You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Nutrients
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

26 September 2019

25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Total Cancer Incidence and Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

,
,
,
,
,
and
Institute of Nutrition and Health, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients2019, 11(10), 2295;https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102295
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Epidemiological studies have suggested inconclusive associations between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and total cancer incidence and mortality. The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess these associations by combining results from prospective cohort studies. A systematic literature search was implemented in PubMed and Scopus databases in April 2019. Comparing the highest with the lowest categories, the multivariate-adjusted relative risks (RRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. A trend estimation was performed using a two-stage, dose-response, meta-analysis method. Twenty-three independent prospective studies were included for data synthesis. Eight studies investigated the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and the risk of cancer incidence (7511 events and 70,018 participants), and the summary estimate showed that 25-hydroxyvitamin D is marginally associated with cancer risk (Summary RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.02; I2 = 70.8%; p = 0.001). Sixteen studies investigated the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and the risk of cancer mortality (8729 events and 101,794 participants), and a higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration was inversely associated with the risk of cancer mortality (Summary RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.93; I2 = 48.8%, p = 0.012). Dose-response analysis indicated that the risk of cancer incidence was reduced by 7% (RRs = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91, 0.96), and the risk of cancer mortality was reduced by 2% (RRs = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97, 0.99), with each 20 nmol/L increment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration. This meta-analysis provides evidence that a higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration is associated with a lower cancer incidence and cancer mortality.

1. Introduction

Cancer is the leading cause of global morbidity and mortality, with approximately 18.1 million new cancer cases and 9.6 million cancer deaths in 2018 [1]. The number of people who died of cancer ranks second, second only to the number of deaths from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases worldwide [2,3]. In recent years, great progress has been made in the prevention and treatment of certain cancers [4,5,6]. Despite these advances, the burden of cancer is increasing due to the increasing global population and ageing, as well as risk factors, such as smoking, obesity and unhealthy dietary patterns. Therefore, it is necessary to identify many aspects of the beneficial factors for cancer prevention.
As a secosteroid hormone, the biologically active metabolite of vitamin D is attributed to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D), which is synthesized from the circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) by 1a-hydroxylase (CYP27B1). The classical biological function of vitamin D is to regulate calcium and phosphorus balance and maintain bone health. Recent studies have found that it also plays an important role in anti-inflammatory, anti-fibrosis and immunoregulation processes, and it is also involved in maintaining the growth and development of the body and regulating cell proliferation, differentiation and apoptosis [7,8,9]. As early as 1980, an epidemiological study proposed that vitamin D may have anti-cancer properties [10]. Since then, numerous studies have supported this hypothesis [11,12,13]. The anti-cancer effect of vitamin D might be related to its regulation of cell proliferation and differentiation, growth factor gene expression, and signal transduction and apoptosis [14,15,16,17,18,19]. Extensive investigations, both in vitro and in vivo, have demonstrated that vitamin D is associated with cancer [20,21,22,23]. In addition, there is strong evidence, from cell experiments and animal studies, that supports the anti-tumor effects of vitamin D [14,24,25]. However, the results from prospective cohort studies have been inconsistent.
In fact, there were already several meta-analyses of prospective studies about cancer incidence or mortality, existing meta-analysis also yield inconsistent results [26,27,28,29]. Several prospective cohort studies recently explored the associations between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and cancer risk and mortality, while the results remain controversial [30,31,32,33]. However, the meta-analysis of prospective studies has not been updated in recent years. Therefore, to provide a more comprehensive, up-to-date assessment of the associations between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and cancer risk and mortality, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively assess these associations. In addition, a dose-response meta-analyses were performed to explore the trend estimation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria

A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane library, Embase and PubMed databases until April, 2019 using the search query: Vitamin D, VD, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, 25(OH)D, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D or 1,25(OH)2D, paired with cancer, tumor, neoplasm, mortality, incidence, risk, and occurrence.
Two authors independently performed the literature search and identified potential studies from the title, abstract and full-text. The inclusion criteria were prospective studies (comprising the prospective cohort and, nested case-control studies). The exposure of interest was the serum 25(OH)D concentration or plasma 25(OH)D concentration, and the end point of interestwas the number of cancer patients or deaths due to cancer during follow-ups.

