Women with ovarian cancer and control subjects were analyzed for their vitamin D status as measured by serum 25(OH)D3 level in 7,243 women from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES).
A high and low status of levels of serum vitamin D was defined as above or below 23 ng/mL (57.5 nmol/L). After adjusting for age, diet and body mass index, ovarian cancer cases were over three times as likely to have inadequate 25(OH)D3 levels compared with the controls.
Previous research has shown that vitamin D induces apoptosis in ovarian CA cell lines, ovarian cancer has been inhibited by vitamin D in animal studies and although studies are mixed–ovarian cancer rates appear to be higher in areas with less sun exposure.
Other research on vitamin D consistently observes that a long list of chronic diseases and cancers are associated with lower vitamin D status, with some showing risk reduction when levels are above 30 ng/mL, 40 ng/mL and even 50 ng/mL. Despite this large and growing body of evidence, the Institute of Medicine recently released its Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D based on a target level of 20 ng/mL and randomized controlled trials, rather than the cornucopia of observational studies. This resulted in recommended doses of 600-800 I.U. per day depending on age. As I stated in a January blog, it is too bad… that these observational studies were not considered, and once again, we may not have optimal prevention and risk reduction guidelines from our government agencies. Many if not most alternative minded practitioners are recommending a routine dosing of 2,000 I.U. of vitamin D per day, in individuals who do not have a history of kidney stones nor elevated serum calcium levels. However, most women will achieve a minimum serum level of 23 ng/mL (as stated in this current ovarian cancer prevention study) at doses of 600 I.U.-1,000 I.U. per day. A simple blood test will confirm. This would be a logical step in women with risk factors for ovarian cancer or a personal history of ovarian cancer.
For more posts by Dr Hudson go to https://www.drtorihudson.com
Reference: Bakhru A, Mallinger JB, Buckanovich RJ, Griggs JJ. Casting light on 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency in ovarian cancer: a study from the NHANES. Gynecol Oncol 2010;119:314-8.
Showing posts with label Vitamin D. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vitamin D. Show all posts
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Calcium/Vitamin D, IOM guidelines by Dr Tori Hudson ND
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently released their assessment of current data on health outcomes as they related to calcium and vitamin D after being commissioned by the U.S. and Canadian governments. The new reference values, expressed Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), are based on an abundance of information and higher quality published studies than were available for the 1997 government values.
A committee of experts evaluated more than one thousand studies and reports as well as listening to testimony from scientists and others. This committee considered that studies about the health benefits beyond bone health were most often from studies that provided mixed results, inconclusive results, or were not from randomized controlled trials. Thus, these were not considered reliable. Their focus then was on the bone growth and bone maintenance data.
Their new Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) is now 600 IU per day for people ages 1 to 70 and 800 IU per day for those 71 and older. The old guidelines from 1997 were 200 IU per day through age 50, 400 IU per day for ages 51 to 70 and 600 IU per day for 71 and older. While I would consider these guidelines conservative to the extreme, (really a one year old and a 70 y.o. need the same amount????) they at least increased a new safe upper limit of 4,000 IU a day for those 9 years old and above, pregnant or not. The greatest concern I have with these guidelines is that they based their bone dosing guidelines on a target blood level of 20 ng/ml per day, rather than 30 ng/ml per day minimum published in most research about levels needed to suppress the parathyroid gland and avoid unnecessary bone loss.
Most practitioners and a studious group of consumers realize that there are scores of studies on other potential health benefits found in observational/epidemiological studies including colorectal cancer, breast cancer, select autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease and much more. It is too bad… that these were not considered, and once again, we may not have optimal prevention, risk reduction guidelines from our government agencies.
For a full list of the dosing guidelines by age group, gender, and pregnancy status, you can find these at www.iom.edu/vitamind
For more information on Dr Hudson go to www.torihudson.com
A committee of experts evaluated more than one thousand studies and reports as well as listening to testimony from scientists and others. This committee considered that studies about the health benefits beyond bone health were most often from studies that provided mixed results, inconclusive results, or were not from randomized controlled trials. Thus, these were not considered reliable. Their focus then was on the bone growth and bone maintenance data.
Their new Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) is now 600 IU per day for people ages 1 to 70 and 800 IU per day for those 71 and older. The old guidelines from 1997 were 200 IU per day through age 50, 400 IU per day for ages 51 to 70 and 600 IU per day for 71 and older. While I would consider these guidelines conservative to the extreme, (really a one year old and a 70 y.o. need the same amount????) they at least increased a new safe upper limit of 4,000 IU a day for those 9 years old and above, pregnant or not. The greatest concern I have with these guidelines is that they based their bone dosing guidelines on a target blood level of 20 ng/ml per day, rather than 30 ng/ml per day minimum published in most research about levels needed to suppress the parathyroid gland and avoid unnecessary bone loss.
Most practitioners and a studious group of consumers realize that there are scores of studies on other potential health benefits found in observational/epidemiological studies including colorectal cancer, breast cancer, select autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease and much more. It is too bad… that these were not considered, and once again, we may not have optimal prevention, risk reduction guidelines from our government agencies.
