Vitamin D for risk...but my Dr. says treatment too

Options




Vitamin D dramatically cuts cancer risk: study




Lead investigator Joan Lappe, an associate professor of both medicine and nursing at Creighton University.

Dr. Reinhold Vieth, a researcher at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, believes every Canadian could benefit from taking a vitamin D supplement.

Heather Logan, director of Cancer Control Policy at the Canadian Cancer Society is seen in this file photo.

CTV.ca News Staff

Updated: Thu. Jun. 7 2007 10:54 PM ET

A landmark new study is raising the tantalizing spectre that a simple and cheap vitamin supplement may offer a highly effective way of preventing cancer.

The research, published in the online edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, finds that a combination of vitamin D3 and calcium has a substantially marked effect on reducing cancer incidence.


The four-year study out of Creighton University in Nebraska found that women who regularly took vitamin D3 had a 60 per cent reduction in cancer infections compared to a group taking placebos.


The study followed 1,179 healthy, women 55 years and older from rural eastern Nebraska between 2000 and 2005. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1400-1500 mg of calcium alone, or supplemental calcium plus 1,100 IU vitamin D3, or placebo.


The researchers studied only vitamin D3, which comes from animal sources and seems to be more active than vitamin D2, which is derived from plant sources.


Among the 288 women taking placebo, 20 developed breast, colon, lung or another form of cancer. Among the 445 women taking just calcium, 17 developed cancer. But among the largest group -- the 446 women taking vitamin D daily -- just 13 developed cancer.


"What we found is that a vitamin D supplement decreased the cancer incidence in postmenopausal women by about 60 per cent," lead investigator Joan Lappe, an associate professor of both medicine and nursing at Creighton University, told CTV News.


On the premise that some of the women who did develop cancer may have entered the study with undiagnosed cancers, researchers then eliminated the first-year results and looked at the last three years of the study. When they did that, the results became even more dramatic with the calcium/vitamin D3 group showing a startling 77 per cent cancer-risk reduction.


"The findings are very exciting. They confirm what a number of vitamin D proponents have suspected for some time but that, until now, have not been substantiated through clinical trial," said Lappe.


"Vitamin D is a critical tool in fighting cancer as well as many other diseases."


While the study was open to all ethnic groups, all participants were Caucasian, she noted. Lappe said further studies are needed to determine whether the results apply to different ethnic groups, to men, and to women of all ages.


This is not the first time that researchers have noted the health benefits of vitamin D. In February, two studies found that the vitamin was linked to lower rates of breast cancer and colorectal cancer. The "sunshine vitamin," as it's sometimes called, has also been shown to kill some cancer cells in laboratory experiments.


"There's a lot of evidence out there that populations in first world countries are deficient in vitamin D and if you give them more, we can prevent cancers and other diseases that have been reported to be prevented with vitamin D," said Lappe.


Humans can absorb vitamin D when ultraviolet rays from the sun trigger vitamin D synthesis in our skin. But because of our short summers in Canada and our latitude, most Canadians don't get anywhere near enough of it all year long.


That's why Dr. Reinhold Vieth, who has conducted numerous studies of vitamin D at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, believes every Canadian could benefit from taking a vitamin D supplement.


"The vitamin D story is what I call a 'no-lose' proposition. Take it. You can only win," he told CTV News.

Cancer Society recommends vitamin D supplementation


Because of the growing body of evidence about vitamin D, for the first time, the Canadian Cancer Society is recommending a specific amount of supplementation for Canadians to consider taking. The Society is now recommending that:


Adults living in Canada should consider taking vitamin D supplementation of 1,000 international units (IU) a day during the fall and winter.
Adults at higher risk of having lower vitamin D levels should consider taking vitamin D supplementation of 1,000 IU/day all year round. This includes people who are older; with dark skin; who don't go outside often, and who wear clothing that covers most of their skin.
At this time, the Canadian Cancer Society does not have a recommendation for vitamin D supplementation for children.

"The evidence is still growing in this area, but we want to give guidance to Canadians about this emerging area of cancer prevention based on what we know now," said Heather Logan, director of Cancer Control Policy with the Canadian Cancer Society.


"We're recommending 1,000 IUs daily because the current evidence suggests this amount will help reduce cancer risk with the least potential for harm," said Logan.


"As we find out more we will update our recommendation."


Logan cautions Canadians about relying too much on getting vitamin D through exposure to sunlight.


