Toggle Health Problems and D

Women worried about breast cancer seem to be taking vitamin D – Jan 2019

The influence of a breast cancer diagnosis on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Jan 4. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy285.
O'Brien KM1,2, Sandler DP1, House M3, Taylor JA1, Weinberg CR2.
1 Epidemiology Branch, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences.
2 Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Enviro, Health Sciences.
3 Westat, Inc., Durham, NC.

  • The women had sisters who had gotten breast cancer and were in a study analyzing the association between Vitamin D and breast cancer
  • Vitamin D Test #1,   They did/did not get Breast Cancer,   Vitamin D Test #2


Test #1Test #2
4-10 years later)
Breast Cancer risk
per +10 ng of Vit D
No Breast Cancer32 ng 40 ng-13%
Breast Cancer32 ng44 ng+17%

Note: Increasing Vitamin D for just a few years does not decrease the chance of breast cancer,
but will increase survival

Genes can restrict how much Vitamin D acually gets to tissues (Breast Cancer Cells)

A strategy of Breast Cancer cells is to decrease Vitamin D it gets

Overview Breast Cancer and Vitamin D

contains the following

 Download the PDF from Sci-hub via VitaminDWiki

Prospective and retrospective studies of vitamin D and breast cancer have produced discrepant results. This may be due to variations in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations over time, including systematic changes after breast cancer diagnosis. We measured total serum 25(OH)D in Sister Study participants who provided samples at baseline (2003-2009) and 4-10 years later (2013-2015). This included 827 women with an intervening breast cancer and 771 without. Although modestly correlated over time (R=0.42), 25(OH)D concentrations increased in both groups, with larger increases among cases (averaging 31.6 ng/mL at baseline, 43.5 ng/mL at follow-up) than controls (32.3 ng/mL at baseline, 40.4 ng/mL at follow-up). Consequently, the estimated association between 25(OH)D and breast cancer depended on whether baseline (odds ratio [OR]=0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.98 per 10 ng/mL) or second blood draw measures (OR=1.17, 95% CI: 1.08-1.26 per 10 ng/mL) were used.
Concentrations were related to regular (>4 times/week) vitamin D supplement use, which became more common over time. Increases were greater in cases (56% to 84%) than in controls (56% to 77%).
Our results do not explain previously observed differences between retrospective and prospective studies, but do demonstrate how reverse causation and temporal trends in exposure can distort inference.

Created by admin. Last Modification: Saturday January 5, 2019 16:14:34 GMT-0000 by admin. (Version 9)

Attached files

ID Name Comment Uploaded Size Downloads
11149 BC and 2 measures of Vitamin D.pdf admin 05 Jan, 2019 767.80 Kb 590