For a full list of the dosing guidelines by age group, gender, and pregnancy status, you can find these at www.iom.edu/vitamind
For more information on Dr Hudson go to www.torihudson.com
Friday, October 30, 2009
Vitamin D deficiency may be associated with poor outcomes in breast cancer patients by Dr Tori Hudson
This prospective study of 512 women with early breast cancer evaluated the role of serum vitamin D levels as a potential factor influencing breast cancer prognosis.
The average age was 50 and the average vitamin D levels was 58.1 nmol/L. Vitamin D levels were deficient (<50> 72 nmol/L in 123 women. The average follow-up was 11.6 years with 116 women having distant recurrences and 106 women who died. Vitamin D levels were significantly lower in women with high grade tumors. Those women with vitamin D deficiency had an increased risk of distant recurrence and of dying, compared with those women who had sufficient serum vitamin D levels.
Commentary: This study is one more reason to test vitamin D levels- I would recommend it for all current or past breast cancer patients. In terms of using vitamin D levels to determine the initial risk for breast cancer, the evidence has been mixed, with some showing an association between latitude and risk of breast cancer, some showing an inverse relationship between vitamin D intake and breast density (a strong risk factor for breast cancer), but other studies showing vitamin D intake or blood levels of vitamin D inconsistently related to risk/incidence.
There have been some other attempts to use vitamin D levels as a prognostic indicator for breast cancer and mortality. Low vitamin D levels have been associated with increased breast cancer mortality and have also been shown to be significantly lower in women with locally advanced or metastatic disease compared with those women who have early breast cancers. Taking a vitamin D supplement to increase blood levels of vitamin D is one of the least expensive, safe strategies to reduce the risk of recurrence of breast cancer, as stated in this current study. For the rest of us… the research is full of good news about vitamin D and our health with studies demonstrating that higher blood levels of vitamin D is associated with lower rates of heart disease, ovarian cancer, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, bacterial vaginosis, and as mentioned, breast cancer.
It should be noted that the current studies, and in fact many studies, report vitamin D levels in the units of nmol/L. Other studies report ng/ml. This is a very important difference. It is important to compare one’s lab unit results for vitamin D levels with the proper target number and unit used. For reference, 75 nmol/L is equal to 30 ng/mL. In the current study, those women who had a vitamin D deficiency and reported as < 50 nmol/L would be equivalent to
< 20 ng/ml.
References
Goodwin P, Ennis M, Pritchard K, et al. Prognostic effects of 25hydroxyvitamin D levels in early breast cancer. J Clinical Oncology 2009;27(23): 3757-3763
For more of Dr Hudson's posts go to http://drtorihudson.com/
The average age was 50 and the average vitamin D levels was 58.1 nmol/L. Vitamin D levels were deficient (<50> 72 nmol/L in 123 women. The average follow-up was 11.6 years with 116 women having distant recurrences and 106 women who died. Vitamin D levels were significantly lower in women with high grade tumors. Those women with vitamin D deficiency had an increased risk of distant recurrence and of dying, compared with those women who had sufficient serum vitamin D levels.
Commentary: This study is one more reason to test vitamin D levels- I would recommend it for all current or past breast cancer patients. In terms of using vitamin D levels to determine the initial risk for breast cancer, the evidence has been mixed, with some showing an association between latitude and risk of breast cancer, some showing an inverse relationship between vitamin D intake and breast density (a strong risk factor for breast cancer), but other studies showing vitamin D intake or blood levels of vitamin D inconsistently related to risk/incidence.
There have been some other attempts to use vitamin D levels as a prognostic indicator for breast cancer and mortality. Low vitamin D levels have been associated with increased breast cancer mortality and have also been shown to be significantly lower in women with locally advanced or metastatic disease compared with those women who have early breast cancers. Taking a vitamin D supplement to increase blood levels of vitamin D is one of the least expensive, safe strategies to reduce the risk of recurrence of breast cancer, as stated in this current study. For the rest of us… the research is full of good news about vitamin D and our health with studies demonstrating that higher blood levels of vitamin D is associated with lower rates of heart disease, ovarian cancer, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, bacterial vaginosis, and as mentioned, breast cancer.
It should be noted that the current studies, and in fact many studies, report vitamin D levels in the units of nmol/L. Other studies report ng/ml. This is a very important difference. It is important to compare one’s lab unit results for vitamin D levels with the proper target number and unit used. For reference, 75 nmol/L is equal to 30 ng/mL. In the current study, those women who had a vitamin D deficiency and reported as < 50 nmol/L would be equivalent to
< 20 ng/ml.
References
Goodwin P, Ennis M, Pritchard K, et al. Prognostic effects of 25hydroxyvitamin D levels in early breast cancer. J Clinical Oncology 2009;27(23): 3757-3763
For more of Dr Hudson's posts go to http://drtorihudson.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
