Vitamin D won't reduce cancer risk, study finds
Researchers have long considered the possibility that Vitamin D might be used to prevent cancer, but a new study shows that is not the case.
The large-scale study looked at whether increased Vitamin D would reduce the risk in seven cancers - non-Hodgkin lymphoma and cancers of the endometrium, esophagus, stomach, kidney, ovary or pancreas.
Kathy J. Helzlsouer, director of the Prevention & Research Center at Mercy Medical Center, chaired the study. Other institutitions, including the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute, were also involved. Details will appear in the July 1 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
Researchers took samples of Vitamin D levels from about 12,000 men and women before they were diagnosed with cancer. They followed the people for more than three decades.
They then compared the samples to those participants who were eventually diagnosed with cancer during that time period to those who didn't get the disease. There was no significant variation of Vitamin D levels between the two groups, meaning higher levels didn't make a difference in cancer risk.
Vitamin D is made naturally by the body when the skin is exposed to sunlight. It can also be obtained by the body in foods, fortified foods and nutritional supplements. The vitamin is used for healthy bones, calcium absorption and immune function.
Comments
This is a flawed study. The group started out vitamin D deficiendt and ended up vitamin D deficient.
There needs to be a group who takes a vitamin D supplement, and a control group.
All this this study proves is that the study group was vitamin d deficient.
Controlled studies that were not flawed found otherwise.
Posted by: total nonsense | June 18, 2010 6:03 AM
The abstract presents no data so it is difficult to judge the validity of the work. However it does also say
The mortality rate ratio was statistically significantly higher for those with vitamin D concentrations in the deficient range, defined as <45nmol/L.
which you did not bother to mention.
Posted by: Pete | June 18, 2010 7:05 AM
There is a placebo controlled study that shows the opposite and led the Canadian Cancer Society to start recommending that everyone take vitamin D to prevent cancer. The study quoted above is poor science and should be ignored. you can see the relevant data at www.vitaminD3world.com
Posted by: toby lee | June 18, 2010 11:05 AM
As a long term cancer survivor, that carefully monitors Vitamin D 25-hydroxy levels, this story was of personal interest. I tracked down the complete study and was struck by the fact that all the data points (cancer patients and healthy) were Vitamin D insufficient. The study means nothing if healthy individuals with sufficient (above 125 nmol/L or 50 ng/ml) Vitamin D 25-hydroxy levels are used for the non-cancer group. Since everyone in the study was insufficient (below 31 ng/ml 25-hydroxy)in Vitamin D it is totally meaningless. NCI is guilty of misinformation and poor research.
Posted by: Pdazzler | June 19, 2010 11:30 AM
Where did you find this study? I've been looking for it. I read that they took a single blood test and then followed the subjects for 20 years. Could that be possible? What a waste of time and money. That would make the paper this study is printed useful for only TP.
Posted by: soccer mom | June 21, 2010 11:29 AM
The work is here http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/
in Advance Access. It is free to access.
Look in the methodology paper. The study was never intended for this use and therefore the data is unsuitable. The referees do not seem to have pointed this out.
Posted by: Pete | June 27, 2010 5:08 AM