2.2. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

For the identified studies, data extraction was conducted by two investigators, and any discrepancy was resolved via discussion. The characteristics, including the first author’s surname, publication year, geographic region, duration of follow-up, mean age at the baseline, number of participants and cases, age of the participants, relative risk (RR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and the assay used to measure 25(OH)D, and covariates, adjusted for in the analyses, were extracted from the eligible studies. While most of the original studies used the lowest dose group as the reference group, a few used other groups as the reference group, so we converted this kind of study into the lowest dose group, as the reference group [34]. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria, with a 9-star system, was adopted to perform the quality assessment. The full score was defined as 9 stars, and a study was classified as low, moderate and high-quality using 0–3, 4–6 and 7–9 stars, respectively [35]. The assessments were conducted by two investigators, any discrepancy was resolved with the third investigator (Hui Liang) to reach agreement.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

RR was regarded as the common risk estimate for the association between 25(OH)D and cancer risk and mortality. Considering that the eligible studies were prospective studies, thus, odds ratio (OR) or HR was directly considered as RR for data synthesis. Multivariate-adjusted RRs, with the corresponding 95% CIs for the highest versus lowest category, were logarithm transformed, and the summary RR was calculated using a random-effects model, which was weighted by the inverse of the variance of the RRs. Studies including three or more 25(OH)D categories were eligible for dose-response analysis [36]. The median concentration of 25(OH)D, assigned in respective quantiles, was extracted. The midpoint of the lower and upper categories was regarded as the 25(OH)D concentration of the quantile, if the media concentration was not provided. The concentration of 25(OH)D was defined as 1.2 times higher than the highest boundary, if the highest quantile was open-ended. Meanwhile, the 25(OH)D concentration of the lowest quantile (the reference) was set as 0 in each study [37]. We performed a random-effects, dose-response, meta-analysis to estimate the potential curvilinear relation. A two-stage, random-effects, dose-response analysis was carried out to estimate the associations between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and cancer incidence and mortality. To estimate the potential curvilinear (non-linear) associations between 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and cancer risk and cancer mortality, a restricted cubic spline model was applied, with 3 knots at fixed percentiles of the 25-hydroxyvitamin D subclasses distribution (25%, 50% and 75%) [38]. P for non-linearity is obtained by testing the null hypothesis that the regression coefficients of the spline transformations are all equal to zero [39]. I2 statistic was used to estimate the heterogeneity between studies. To examine the potential sources of heterogeneity, subgroup and univariate meta-regression analyses, including duration of follow-up, region, study quality and mean age of participants, was implemented based on the information of these studies. In order to assess whether a study had an undue influence on the summary estimates, we deleted one study at a time and recalculated the summary estimates. The Egger’s test was used to assess publication bias (p < 0.1 [40] is significant). Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 11.0 (STATA CORP, College station, TX, USA). The p value was two-tailed and the significance level was 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search and Study Characteristics

