Vitamin D Reduces Cancer Risk
Main Category: Cancer / OncologyAlso Included In: Nutrition / Diet; Clinical Trials / Drug Trials
Article Date: 09 Jun 2007 - 0:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
4.71 (21 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
5 (5 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 2 posts |
Most Americans and others are not taking enough vitamin D, a fact that may put them at significant risk for developing cancer, according to a landmark study conducted by Creighton University School of Medicine.
The four-year, randomized study followed 1,179 healthy, postmenopausal women from rural eastern Nebraska. Participants taking calcium, as well as a quantity of vitamin D3 nearly three times the U.S. government's Recommended Daily Amount (RDA) for middle-age adults, showed a dramatic 60 percent or greater reduction in cancer risk than women who did not get the vitamin.
The results of the study, conducted between 2000 and 2005, were reported in the June 8 online edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
"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 principal investigator Joan Lappe, Ph.D., R.N., Creighton professor of medicine and holder of the Criss/Beirne Endowed Chair in the School of Nursing. "Vitamin D is a critical tool in fighting cancer as well as many other diseases."
Other Creighton researchers involved in the study included Robert Recker, M.D.; Robert Heaney, M.D.; Dianne Travers-Gustafson, M.S.; and K. Michael Davies, Ph.D.
Research participants were all 55 years and older and free of known cancers for at least 10 years prior to entering the Creighton study. Subjects were randomly assigned to take daily dosages of 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium, 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium plus 1,100 IU of vitamin D3, or placebos. National Institutes of Health funded the study.
Over the course of four years, women in the calcium/vitamin D3 group experienced a 60 percent decrease in their cancer risk than the group taking placebos.
On the premise that some women 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 percent cancer-risk reduction.
In the three-year analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in cancer incidence between participants taking placebos and those taking just calcium supplements.
Through the course of the study, 50 participants developed nonskin cancers, including breast, colon, lung and other cancers.
Lappe said further studies are needed to determine whether the Creighton research results apply to other populations, including men, women of all ages, and different ethnic groups. While the study was open to all ethnic groups, all participants were Caucasian, she noted.
There is a growing body of evidence that a higher intake of vitamin D may be helpful in the prevention and treatment of cancer, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases.
Humans make their own vitamin D3 when they are exposed to sunlight. In fact, only 10-15 minutes a day in a bright summer sun creates large amounts of the vitamin, Lappe said. However, people need to exercise caution since the sun's ultraviolet B rays also can cause skin cancer; sunscreen blocks most vitamin D production.
In addition, the latitude at which you live and your ancestry also influence your body's ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D. People with dark skin have more difficulty making the vitamin. Persons living at latitudes north of the 37th parallel -- Omaha is near the 41st parallel -- cannot get their vitamin D naturally during the winter months because of the sun's angle. Experts generally agree that the RDA for vitamin D needs to be increased substantially, however there is debate about the amount. Supplements are available in two forms -- vitamin D2 and vitamin D3. Creighton researchers recommend vitamin D3, because it is more active and thus more effective in humans.
Study participants came from the Nebraska counties of Douglas, Colfax, Cuming, Dodge, Saunders, Washington, Sarpy, Burt and Butler. RDA recommendations for vitamin D are 200 IU/d, birth-age 50; 400 IU/d, 50-70 years; and 600 IU/d, 70 years and older.
The author of "UV Advantage," published in 2004, Holick is considered by many to be one of the nation's foremost authority on vitamin D.
He is internationally recognized for his expertise and many contributions in the fields of vitamin D, calcium, skin, bone, and the biologic effects of light. At Boston University School of Medicine, Holick is professor of medicine, dermatology, and physiology and biophysics; director of the Bone Health Care Clinic; and program director of the General Clinical Research Center.
Garland is professor of family and preventive medicine and a member of the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego. He was an early contributor to scientific research in vitamins and mineral supplementation as they impact cancers. His 1989 report that Vitamin D intake or serum level of 25-(OH)-vitamin D is associated with reduced incidence of colon cancer has been confirmed in nine studies since its original publication. He continues to publish and lecture widely on vitamin D and cancer.
Creighton University
http://www.creighton.edu
Visit our cancer / oncology section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
13 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/73654.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/73654.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (2)
Safety Concerns For Vitamin D3
posted by Ronald E. Wheeler M.D. on 16 Jun 2007 at 12:05 pmAs a health care professional, I am not satisfied that this study adequately addresses a potential health risk of high dose Vitamin D3 therapy. Given the fact that ingestion of high doses of Vitamin D3 can be associated with significant tissue and organ calcification, should we not discuss the potential negative sequelae of taking high doses of D3 before we suggest the benefit? Beyond this, how confident can one be that the Vitamin D3 sold in health food stores is of equal efficacy to a prescription such as Calcitriol? Finally, D3 is different from 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D. People need to know that 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D may never become Vitamin D3 in the body. I am interested in qualified opinions. Thank you.
Risk Assessment For Vitamin D3
posted by Edward Hutchinson on 21 Jun 2007 at 2:06 pmRisk Assessment for Vitamin D http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6
John N Hathcock, Andrew Shao, Reinhold Vieth and Robert Heaney full text online.
Shows the absence of toxicity in trials conducted in healthy adults that used vitamin D dose 250 µg/d (10 000 IU vitamin D3) supports the confident selection of this value as the Upper Limit.
That said a close reading of the text shows in fact 40,000iu daily for some months would be needed if it was your intention to harm.
Hypovitaminosis D in British adults at age 45 yr http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/860 shows before harm occurs we need to correct the insufficiency state of most of the UK population. To raise Vit d status 9nmol/L requires 400iu. so to achieve Adequate Nutritioal Status as detailed in Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096 requires raising current status (generally below 75nmol/L) to over 100nmol/L a 25nmol/L difference which would require 1200iu/daily approx. To achieve optimum physical performance requires a level of 125nmol/L a 50nmol/L rise, and approx 2000iu/daily.
Heaney shows in http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204 Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing with cholecalciferol the body uses between 3000 & 5000iu daily, and most people in the UK will be getting from sunlight far less than the 2800iu outdoor workers in Omaha achieved. Effects of Above Average Summer Sun Exposure on Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Calcium Absorption
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/11/4952?ijkey=fbde723922ff5ce4d38b25570b4e65dc5bb3048c&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
You can catch up on the latest research findings about the importance of Vitamin D3 at this ASBMR Conference
Contemporary Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D-Related Disorders
http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/servlet/tc?cn=asbmr&c=10169&s=20343&e=6950&&
For a more basic understanding you may find the information at The Vitamin D Council Website helpful. http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/vitaminDPhysiology.shtml as I think there must be some confusion in your point " People need to know that 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D may never become Vitamin D3 in the body."
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