"It's not a good idea to rely solely on the sun to obtain vitamin D," said Logan. "For some people, it's possible that just a few minutes of unprotected sun exposure every day could increase skin cancer risk."

The Cancer Society is not changing its SunSense guidelines, as skin cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in Canada.

The Society recommends that people reduce their exposure to the sun, particularly between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. when the sun's rays are the strongest. And use a sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) 15 or higher and SPF 30 if you work outdoors or if you will be outside for most of the day.

With a report from CTV medical specialist Avis Favaro and medical producer Elizabeth St. Philip




© 2007 All Rights Reserved.
«1

Comments

  • Snarky57
    Snarky57 Member Posts: 20
    edited June 2007

    What did your doctor say?

  • Carmelle
    Carmelle Member Posts: 388
    edited June 2007
    That the recommended 1000/Iu for general pop is too low and cautious. It should be more like 2000/day.
    For cancer trials to prevent amounts are around 3000+ and showing promise.
    Michelle
  • sherridl
    sherridl Member Posts: 42
    edited June 2007
    Vitamin D is toxic in large doses. My onc sent me to an endocrinologist because of bone problems due to Tamo. He put me on 800, then 1000 and then finally 1200 and told me not to exceed 1200 (D3 only). I can't believe a doctor would tell you 2000-3000. I haven't had a broken bone in 2 years now.

    Sherri
  • BlindedByScience
    BlindedByScience Member Posts: 314
    edited June 2007
    Vitamin D does cause problems when you take very large doses for extended periods. The upper daily level is 10,000 iu according to the FDA--this amount is NOT a recommended amount, but is considered safe for short periods. For those who are Vitamin D deficient, 1000-2000 iu. daily is often very safe and does not lead to toxicity. If you have kidney or liver problems, you might not metabolize Vitamin D to it's active form or clear it from your body. Anyone who takes >2000 iu of Vitamin D daily should have periodic blood levels tested. The test is for 25(OH)D.

    Doctors vary in their knowledge of nutrition. I've talked to several oncologists who routinely put their patients on 1,000 to 2,000 iu daily and claim the blood work has never turned up a case of overdose. This is not a guarantee, though, so if you can, be tested. Then treat as needed. My oncologist prefers to see blood levels of D at high normal, which is 80-100 ng/ml.
  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2007
    "A landmark new study is raising the tantalizing spectre that a simple and cheap vitamin supplement may offer a highly effective way of preventing cancer"

    This might be a landmark new study to that hospital, but the good news has been around for quite a while. Am I the only one wondering why they keep spending money on repetitive studies about the same vitamin over and over again? Do they not know what to do with these funds? It could be better spent. They could study flaxseed for a change.

    Ok, off my soapbox.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2007
    Rosemary, you are so right. I read about the benefits of Vitamin D3 way before being diagnosed with bc. However, I didn't take it because I wasn't sure what to do. Now I'm taking 1200 mg and don't know if that's enough. However, there was no mention of mets from cancer just that D may prevent cancer.
    Shirley
  • linapril
    linapril Member Posts: 67
    edited June 2007

    I learned of my Vit D deficiency after bc dx. Endo has prescribed 50000 units per week, a prescription pill I take once a week. And I'll have a Vit D blood test taken in a few months for follow up.

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2007
    Shirley,

    When they first started reporting about D which was over 3 years ago, they never said how much to take. Then I didn't know how to find the actual reporting of the study where they do give facts.

    Now we know where to look, but these reporters need to do a better job of reporting on these studies. We would have known years ago how much to take.

    I wonder what it would take to get them to report to a central agency of their plans to study x y & z, and then they'd know if they're doing repetitive work. Such a waste of money.
  • roseg
    roseg Member Posts: 3,133
    edited June 2007

    As an off-topic-note: people with lymphoma should not take high doses of vitamin D.

  • Lhunhen
    Lhunhen Member Posts: 96
    edited June 2007
    Quote:

    As an off-topic-note: people with lymphoma should not take high doses of vitamin D.




    Rose, where did you hear this from? What is the source? And why should they not take it?

    Cathy
  • linapril
    linapril Member Posts: 67
    edited June 2007
    “We” (us who are gathered here due to our sisterhood) now know of these studies regarding the relationship to low D3 and cancer but how do women find out who may benefit by taking a D3 supplement for prevention ?

    How do you ladies find your information? On-line reading, other sources, or are you in the medical field ?