The flow chart of the literature search is presented in Figure 1. We identified 10,585 citations from PubMed and 13,979 from Scopus. Among these, 15,026 citations remained, after the exclusion of duplicates, and 14,932 citations were excluded by screening the titles and abstracts, leaving 94 articles for full-text examination. Of these, 71 articles were excluded, because they did not satisfy the inclusion criteria (e.g., they did not provide sufficient data, an adequate study design or a relevant review). Finally, 23 articles were included for data synthesis.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the study selection process.
Basic information concerning the eligible studies is listed in Table 1 and Table 2. A total of 8 prospective cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis of total cancer incidence (7511 events and 70,018 participants) [13,30,31,32,41,42,43,44], and 16 prospective cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis of total cancer mortality (8729 events and 10,794 participants) [33,43,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Eight prospective cohort studies were conducted in the US [44,47,48,50,52,55,57], thirteen were performed in Europe [13,32,33,41,42,43,45,49,51,53,54,56,58], and the remaining studies were executed in Asia [30,31,46]. The level of covariate adjustment in the individual studies differed, but all studies adjusted for age, sex and some indicators relating to tumor spreading. Most studies measured the 25(OH)D serum concentration with immunoassays [30,32,41,46,48,50,53,55,57] or mass spectrometry [31,42,43,44,47,49,52,56]. Besides, other studies measured 25(OH)D serum concentration using a radioimmunoassay [13,45,51] and competitive protein-binding assay [33,54,58]. Five studies were limited to males [13,33,43,45,48] and two to females [47,52]. On the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale criteria, 15 prospective studies were classified as high-quality [13,30,31,41,46,47,49,50,51,53,54,55,56,57,58], and the remaining studies were classified as moderate-quality [32,42,43,44,45,48,52] (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2).
Table 1. Prospective studies reporting on the association of circulating 25(OH)D serum concentration with total cancer incidence a.
Table 2. Prospective studies reporting on the association of circulating 25(OH)D serum concentration with total cancer mortality b.
In the meta-analysis combining results of eight independent cohort studies [13,30,31,32,41,42,43,44], 25(OH)D was marginally associated with cancer risk, with a significant between-study heterogeneity (Summary RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.02; I2 = 70.8%; p = 0.001) (Figure 2). Regarding total cancer mortality, the summary estimate found an inverse association, with a significant between-study heterogeneity [33,43,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58] (Summary RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.93; I2 = 48.8%, p = 0.012) (Figure 3). Dose-response analysis indicated that the risk of cancer incidence was reduced by 7% (RRs = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91, 0.96) (Figure 4), and the risk of cancer mortality was reduced by 2% (RRs = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97, 0.99) for each 20 nmol/L increment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration (Figure 5).
Figure 2. Forest plot to quantify the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and total cancer incidence. The summary relative risk was calculated using a random-effects model. The diamonds denote the summary risk estimate, and the horizontal lines represent 95% confidence interval (CI). Abbreviations: RR, summary relative risk.
Figure 3. Forest plot to quantify the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and total cancer mortality. The diamonds denote the summary risk estimate, and the horizontal lines represent 95% CI. Abbreviations: RR, relative risk.
Figure 4. Dose-response analysis for vitamin D concentration and cancer incidence. Adjusted RRs from each exposure quantile of 25(OH)D concentration in included individual studies were represented by the diamonds, and corresponding intervals (CIs) were represented by the blue trendline. Abbreviations: RR, relative risk. The green line indicated the dose-response linear trend between 25(OH)D concentration and risk of cancer incidence by use of variance-weighted least squares regression of fixed effect model.
Figure 5. Dose-response analysis for vitamin D concentration and cancer mortality. Adjusted RRs from each exposure quantile of 25(OH)D concentration in included individual studies were represented by the diamonds, and corresponding intervals (CIs) were represented by the blue trendline. Abbreviations: RR, relative risk. The green line indicated the dose-response linear trend between 25(OH)D concentration and risk of cancer mortality by use of variance-weighted least squares regression of fixed effect model.

3.2. Subgroup Analysis

In terms of total cancer incidence, subgroup analysis, stratified by region, indicated that the pooled effect of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was significantly associated with cancer incidence in Asia [30,31] (Pooled RR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.89; I2 = 76.0%; p = 0.341), but there was no significant correlation in Europe [13,32,41,42,43] (Pooled RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.71, 1.16; I2 =0.002; p = 0.002). Studies were divided according to gender, and the male group [13,31,42,43] showed a borderline association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and cancer risk (Pooled RR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.55, 1.01; I2 = 65.0%; p = 0.025), but there was no significant correlation in the female subgroup [31,42] (Pooled RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.35, 1.82; I2 = 75.8%; p = 0.042). The studies were stratified by the study quality, indicating that there was a borderline association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and cancer risk in the high-quality group [13,30,31,41] (Pooled RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.63, 1.01), but there was no significant correlation in the moderate-quality group (Table S3).
Similarly, the summary estimate of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was inversely associated with cancer mortality in the female group [31,47,50,52,56] (Pooled RR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.98; I2 = 56.6%; p = 0.075), but not in the male group [31,33,43,45,48,50] (Pooled RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.12; I2 = 78.7%; p < 0.001). When the articles were divided into subgroups by the study quality, 25-hydroxyvitamin D was negatively correlated with cancer mortality in the high-quality subgroup [33,46,47,49,50,51,53,54,55,56,57,58] (Pooled RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.95; I2 = 48.8%; p = 0.058), but there was no significant correlation in the moderate-quality subgroup [34,44,46,53] (Pooled RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.52, 1.18; I2 = 40.9%; p = 0.062). The studies stratified by region showed that there was a significantly association between vitamin D concentration and cancer mortality in Europe [33,43,45,49,51,53,54,56,57] (Pooled RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68,0.90; I2 = 38.1%; p = 0.104), and a marginal association in the US [48,49,51,53,56,58] (Pooled RR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.21; I2 = 48.8%; p = 0.012) (Supplementary Table S4).

