Dose-response of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D in association with risk of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis.
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2016 Dec 16. pii: S0960-0760(16)30342-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.12.003.
Garland CF1, Gorham ED2.
1Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive 0620, La Jolla, CA 92093-0620, United States. Electronic address: cgarland at ucsd.edu.
2Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA, United States.
- Molecular Link between Vitamin D and Cancer Prevention – Oct 2013
- After 30 years it still appears that vitamin D deals with colorectal cancer – Oct 2012
- Overview Cancer-Colon and vitamin D
The Meta-analysis of Colon Cancer and Vitamin D
- 16 factors increase the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer, only vitamin D decreases the risk – meta-analysis May 2023
- Colorectal Cancer 10 percent more likely if poor Vitamin D Receptor – meta-analysis Jan 2023
- Colorectal cancer 14 percent less likely if 10 ng more Vitamin D – 22nd meta-analysis – Sept 2022
- Colorectal cancer 40 percent less likely if 1000 IU more Vitamin D – 21st meta-analysis – Oct 2021
- Colorectal cancer 25 percent less likely if good level of Vitamin D – 20th meta-analysis – June 2021
- Deaths from many types of Cancer associated with low vitamin D- review of meta-analyses Sept 2020
- Colorectal cancer treated by Vitamin D – 19th meta-analysis – Sept 2020
- Colon cancer both prevented and treated by Vitamin D – meta-analysis Dec 2019
- Colorectal cancer is associated with Vitamin D (17 meta-analyses so far) – July 2018
- Colorectal cancer 60 percent less likely: high vs low Vitamin D level – meta-analysis Dec 2016
- Colorectal Cancer recurrence not prevented by 1,000 IU of vitamin D – meta-analysis Dec 2016
- Risk of Cancer increased if poor Vitamin D Receptor – meta-analysis of 73 studies Jan 2016
- Colon cancer 30 percent more likely if low vitamin D – 12th meta-analysis Aug 2015
- Colon cancer risk reduced by many vitamins – 13 percent reduction by Vitamin D – meta-analysis Jan 2015
- Cancer (colon, breast, lymph) survival about 2X better with high level vitamin D – meta-analysis July 2014
- Cancer survival 4 percent more likely with just a little more vitamin D (4 ng) - meta-analysis July 2014
- Colorectal and Breast Cancer – Vitamin D is associated with fewer deaths – meta-analysis Feb 2014
- 10 percent of colon cancer linked to Vitamin D Receptor – meta-analysis April 2012
- Meta-graphs of vitamin D and Cancer – Dec 2011
- Colon cancer probability increases with decreased vitamin D – Meta-analysis July 2011
- Non-cancer colon growths 7 percent less likely with each 10 ng increase in vitamin D – Oct 2011
- Colorectal cancer 26 percent less likely for every 10 ng of vitamin D – meta-analysis Aug 2011
- Colon polyps reduced 15 percent by increasing vitamin D by 20 ng – meta-analysis June 2011
- Meta-analysis of 3 cancers - 10 ng more vitamin D decrease colorectal by 15 percent– May 2010
- Meta-analysis found vitamin D association with colon but not prostate nor breast cancer May 2010
Pages listed in BOTH the categories Colon Cancer and Genetics
- Colon Cancer protects itself by changing the VDR and CYP3A4 genes – Dec 2022
- Colorectal Cancer risk increases when genes reduce the vitamin D levels – Aug 2019
- Many Ashkenazi Jewish diseases associated with low vitamin D or poor Vit D genes
- Colon cancer 30 percent more likely if problems with Vitamin D genes CYP24A1 or CYP27B1 – Nov 2015
- Colorectal cancer – need more vitamin D if you have certain genes – Aug 2013
- Colon cancer more likely in blacks due to differences in Vitamin D genes (wonder if more Vitamin D would help) – May 2014
- Gene variations were not associated with risk of colorectal cancer in Czech – June 2010
Fifteen nested case-control or cohort studies in 14 countries have examined the association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and risk of colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis of these studies would provide a useful dose-response gradient curve based on pooling of the results of known studies to date. An up-to-date dose-response curve that combines the findings of these studies has not been reported, to our knowledge. This curve would help in designing interventions for future studies.
A new meta-analysis would be more precise than any previous analysis due to its larger sample size. Therefore a search of PubMed and other resources was performed in May 2016 for all cohort or nested case-control observational studies that reported risk of colon or colorectal cancer by quantiles of 25(OH)D.
All but two of the 15 studies found a trend toward lower risk of colorectal cancer associated with higher serum 25(OH)D. There was a linear reduction in the odds ratio (OR) with each 10ng/ml-increment in 25(OH)D concentration. The lowest quantile of the serum 25(OH)D concentration was generally<20ng/ml. The downward trend in ORs associated with higher serum 25(OH)D concentrations was statistically significant in 3 studies. The pooled OR from all studies comparing highest with lowest quantile of 25(OH)D was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.76), meaning there was a 33% lower risk associated with the highest compared with the lowest quantile of serum 25(OH)D.
A dose-response analysis revealed that a serum 25(OH)D of 50ng/ml was associated with an OR of 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2-1.0) compared with a concentration of 5ng/ml. The formula for the linear relationship was OR=0.008x.
For example, individuals with a 25(OH)D concentration of 50ng/ml had an approximately 60% lower risk of colorectal cancer than those with a concentration of 5ng/ml.
Those with a 25(OH)D concentration of 30ng/ml had a 33% lower risk than those with a concentration of 5ng/ml. The inverse association between serum 25(OH)D and risk of colorectal cancer overall was strong and statistically significant. There also was a mostly linear dose response relationship between serum 25(OH)D and risk of colorectal cancer when all studies were combined. No study reported significant adverse effects, and there was no evidence of publication bias. Misclassification in some studies could have influenced the association, causing it to appear weaker than the true association.
PDF is available free at Sci-Hub 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.12.003