Vitamin D Status in the ATBC study & Cancer Mortality.

[pjoshea13]

New study below [1].

"The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene (ATBC) Lung Cancer Prevention Study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 x 2 factorial design, primary prevention trial testing the hypothesis that alpha-tocopherol (50 mg/day) and beta-carotene (20 mg/day) supplements reduce the incidence of lung cancer and possibly other cancers. Total and disease-specific mortality and incidence of various diseases and symptoms were monitored for safety. Between 1985 and 1993, 29,133 eligible male smokers aged 50 to 69 years at entry were randomized to receive daily active supplements or placebo capsules for 5 to 8 years" [2]

The study was jointly sponsored by the U.S. National Cancer Institute and the Finnish National Public Institute. The NCI continues to mine the data.

The smokers were from Finland, where vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency would be common for many months of the year. & ~thirty years ago, when blood was drawn, there would not have been access to the megadose supplements that are now common.

"While vitamin D has been associated with improved overall cancer survival in some investigations, few have prospectively evaluated organ-specific survival. ... Of 4616 cancer cases with measured serum 25(OH)D, 2884 died of their cancer during 28 years of follow-up"

"Higher 25(OH)D was associated with lower overall cancer mortality (HR = 0.76 ... for highest vs. lowest quintile ...)"

"Higher 25(OH)D was related to lower mortality from the following site-specific malignancies: prostate (HR = 0.74 ...), kidney (HR = 0.59 ...), and melanoma (HR = 0.39 ...), but increased mortality from lung cancer (HR = 1.28 ...)".

My guess is that the men with better 25-D status included those with outside jobs. All of the men were smokers, but perhaps there was some occupational risk that explains increased lung cancer mortality. After all, the lowest quintile (the reference point) would have been 25-D deficient, IMO, & the highest quintile not high at all.

-Patrick

[1] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/300...

Eur J Epidemiol. 2018 Aug 2. doi: 10.1007/s10654-018-0428-2. [Epub ahead of print]

Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D up to 3 decades prior to diagnosis in relation to overall and organ-specific cancer survival.

Weinstein SJ1, Mondul AM2, Yu K3, Layne TM3, Abnet CC3, Freedman ND3, Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ3, Lim U4, Gail MH3, Albanes D3.

Author information

1

Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Department of Health and Human Services, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. [e-mail].

2

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

3

Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Department of Health and Human Services, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.

4

Cancer Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, USA.

Abstract

While vitamin D has been associated with improved overall cancer survival in some investigations, few have prospectively evaluated organ-specific survival. We examined the accepted biomarker of vitamin D status, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], and cancer survival in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study. Of 4616 cancer cases with measured serum 25(OH)D, 2884 died of their cancer during 28 years of follow-up and 1732 survived or died of other causes. Proportional hazards regression estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between pre-diagnostic 25(OH)D and overall and site-specific survival. Serum 25(OH)D was significantly lower among cases who subsequently died from their malignancy compared with those who did not (medians 34.7 vs. 36.5 nmol/L, respectively; p = 0.01). Higher 25(OH)D was associated with lower overall cancer mortality (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.85 for highest vs. lowest quintile, p-trend < 0.0001). Higher 25(OH)D was related to lower mortality from the following site-specific malignancies: prostate (HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-1.01, p-trend = 0.005), kidney (HR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-0.98, p-trend = 0.28), and melanoma (HR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.20-0.78, p-trend = 0.01), but increased mortality from lung cancer (HR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.02-1.61, p-trend = 0.19). Improved survival was also suggested for head and neck, gastric, pancreatic, and liver cancers, though not statistically significantly, and case numbers for the latter two organ sites were small. Higher 25(OH)D status years prior to diagnosis was related to improved survival for overall and some site-specific cancers, associations that should be examined in other prospective populations that include women and other racial-ethnic groups.

KEYWORDS:

Cancer; Mortality; Prospective cohort; Survival analysis; Vitamin D

PMID: 30073448 DOI: 10.1007/s10654-018-0428-2

[2] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/820...

[teamkv]

So Vitamin D supplements and fresh carrot juice everyday? Check vitamin D status on blood tests? How much vitamin D. And hang out in the sun with no sunscreen...

[FCoffey in reply to teamkv]

Yes, check vitamin D status with a blood test.

When actual humans are tested, the men who have higher D levels are least likely to die of prostate cancer.

Mercola recommends 70-100 ng/ml for cancer patients. He recommends 50-70 for cancer prevention, but those of us in this group are rather beyond that point.

articles.mercola.com/sites/...

This article points out that "if you were in the sun nearly every day with large amounts of your skin exposed and not taking any oral vitamin D, your level would be around 100 ng/ml. " Prostate cancer is more common on northern latitudes, where sun exposure is low and seasonal, and vitamin D levels low.

articles.mercola.com/sites/...

Most people will require more than 5,000 IU per day to get to those levels. I need 10,000; I know men who needed 15,000 or a bit more.

[SsgCulldelight]

I like that research is being done, what I don't like is that the cures for cancer have been discovered years ago, the men and women whom discovered all died mysterious of not outright murderous deaths. As you know big pharma makes 0 dollars if you ain't chronically or seriously ill. Research Google it whatever you need to know.

[SsgCulldelight in reply to SsgCulldelight]

africanevents.com/dr-sebi-b...

[TommyTV in reply to SsgCulldelight]

Why are you on this site? Do you actually believe what you’re posting, and that we may believe you? If I were you, I’d stick with Facebook.

[SsgCulldelight in reply to TommyTV]

And why are You Questioning me about why I'm here? If you don't agree with what I posted then say so, you don't have to be afraid, I'm not, it's just an opinion, besides everything I post can be source checked and researched, thank you. Oh no disrespect just thought I'd remind you that none of us Run this.

[TommyTV in reply to SsgCulldelight]

Post what you like..

My concern is that newly diagnosed men may read your comments and actually think they have merit, which they don’t.

That’s just my opinion, I have no wish to be disrespectful to you, you are just as entitled to post voodoo medicine as much as the next man, and I have every right to refute it.

Have a nice day.

[SsgCulldelight in reply to TommyTV]

Kool, and your right, I'll add that before reacting and responding that you to research the word s you may use to define or describe what I post that you also research specific words or claims, ie. VOODOO, this particular word means Spirit Atom, which cannot be seen (spirit) nor touched (atom) and are both very real and powerful Energies that allow all life to exist and evolve my friend. So again my apologies I did Not Mean to offend nor misdirect, I will be more mindful of what I post

[SsgCulldelight]

Not enemies Energies lol