3.3. Sensitivity Analysis and Publication Bias

In a sensitivity analysis, each study was sequentially deleted, and the remaining data were re-calculated. The results showed that the summary estimate was not substantially driven, to the exclusion of any one study. In publication bias analysis, non-significant publication bias was observed using Egger’s regression test (Supplementary Figures S1 and S2).

4. Discussion

Analyses of 8 studies on cancer incidence and 16 studies on cancer mortality, showing that 25-hydroxyvitamin D is marginally associated with cancer risk and inversely associated with mortality, were pooled. The dose-response analysis showed that cancer risk decreased by 7% (95% CI: 0.90, 0.95), with a 20 nmol/L increment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and cancer mortality decreased by 2% (95% CI: 0.97, 0.99), with a 20 nmol/L increment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. In fact, a meta-analysis of a prospective cohort study on the relationship between vitamin D concentration and cancer incidence and mortality was performed in 2013 [26]. Based on the summary estimates, the present study confirms the findings presented in the previous meta-analysis.
This study excluded the study of Giovannucci et al. [59] because it predicted, rather than measured, 25(OH)D concentrations. We also excluded the retrospective cohort study of Krause et al. [60]. Of course, we have supplemented and updated the previous meta-analysis and included more studies [30,31,33,41,45,47,56,57,58]. In addition, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was recently conducted. Goulao et al. [61] concluded that vitamin D supplementation alone reduces the incidence of cancer or cancer mortality, and Keum et al. [62] indicated that vitamin D supplementation significantly reduced total cancer mortality but did not reduce total cancer incidence. The development of cancer is a long-term and gradual process, while the intervention time of randomized controlled trials is limited.
As can be observed in our study, several studies have reported null associations between vitamin D concentration and cancer incidence or mortality [13,30,33,45,47,51,54]. However, other studies have reported modest statistically significant reductions in cancer risk or mortality, with increments of 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration [31,32,41,42,43,46,48,49,50,52,53,55,56,57,58]. At the same time, studies found that a higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration is marginally associated with the cancer incidence in males, but no correlation was found in females. In terms of cancer mortality, a higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D is inversely associated with the cancer incidence in females, but no correlation was found in males. The reason may be that few studies have focused on the gender segregation. While the inclusive prospective studies have shown controversial and inconsistent associations, the summary estimate provided substantial evidence that a higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D is associated with a lower incidence and mortality.
The inverse association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and cancer incidence and mortality is biologically plausible. Existing studies have shown that vitamin D regulates the entire process of tumorigenesis, from initiation to stabilization, and the interaction with the cellular microenvironment [20,23,62]. Vitamin D regulates multiple signaling pathways through its active form, 1,25(OH)2D, and shows a direct effect on cell proliferation, differentiation, and cell death. In addition, vitamin D has been shown to have anti-inflammatory, oxidative stress, and immune response, which may help to inhibit tumor cell initiation and progression [42,43]. These laboratory studies provide possible mechanisms through which vitamin D may be associated with reduced cancer incidence and mortality.
Our meta-analysis may have several limitations which must be taken into account. First, due to the observational nature of the data, it is possible that the observed significant inverse association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and cancer incidence and mortality could be due to unmeasured or residual confounding. Second, the reduced cancer incidence and mortality may be associated with other health behaviors (e.g., balanced nutrition, adequate sleep, exercise and so on). A further limitation was that the eligible studies varied in several respects, including differences in the study populations, baseline comorbidities, and measurement of the exposure, and it is possible that methodological differences might have confounded the differences recorded across subgroups of the study. Not all prospective studies are conducted in the general population (e.g., the study of Pilz et al. [50] was conducted in the Patients Referred to Coronary Angiography).
The merits of this research should be emphasized. First, we have included more research than the previous meta-analyses. The large sample size of the meta-analysis provided powerful statistical power for the quantitative evaluation of this association. Second, eligible studies are medium- and high-quality prospective cohort studies that reduce the likelihood of recall errors and selection biases. Third, the confounding factors of the individual studies have been greatly adjusted to minimize biases. Besides, the follow-up of the prospective cohort studies is sufficiently long. Furthermore, dose-response analysis was also conducted to provide substantial evidence that vitamin D concentration is associated with cancer incidence and mortality, with a dose-dependent trend.

