Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

The Potential of Vitamin D in CancerPrevention

The first hint of a correlation between vitamin D and cancer

arose in the 1930’S when it was observed that those living in

areas with higher exposure to sunlight had a lower incidenceof cancer.Explaining the link between cancer and sunlight proveddifficult. At the time, vitamin D had only just been discovered(1921) and its mode of production, by the skin in response toultraviolet (UV) light had yet to discovered.It was not until the 1980s that anyone seriously consideredthat vitamin D might account for the differences in cancerrates. Initially, two epidemiologists (the Garland brothers) atthe University of California in San Diego discovered thatbeing exposed to sunlight reduced the risk of colon cancer.Later they were able to show that exposure to sunlight andthe incidence of breast cancer were also strongly related.

Then another researcher, Schwartz discovered that thesame was true of prostate cancer.

The Garland brothers then published data supporting therole of vitamin D as as an explanation of the correlationbetween cancer rates and sun exposure.

By 2008 there were over 63 epidemiological studies in theworld literature showing the correlation between low vitaminD levels and the development of cancer.

The incidence of over sixteen different types of cancer,which includes all the most common killers has shown somecorrelation with low levels of vitamin D.

Out of the 63 epidemiology studies mentioned above, 30studied colon cancer, 26 prostate cancer, 13 breast cancerand 7 ovarian cancer. The majority of these studies showeda correlation between low level of vitamin D and anincreased incidence of cancer.

Studies previously conducted in animals had predicted thiseffect. There are multiple animal and cell-based studies thathave demonstrated the anti-cancer effect of vitamin D.

While all these data amounts to a very strong signal thatvitamin D levels play an important role in preventing cancer,the scientific community remained skeptical as no one hadconducted a prospective double blind placebo trial to confirmthese findings. The double bind placebo controlled trial isconsidered the gold standard in clinical trial design. In suchstudies patients are placed on either the active compound orplacebo (sugar pill) and followed to monitor the effects.Eventually, such a study was done with Vitamin D by Dr.Joan Lappe at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.

In her study she treated women over the age of 55 witheither 1100IU of vitamin D and calcium or calcium alone orplacebo. She followed the patients for four years andmonitored the incidence of cancer. The results were veryconvincing

Over the four year treatment period, the group receivingvitamin D and calcium developed 60% fewer cases ofcancer than occurred in the placebo group.

Dr. Lappe then reanalyzed the data looking at the incidenceof cancer occurring during years 2-4 of the trial. This wasdone because it was highly likely that the cases of cancerthat occurred during the first year of the study were alreadypresent when the patients entered the trial but were too earlyto be detected.

In this analysis Dr. Lappe found that the vitamin Dtreated group demonstrated a 77% reduction in theincidence of cancer compared to the placebo group.

In addition, Dr. Lappe explored the relationship betweenblood levels of vitamin D and the incidence of cancer. Thisanalysis showed that every 25 nmol/L (10ng/ml) increase invitamin D levels resulted in a 35% reduction in the risk ofdeveloping cancer.In a study conducted in France, physicians monitoredvitamin D levels prior to renal transplantation and thenfollowed the patients to determine cancer rates in those withdeficient, insufficient and adequate levels. At least 85% ofthe patients had deficient or insufficient levels of vitamin D.

The incidence of cancer during the follow up period was13.7% in the deficient group, 7% in the insufficient andonly 3.7% in the group with normal vitamin D levels.

These numbers show an excellent dose response, ie thehigher the level of vitamin D the lower the incidence ofcancer. Such a dose response is a strong indicator of causeand effect which is so often missing in epidemiology studies.

In Germany, 3299 patients admitted to hospital for coronaryangiography had their vitamin D levels measured and were thenfollowed for almost eight years. During the follow-up period, therewere 95 deaths due to cancer. Those with the highest levels ofvitamin D had a 55% reduction in the risk of death from cancercompared to the group with the lowest levels. In this study levelsabove 30ng/ml were considered to be high and only 10% of thepatient population had levels this high. Only one of the 95patients who died from cancer was in the group with the highestvitamin D levels.

The vitamin D council in the USA now recommendedthat doses of 2000IU in the summer and 5000IU in thewinter

are needed to keep vitamin D at optimal levels. Thisis especially for populations living high above the equator.

The Canadian Oncology Society now recommends that allCanadians take vitamin D supplements to reduce the risk ofcancer.However, the Canadians are not the only people sufferingfrom Vitamin D deficiency. Such deficiency is widespread.Almost anyone who does not live in a sunny environmentand expose themselves to the sun on a regular basis is likelyto have less than optimal levels.Recently a major health care provider in the US, AuroraHealthcare, has recommended that all Wisconsin residentstake vitamin D and has started a program to educate itsphysicians about the dangers of vitamin D deficiency.The Chief Medical Officer of Scotland has stated also thatthe government of Scotland should initiate a program toensure all citizens increase their intake of vitamin D. Thisnorthern region of the UK sees little of the sun and has someof the worst rates of cardiovascular disease and cancer inthe world.

Lung Cancer Prevention

Recently, Professor Garland of the University of California,San Diego published an analysis of the relationship between