View Single Post
Old 08-26-2016, 12:16 PM   #78
R.B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,843
Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.

HI Hopingmind,

Thank you for your thoughts and observations which lead me to revisit NCBI which I have not done for a while. There are heaps of papers which can be found including here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?ter...reast%20cancer

Is one of those you were referring to - clear benefits against recurrence - marginal benefits in terms of prevention

In respect of the occurrence risk conclusions the high intakes of vitamin D considered were 500IU which will not make a significant difference to plasma vitamin D and is well below the levels suggested to make a difference to risk of occurrence for example on the Grass Roots Health and VitaminDwiki sites.

However results of the risk v higher blood levels were mixed, and overall only just positive; further comment would need examination of all of the studies considered.

But there are lots of other reasons for attaining reasonable Vit D levels - see Grass Roots Health and VitaminDwiki
http://www.vitamindwiki.com/Proof+that+Vitamin+D+Works

Thanks again for your thoughts



Abstract


"Background:

Experimental studies suggest potential anti-carcinogenic properties of vitamin D against breast cancer risk, but the epidemiological evidence to date is inconsistent.

Methods:

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases along with a hand search for eligible studies to examine the association between vitamin D status (based on diet and blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D)) and breast cancer risk or mortality in a meta-analysis. A random-effect model was used to calculate a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR).

Results:

A total of 30 prospective studies (nested case-control or cohort) were included for breast cancer incidence (n=24 studies; 31 867 cases) or mortality (n=6 studies; 870 deaths) among 6092 breast cancer patients. The pooled RRs of breast cancer incidence for the highest vs the lowest vitamin D intake and blood 25(OH)D levels were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88–1.01) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.83–1.02), respectively. Among breast cancer patients, high blood 25(OH)D levels were significantly associated with lower breast cancer mortality (pooled RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.40–0.85) and overall mortality (pooled RR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.48–0.79). There was no evidence of heterogeneity and publication bias.

Conclusions:

Our findings suggest that high vitamin D status is weakly associated with low breast cancer risk but strongly associated with better breast cancer survival."

Last edited by R.B.; 08-28-2016 at 08:32 AM..
R.B. is offline   Reply With Quote