5. Conclusions

The present study provides compelling evidence that a higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration is marginally associated with cancer incidence and inversely associated with cancer mortality. Since the majority of the prospective studies were performed in Western countries, further prospective studies should be conducted in other regions, with different ethnic origins, to confirm these associations.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/10/2295/s1, Figure S1: Sensitivity analysis with respect to vitamin D concentration and cancer incidence; Figure S2: Sensitivity analysis with respect to vitamin D concentration and cancer mortality; Table S1 Quality assessment of studies investigating 25(OH)D and cancer risk, according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; Table S2. Quality assessment of studies investigating 25(OH)D and cancer mortality, according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; Table S3: Subgroup and meta-regression analyses for cancer incidence; Table S4: Subgroup and meta-regression analyses for cancer mortality.

Author Contributions

J.H. and X.G. have screened the literature and selected papers for inclusion in the review. J.H. and X.G. have contributed to data extraction. All authors contributed to the development of this manuscript and read and approved the final version.

Funding

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81573137, 81872605); Key Research and Development Project of Shandong Province (2017GSF18167). The funders have no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: Globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Abubakar, I.I.; Tillmann, T.; Banerjee, A. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2013. Lancet 2015, 385, 117–171. [Google Scholar]
  3. Murray, C.J.; Lopez, A.D. Mortality by cause for eight regions of the world: Global burden of disease study. Lancet 1997, 349, 1269–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Allemani, C.; Weir, H.K.; Carreira, H.; Harewood, R.; Spika, D.; Wang, X.S.; Bannon, F.; Ahn, J.V.; Johnson, C.J.; Bonaventure, A. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: Analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (concord-2). Lancet 2015, 385, 977–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Coleman, M.P.; Gatta, G.; Verdecchia, A.; Estève, J.; Berrino, F. Eurocare-3 summary: Cancer survival in europe at the end of the 20th century. Ann. Oncol. 2003, 14 (Suppl. 5) (Suppl. 5), v128–v149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Edwards, B.K.; Anne-Michelle, N.; Mariotto, A.B.; Simard, E.P.; Boscoe, F.P.; Jane, H.S.; Ahmedin, J.; Hyunsoon, C.; Anderson, R.N.; Kohler, B.A. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer 2014, 120, 1290–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kitson, M.T.; Roberts, S.K. D-livering the message: The importance of vitamin d status in chronic liver disease. J. Hepatol. 2012, 57, 897–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wang, Y.; Zhu, J.; Deluca, H.F. Where is the vitamin d receptor? Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2012, 523, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pandolfi, F.; Franza, L.; Mandolini, C.; Conti, P. Immune modulation by vitamin d: Special emphasis on its role in prevention and treatment of cancer. Clin. Ther. 2017, 39, 884–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Garland, C.F.; Garland, F.C. Do sunlight and vitamin d reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int. J. Epidemiol. 1980, 9, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fedirko, V.; Duarte-Salles, T.; Bamia, C.; Trichopoulou, A.; Aleksandrova, K.; Trichopoulos, D.; Trepo, E.; Tjonneland, A.; Olsen, A.; Overvad, K.; et al. Prediagnostic circulating vitamin d levels and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in european populations: A nested case-control study. Hepatology 2014, 60, 1222–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. O’Brien, K.M.; Sandler, D.P.; Taylor, J.A.; Weinberg, C.R. Serum vitamin D and risk of breast cancer within five years. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 077004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Afzal, S.; Bojesen, S.E.; Nordestgaard, B.G. Low plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin d and risk of tobacco-related cancer. Clin. Chem. 2013, 59, 771–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Marco, G.; Danila, D.M.; Maurizio, L.G.; Stefania, A.; Marilena, C.; Carla, F.; Tumminello, F.M.; Gaetano, L. Vitamin d in cancer chemoprevention. Pharm. Biol. 2015, 53, 1399–1434. [Google Scholar]