    It seems that for the uninformed general population, testing should be part of a physician’s routine exam but somehow I have a feeling that won’t be done on any large scale.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2007
    Quote:

    How do you ladies find your information? On-line reading, other sources, or are you in the medical field ?






    As far as vitamin D I just came across it one day while researching something. I believe the site was called something like "The vitamin D counsel."

    I just happened to have like reading medical stuff. Didn't do me much good. LOL
    Shirley
  • BlindedByScience
    BlindedByScience Member Posts: 314
    edited June 2007

    Rose, I'd be interested as well in a reference for high-dose Vitamin D being contraindicated for lymphoma. I had read that a small number of cases of lymphoma also occur with hypercalcemia and high blood levels of Vitamin D (it sounded as if the person made Vitamin D without sun exposure), but not that this was a problem for ALL lymphoma. I just met with an oncologist who refused a Vitamin D test for a patient with a newly diagnosed case of lymphoma and another doctor who recommended 2000 iu per day for the same patient, so I'm looking for more information if you have it. TIA

  • BlindedByScience
    BlindedByScience Member Posts: 314
    edited June 2007
    There are a number of good web sites that will help you follow the breaking news in cancer research. One of my favorites is ScienceDaily at:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/

    but more specifically, their Health & Medicine Page with a focus on breast cancer:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/health_medicine/

    This site follows a huge number of topics and you can add them to a Yahoo! or Google page (free) that pulls in the articles using RSS and get the latest news every time you bring up the page.
  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited June 2007
    There's also pubmed where I look for the actual study. Here's one talking about vitamin D and other types of cancers:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez...Pubmed_RVDocSum
  • linapril
    linapril Member Posts: 67
    edited June 2007
    These sites look to have some good reading.

    And I want to say that I appreciate the information that you all catch in your reading and post for the rest of us to see - your postings on an earlier thread assisted in my realizing I needed to be on top of interpreting my lab work and ensuring I was getting proper treatment regarding my low Vit. D level.
  • BlindedByScience
    BlindedByScience Member Posts: 314
    edited June 2007
    Thanks for the link, Rosemary. Apparently Vitamin D is good for the type of lymphoma this patient has.

    For bc, though, the article below also supports the use of Vitamin D in helping to suppress cancer.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez..._RVAbstractPlus
    Cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure.

    Lim HS, Roychoudhuri R, Peto J, Schwartz G, Baade P, Møller H.

    King's College London, Thames Cancer Registry, London, United Kingdom. hyunsook.lim@kcl.ac.uk

    Sunlight is essential for the production of vitamin D in the body. Evidence exists to suggest that vitamin D metabolites may have a role in tumor growth suppression. In this large study, involving over a million cancer patients from the United Kingdom, we have analyzed the role of season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure in cancer survival for cancers of the breast, colorectum, lung, prostate and at all sites combined. We used population-based data from the Thames Cancer Registry to analyze cancer survival in periods 0-1 and 0-5 years after diagnosis. The analysis was performed using Cox proportional regression analysis adjusting for age and period at diagnosis and including season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure in the preceding months as factors in the analysis. We found evidence of substantial seasonality in cancer survival, with diagnosis in summer and autumn associated with improved survival compared with that in winter, especially in female breast cancer patients and both male and female lung cancer patients (hazard ratios 0.86 [95% CI 0.83-0.89], 0.95 [95% CI 0.92-0.97] and 0.95 [95% CI 0.93-0.98] respectively). Cumulative sunlight exposure in the months preceding diagnosis was also a predictor of subsequent survival, although season of diagnosis was a stronger predictor than cumulative sunlight exposure. We found seasonality in cancer survival to be stronger in women than in men. Our results add to a growing body of evidence that vitamin D metabolites play an important role in cancer survival. Copyright 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

    PMID: 16671100 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
  • Jorf
    Jorf Member Posts: 498
    edited June 2007
    It's very easy to know how much to take - find out what your blood level is. This is one of the few vitamins that can be fairly (it's really a subject of much debate actually because the assays are a bit different and questionable...) well measured. Get a 25(OH) vitamin D level. No matter what your health care provider says ("It's normal") find out what the number is. It needs to be over 32. Some labs are still in the dark ages (that is, about 2 years ago) and say that "normal" is 10 or more or 20 or more. If it's under 32 then you need more - I get good results with 2000 IU of D3 daily or 50,000 of D2 weekly for 12 weeks and then retest. I have a couple of people who are taking 5000 IU of D3 daily because they couldn't get there on the 2000. Most people do well if they have normal levels at 1000 D3 daily to maintain - tho some will slip lower in the winter if, in North America, they live north of Atlanta (and we're well north of there!).

