population?


  • Noni
    Noni Member Posts: 327
    edited April 2016

    This is interesting. Two years ago I was feeling very run down and filled with aches and pains. My PCP ran my blood and found that my vitamin D, among many others, was dangerously low. I have been taking D3 5,000 ui daily ever since.

    A year later I saw her again for what I thought to be bronchitis or sinus infection. After a few months of many different treatments, she sent me for an x-ray where we saw lungs filled with numerous lesions and masses.

    And here I am with mets to the lungs, bones, and lymph nodes. Can't bring myself to think of what have happened if...

  • Fallleaves
    Fallleaves Member Posts: 806
    edited April 2016

    Muska, you raise a good point. One of the questions these studies lead to is: "Do low levels of vitamin D contribute to or allow cancer growth, or does cancer growth cause lower levels of vitamin D?"

    This article is 3 years old, but it explains the specific ways vitamin D may prevent cancer or reduce cancer growth. Although, it still doesn't answer the question of whether cancer might deplete vitamin D.

    "Such mechanisms range from preventing cell proliferation (cell cycle arrest) to inducing apoptosis to inducing or suppressing cell adhesion molecules and growth factors that promote cellular homing and metastasis."

    "Vitamin D3 also inhibits secretion of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in these cell lines, as well as in the MCF-7 breast cancer cell line. Furthermore, vitamin D treatment downregulates endothelin 1 (ET-1) and glucose transporter 1 (Glut-1). VEGF-1, ET-1 and Glut-1 are essential for inducing angiogenesis."

    "The suppressive effects of vitamin D on inflammation have also been confirmed through studies that have shown that vitamin D can suppress IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-17 and NF-κB in inflammation associated with breast and prostate cancer cells."

    "Vitamin D treatment of tumor cells seems to mediate upregulation of a protein known as beclin-1, which interacts with PI3 kinase (PI3K), which, in turn, inhibits mTOR, responsible for promoting tumor growth and progression."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC382005...

    (The article gives a good overview of cell studies, animal studies and a few clinical trials.)

  • wallycat
    wallycat Member Posts: 3,227
    edited April 2016

    I think this is one of those "people are different" scenarios.

    Too much vitamin D can cause people to make more kidney stones, but not in everyone. Same for prostate cancer; some studies show less aggressive cancers while others show increased risk of first time prostate cancer.

    I take Chris Kresser's comments with a grain of salt, but here's his take: https://chriskresser.com/does-avoiding-the-sun-sho...

    And I think he mentioned the study in Sciencedaily that showed women in Sweden who sunbathe, live longer. They actually said "to not sunbathe is like smoking risk."

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/1603...

    It could be as simple as sunshine derived vitamin D is better than supplements, similar to obtaining nutrients from whole foods vs a pill.


  • muska
    muska Member Posts: 1,195
    edited April 2016

    Hi Fallleaves, Wallycat, thank you for the links.

  • luvmygoats
    luvmygoats Member Posts: 2,942
    edited April 2016

    kayb - Noticed your mention of tracking in "young healthy subjects". I believe the Nurses' Health Study (three diff. cohorts depending I think upon date of graduation) has been doing Vitamin D studies. This is simply groups of nurses who have agreed to participate in these ongoing evals. Years ago I was asked to donate specimens to this study. No idea what was done with them but my gyn was an enthusiastic participant in the collection of the blood specimens needed.

    http://www.nurseshealthstudy.org/

    None of the studies I found came from the homepage but did come from googling Nurses Health study + vitamin D.




Categories