  15. Elzbieta, G.; Studzinski, G.P. Vitamin D and differentiation in cancer. Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2009, 46, 190. [Google Scholar]
  16. Haussler, M.R.; Whitfield, G.K.; Kaneko, I.; Haussler, C.A.; Hsieh, D.; Hsieh, J.C.; Jurutka, P.W. Molecular mechanisms of vitamin d action. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2013, 92, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sam, S.; Sitrin, M.D. Vitamin D’s role in cell proliferation and differentiation. Nutr. Rev. 2010, 66, S116–S124. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jeon, S.M.; Shin, E.A. Exploring vitamin D metabolism and function in cancer. Exp. Mol. Med. 2018, 50, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Slominski, A.T.; Brozyna, A.A.; Zmijewski, M.A.; Jozwicki, W.; Jetten, A.M.; Mason, R.S.; Tuckey, R.C.; Elmets, C.A. Vitamin D signaling and melanoma: Role of vitamin D and its receptors in melanoma progression and management. Lab. Investig. 2017, 97, 706–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. David, F.; Krishnan, A.V.; Srilatha, S.; Edward, G.; Feldman, B.J. The role of vitamin d in reducing cancer risk and progression. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2014, 14, 342–357. [Google Scholar]
  21. Krishnan, A.V.; David, F. Molecular pathways mediating the anti-inflammatory effects of calcitriol: Implications for prostate cancer chemoprevention and treatment. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2010, 17, R19–R38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Carlien, L.; Lieve, V.; Annemieke, V. Antineoplastic effects of 1,25(oh)2d3 and its analogs in breast, prostate and colorectal cancer. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2013, 20, R31–R47. [Google Scholar]
  23. Swami, S.; Krishnan, A.V.; Feldman, D. Vitamin D metabolism and action in the prostate: Implications for health and disease. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 2011, 347, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Fleet, J.C.; DeSmet, M.; Johnson, R.; Li, Y. Vitamin D and cancer: A review of molecular mechanisms. Biochem. J. 2012, 441, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zinser, G.M.; Sundberg, J.P.; Welsh, J.E. Vitamin d3 receptor ablation sensitizes skin to chemically induced tumorigenesis. Carcinogenesis 2002, 23, 2103–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ordonez-Mena, J.M.; Chen, T.; Schottker, B.; Arndt, V.; Brenner, H. Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin d serum concentration and total cancer incidence and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 2013, 57, 753–764. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gaksch, M.; Jorde, R.; Grimnes, G.; Joakimsen, R.; Schirmer, H.; Wilsgaard, T.; Mathiesen, E.B.; Njølstad, I.; Løchen, M.L.; März, W. Vitamin d and mortality: Individual participant data meta-analysis of standardized 25-hydroxyvitamin d in 26916 individuals from a european consortium. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schöttker, B.; Jorde, R.; Peasey, A.; Thorand, B.; Jansen, E.H.; Ld, G.; Streppel, M.; Gardiner, J.; Ordóñez-Mena, J.M.; Perna, L. Vitamin d and mortality: Meta-analysis of individual participant data from a large consortium of cohort studies from europe and the united states. BMJ 2014, 348, g3656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Chowdhury, R.; Kunutsor, S.; Vitezova, A.; Oliver-Williams, C.; Chowdhury, S.; Kiefte-de-Jong, J.C.; Khan, H.; Baena, C.P.; Prabhakaran, D.; Hoshen, M.B.; et al. Vitamin d and risk of cause specific death: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort and randomised intervention studies. BMJ 2014, 348, g1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Budhathoki, S.; Hidaka, A.; Yamaji, T.; Sawada, N.; Tanaka-Mizuno, S.; Kuchiba, A.; Charvat, H.; Goto, A.; Kojima, S.; Sudo, N.; et al. Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin d concentration and subsequent risk of total and site specific cancers in japanese population: Large case-cohort study within japan public health center-based prospective study cohort. BMJ 2018, 360, k671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lin, T.; Song, Y.; Zhang, X.; Guo, H.; Liu, L.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, B.; Tang, G.; Liu, C.; Yang, Y.; et al. Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and risk of incident cancer in adults with hypertension: A nested case-control study. Clin. Nutr. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Cheney, C.P.; Thorand, B.; Huth, C.; Berger, K.; Peters, A.; Seifert-Klauss, V.; Kiechle, M.; Strauch, K.; Quante, A.S. The association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d and cancer risk: Results from the prospective kora f4 study. Oncol. Res. Treat. 