Group items tagged

ncident invasive breast cancer, geographic location of residence, and reported average time spent outside. Millen AE, Pettinger M, Freudenheim JL, Langer RD, Rosenberg CA, Mossavar-Rahmani Y, Duffy CM, Lane DS, McTiernan A, Kuller LH, Lopez AM, Wactawski-Wende J. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Feb;18(2):495-507. Epub 2009 Feb 3. PMID: 19190147 doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0652 In conclusion, region of residence and geographic solar irradiance are not consistently related to risk of breast cancer and may not be sufficient proxy measures for sunlight/vitamin D exposure. The observed association between time spent outside and breast cancer risk support the hypothesis that vitamin D may protect against breast cancer.

Differences in vitamin D status between countries in young adults and the elderly. McKenna MJ. Am J Med. 1992 Jul;93(1):69-77. PMID: 1385673 PURPOSE: To compare vitamin D status between countries in young adults and in the elderly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reports on vitamin D status (as assessed by serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D) from 1971 to 1990 were reviewed. Studies were grouped according to geographic regions: North America (including Canada and the United States); Scandinavia (including Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden); and Central and Western Europe (including Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). RESULTS: Vitamin D status varies with the season in young adults and in the elderly, and is lower during the winter in Europe than in both North America and Scandinavia. Oral vitamin D intake is lower in Europe than in both North America and Scandinavia. Hypovitaminosis D and related abnormalities in bone chemistry are most common in elderly residents in Europe but are reported in all elderly populations. CONCLUSIONS: The vitamin D status in young adults and the elderly varies widely with the country of residence. Adequate exposure to summer sunlight is the essential means to ample supply, but oral intake augmented by both fortification and supplementation is necessary to maintain baseline stores. All countries should adopt a fortification policy. It seems likely that the elderly would benefit additionally from a daily supplement of 10 micrograms of vitamin D.

Long-term effects of giving nursing home residents bread fortified with 125 {micro}g (5000 IU) vitamin D3 per daily serving. Mocanu V, Stitt PA, Costan AR, Voroniuc O, Zbranca E, Luca V, Vieth R. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Feb 25. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 19244376

Broe KE, Chen TC, Weinberg J, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Holick MF, Kiel DP. \nA higher dose of vitamin d reduces the risk of falls in nursing home residents: a randomized, multiple-dose study.\nJ Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 Feb;55(2):234-9.\nPMID: 17302660 [PubMed -

Long-term effects of giving nursing home residents bread fortified with 125 microg (5000 IU) vitamin D(3) per daily serving. Mocanu V, Stitt PA, Costan AR, Voroniuc O, Zbranca E, Luca V, Vieth R. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Apr;89(4):1132-7. Epub 2009 Feb 25. PMID: 19244376 doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26890

Geographic variation of prostate cancer mortality rates in the United States: Implications for prostate cancer risk related to vitamin D. Grant WB. Int J Cancer. 2004 Sep 1;111(3):470-1; author reply 472. No abstract available. PMID: 15221981 10.1002/ijc.20220 The implications of our results and those of Tuohimaa et al.[1] include the following. Vitamin D supplementation should be undertaken in wintertime, a period when it is impossible to produce vitamin D by solar UVB exposure in northeastern states.[13] Given these new results, the optimal vitamin D intake and production and serum 25(OH)-vitamin D3 levels for prostate cancer appear to be lower than for other cancers. However, when developing guidelines for vitamin D fortification, many factors should be included in the analysis, including all of the potential health benefits and possible risks of vitamin D, as well as age, sex, residence, child-bearing status, etc.[14] Also, the suggestion that daily vitamin D3 supplement doses of 100 g (4,000 IU)/day are safe[15] should be reexamined. Finally, in terms of preventing prostate cancer, more attention should be given to diet, which has the greatest environmental impact on risk of prostate cancer, with animal products being important risk factors and vegetable products, especially onions and other allium family members, being important risk-reduction factors.[16]

The role of vitamin D in cancer prevention. Garland CF, Garland FC, Gorham ED, Lipkin M, Newmark H, Mohr SB, Holick MF. Am J Public Health. 2006 Feb;96(2):252-61. Epub 2005 Dec 27. Review. PMID: 16380576 DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.045260 Vitamin D status differs by latitude and race, with residents of the northeastern United States and individuals with more skin pigmentation being at increased risk of deficiency. A PubMed database search yielded 63 observational studies of vitamin D status in relation to cancer risk, including 30 of colon, 13 of breast, 26 of prostate, and 7 of ovarian cancer, and several that assessed the association of vitamin D receptor genotype with cancer risk. The majority of studies found a protective relationship between sufficient vitamin D status and lower risk of cancer. The evidence suggests that efforts to improve vitamin D status, for example by vitamin D supplementation, could reduce cancer incidence and mortality at low cost, with few or no adverse effects

The role of vitamin D in cancer prevention. Garland CF, Garland FC, Gorham ED, Lipkin M, Newmark H, Mohr SB, Holick MF. Am J Public Health. 2006 Feb;96(2):252-61. Epub 2005 Dec 27. Review. PMID: 16380576 DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.045260 Vitamin D status differs by latitude and race, with residents of the northeastern United States and individuals with more skin pigmentation being at increased risk of deficiency. A PubMed database search yielded 63 observational studies of vitamin D status in relation to cancer risk, including 30 of colon, 13 of breast, 26 of prostate, and 7 of ovarian cancer, and several that assessed the association of vitamin D receptor genotype with cancer risk. The majority of studies found a protective relationship between sufficient vitamin D status and lower risk of cancer. The evidence suggests that efforts to improve vitamin D status, for example by vitamin D supplementation, could reduce cancer incidence and mortality at low cost, with few or no adverse effects.

Current impediments to acceptance of the ultraviolet-B-vitamin D-cancer hypothesis. Grant WB, Boucher BJ. Anticancer Res. 2009 Sep;29(9):3597-604. PMID: 19667154 The ultraviolet-B (UVB)-vitamin D-cancer hypothesis was proposed in 1980. There have been numerous ecological, observational and other studies of the hypothesis. There are about 14 types of cancer for which it seems to apply: bladder, breast, colon, endometrial, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, ovarian, pancreatic, rectal, renal and vulvar cancer and both Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Nonetheless, the hypothesis has not yet been accepted by public health agencies. Some of the reasons for this include a distrust of ecological studies, some mistrust of observational studies, and the existence of just one positive randomized controlled trial, an analysis of a vitamin D and calcium supplementation study involving post-menopausal women in Nebraska. Paradigm shifts such as this generally take time, in part due to opposition from those content with the status quo. In this paper, results of ecological studies in the United States using summertime solar UVB as the index of vitamin D production, which is highly asymmetrical with respect to latitude, and indices for other cancer risk-modifying factors (air pollution, alcohol consumption, dietary iron and zinc, ethnic background, socioeconomic status, smoking and urban/rural residence) are discussed in terms of supporting the hypothesis. These studies were not considered while other ecological studies were examined in recent critiques of the hypothesis. While additional randomized controlled trials would, of course, be helpful, the current evidence seems to satisfy the criteria for causality as outlined by A. Bradford Hill.

Suominen MH, Hosia Randell HM, Muurinen S, Peiponen A, Routasalo P, Soini H, Suur Uski I, Pitkala KH.

Bodnar LM, Simhan HN, Powers RW, Frank MP, Cooperstein E, Roberts JM.