    Don't wonder - get your level checked.
  • LizM
    LizM Member Posts: 963
    edited June 2007

    Jorf, I had my levels checked and my number was 48 which is normal. I was taking 1000 of D3 in a multivitamin. I also just recently had a bone density test which resulted in my being on the high side of osteopenia, with 2.2 on neck, 2.1 on hip and 1.6 on spine. My pcp put me on fosomax with d3 which leads to my next question. The weekly fosomax she put me on has 2800 IU of D3 which is about 400 IU a day. If I keep taking my multi with 1000 D3 I am afraid I'm taking too much at 1400 IU. I do take a 30 minute walk in the sun almost daily over the summer months. I was thinking I should find a multi with just 400 IU of D3 instead of 1000 now that my fosomax has d3.

  • wallycat
    wallycat Member Posts: 3,227
    edited June 2007
    Sorry I am a bitter gal since recent diagnosis.
    I've been taking D for years...so why did I get BC!! GRRRRRRR.
    I know we don't know but it just goes to show that you can be doing all the "right" things and still end up with cancer.
    Frustrating.
  • roseg
    roseg Member Posts: 3,133
    edited June 2007
    The one thread is long, but they had a big discussion about Vitamin D, which for that group was rather heated!

    http://forums.webmagic.com/ubbthreads/sh...e=28#Post351492

    The other is an article and they mention the dangers of it with lymphoma in the "hypersensitivities" part.
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842

    It's very frustrating to read these pronouncements on the news, because they're always looking for a "cure." It's quite possible for breast cancer vitamin D is positive. I have to wonder if keeping your bones strong reduces the chances that some wandering cancer cell will set up shop in your bones and multiply. But since cancer isn't one homogeneous disease it does make sense that it might not work the same way with other cancers.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2007
    Liz, this is the D I take. It comes in a capsule and is 400 IU.

    http://www.vitacost.com/NaturesWayVitaminD400
  • Jorf
    Jorf Member Posts: 498
    edited June 2007
    Shirley, is it D3/cholecalciferol? It doesn't say tho it compares it with some higher dose D3s.

    I get the whole foods brand 1000 d3, it's about $6 for 90. 400's are pretty easy to find at most drug stores/supermarkets. Just be sure it's d3.

    Liz, sounds like you'll be fine over the summer if you go to the 400. Might be worth a blood test headed into the winter months and/or mid-winter.

    Julie
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2007
    Julie, yes it's D3. Scroll down and you'll see "Vitamin D (As Cholecalciferol)."
    Shirley
  • LizM
    LizM Member Posts: 963
    edited June 2007

    Jorf, do you take a multi with D3? My multi with d3 has 1000 and my Fosomax is weekly with 2800 which is 400 a day. I don't really want to change multi's. Do you think 1400 D3 is too much in the summer. The link I posted says in their study of the benefits of D3 on breast cancer that one should take at least 1500 of D3. Since my number was 48 and I have read that some like the number high normal (80-100) I am hoping I'm OK with 1400 in the summer.

  • linapril
    linapril Member Posts: 67
    edited July 2007
    Shirley,

    On another posting you commented to Pam about her RX of Vit D being D2 which got me to thinking that my RX certainly was D3 - or was it?
    I contacted my pharmacist who said it was D2 because
    D2 is metabolized inside the body by both the liver and kidneys into its active metabolites and thus its most active forms--one of which is D3. (The vitamin D metabolites promote the active absorption of calcium and phosphorous by the small intestine, thus elevating serum calcium and phosphate levels sufficiently to permit bone mineralization.) The reason it is given as D2 is that D3 would not be absorbed from the stomach and intestines into its most pharmacodynamically active form in as high a quantity...thus, you would need to take several vitamin D3 tabs to equal one D2 because it would be destroyed by enzymes in the stomach, liver, and kidneys before it had a chance to be of benefit.
  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited July 2007
    After a long while of searching, I finally found D3 without soy. I know, a little bit won't harm us, but I want none of it. Bluebonnet sell it.

    My new search is to find dark chocolate without soy.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited July 2007
    I've changed to Vita Cost's D3. I don't think there's any soy in it. It's dry and in a capsule.
    Shirley

Categories