2018, 41, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Weinstein, S.J.; Mondul, A.M.; Yu, K.; Layne, T.M.; Abnet, C.C.; Freedman, N.D.; Stolzenberg-Solomon, R.Z.; Lim, U.; Gail, M.H.; Albanes, D. Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin d up to 3 decades prior to diagnosis in relation to overall and organ-specific cancer survival. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2018, 33, 1087–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zhong, Q.; Guo, P.; Zhong, G.C.; Zhong, S.L. Transforming the reference group of discrete correlated datain original study of dose response meta analysis. Evid. Basedmed. 2016, 16, 60–64. [Google Scholar]
  35. Stang, A. Critical evaluation of the newcastle-ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 25, 603–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Liu, Q.; Cook, N.R.; Bergström, A.; Hsieh, C.C. A two-stage hierarchical regression model for meta-analysis of epidemiologic nonlinear dose–response data. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2009, 53, 4157–4167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Orsini, N.; Greenland, S. A procedure to tabulate and plot results after flexible modeling of a quantitative covariate. Stata J. 2011, 11, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Harrell, F.E.; Lee, K.L.; Pollock, B.G. Regression models in clinical studies: Determining relationships between predictors and response. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1988, 80, 1198–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Orsini, N.; Li, R.; Wolk, A.; Khudyakov, P.; Spiegelman, D. Meta-analysis for linear and nonlinear dose-response relations: Examples, an evaluation of approximations, and software. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2012, 175, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Seagroatt, V.; Stratton, I. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Test had 10% false positive rate. BMJ Br. Med. J. 1997, 316, 469–471. [Google Scholar]
  41. Skaaby, T.; Husemoen, L.L.; Thuesen, B.H.; Pisinger, C.; Jorgensen, T.; Roswall, N.; Larsen, S.C.; Linneberg, A. Prospective population-based study of the association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin-d levels and the incidence of specific types of cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2014, 23, 1220–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ordonez-Mena, J.M.; Schottker, B.; Haug, U.; Muller, H.; Kohrle, J.; Schomburg, L.; Holleczek, B.; Brenner, H. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d and cancer risk in older adults: Results from a large german prospective cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2013, 22, 905–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Michaelsson, K.; Baron, J.A.; Snellman, G.; Gedeborg, R.; Byberg, L.; Sundstrom, J.; Berglund, L.; Arnlov, J.; Hellman, P.; Blomhoff, R.; et al. Plasma vitamin d and mortality in older men: A community-based prospective cohort study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 92, 841–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. De Bore, L.H.; Levin, G.; Roblnson-Cohen, C.; Biggs, M.L.; Hoofnagle, A.; Siscovick, D.S.; Kestenbaum, B. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d concentration and risk for major clinical disease events in a community-based population of older adults a cohort study. Ann. Intern. Med. 2012, 156, 627–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lee, D.M.; Vanderschueren, D.; Boonen, S.; O’Neill, T.W.; Pendleton, N.; Pye, S.R.; Ravindrarajah, R.; Gielen, E.; Claessens, F.; Bartfai, G.; et al. Association of 25-hydroxyvitamin d, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin d and parathyroid hormone with mortality among middle-aged and older european men. Age Ageing 2014, 43, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lin, S.W.; Chen, W.; Fan, J.H.; Dawsey, S.M.; Taylor, P.R.; Qiao, Y.L.; Abnet, C.C. Prospective study of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d concentration and mortality in a chinese population. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2012, 176, 1043–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wong, G.; Lim, W.H.; Lewis, J.; Craig, J.C.; Turner, R.; Zhu, K.; Lim, E.M.; Prince, R. Vitamin d and cancer mortality in elderly women. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cawthon, P.M.; Parimi, N.; Barrett-Connor, E.; Laughlin, G.A.; Ensrud, K.E.; Hoffman, A.R.; Shikany, J.M.; Cauley, J.A.; Lane, N.E.; Bauer, D.C.; et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d, parathyroid hormone, and mortality in older men. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2010, 95, 4625–4634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hutchinson, M.S.; Grimnes, G.; Joakimsen, R.M.; Figenschau, Y.; Jorde, R. Low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d levels are associated with increased all-cause mortality risk in a general population: The tromso study. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 2010, 162, 935–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Freedman, D.M.; Looker, A.C.; Abnet, C.C.; Linet, M.S.; Graubard, B.I. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d and cancer mortality in the nhanes iii study (1988–2006). Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 8587–8597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pilz, S.; Dobnig, H.; Winklhofer-Roob, B.; Riedmuller, G.; Fischer, J.E.; Seelhorst, U.; Wellnitz, B.; Boehm, B.O.; Marz, W. Low serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin d predict fatal cancer in patients referred to coronary angiography. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2008, 17, 1228–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  52. Eaton, C.B.; Young, A.; Allison, M.A.; Robinson, J.; Martin, L.W.; Kuller, L.H.; Johnson, K.C.; Curb, J.D.; Van Horn, L.; McTiernan, A.; et al. Prospective association of vitamin d concentrations with mortality in postmenopausal women: Results from the women’s health initiative (whi). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011, 94, 1471–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Skaaby, T.; Husemoen, L.L.; Pisinger, C.; Jorgensen, T.; Thuesen, B.H.; Fenger, M.; Linneberg, A. Vitamin d status and cause-specific mortality: A general population study. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Schottker, B.; Haug, U.; Schomburg, L.; Kohrle, J.; Perna, L.; Muller, H.; Holleczek, B.; Brenner, H. Strong associations of 25-hydroxyvitamin d concentrations with all-cause, cardiovascular, cancer, and respiratory disease mortality in a large cohort study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 97, 782–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Signorello, L.B.; Han, X.; Cai, Q.; Cohen, S.S.; Cope, E.L.; Zheng, W.; Blot, W.J. A prospective study of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d levels and mortality among african americans and non-african americans. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2013, 177, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Khaw, K.T.; Luben, R.; Wareham, N. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d, mortality, and incident cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, cancers, and fractures: A 13-y prospective population study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 100, 1361–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kritchevsky, S.B.; Tooze, J.A.; Neiberg, R.H.; Schwartz, G.G.; Hausman, D.B.; Johnson, M.A.; Bauer, D.C.; Cauley, J.A.; Shea, M.K.; Cawthon, P.M.; et al. 25-hydroxyvitamin d, parathyroid hormone, and mortality in black and white older adults: The health abc study. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012, 97, 4156–4165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rohrmann, S.; Braun, J.; Bopp, M.; Faeh, D.; Swiss National, C. Inverse association between circulating vitamin d and mortality—Dependent on sex and cause of death? Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2013, 23, 960–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Giovannucci, E.; Liu, Y.; Rimm, E.B.; Hollis, B.W.; Fuchs, C.S.; Stampfer, M.J.; Willett, W.C. Prospective study of predictors of vitamin d status and cancer incidence and mortality in men. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006, 98, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Krause, R.; Schober-Halstenberg, H.J.; Edenharter, G.; Haas, K.; Roth, H.J.; Frei, U. Vitamin D status and mortality of german hemodialysis patients. Anticancer Res. 2012, 32, 391–396. [Google Scholar]
  61. Goulao, B.; Stewart, F.; Ford, J.A.; MacLennan, G.; Avenell, A. Cancer and vitamin d supplementation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 107, 652–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Keum, N.; Giovannucci, E. Vitamin D supplements and total cancer incidence and mortality a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, 733–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Acute Impact of Dietary Pattern and Walking on Postprandial Attention, Mood, and Satiety in Older Adults: A Randomized Crossover Trial
Previous
Ketogenic Diets and Exercise Performance
Next