Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Dermato-endocrinology logoLink to Dermato-endocrinology
. 2010 Apr-Dec;2(2):62–67. doi: 10.4161/derm.2.2.13624

An ecological study of cancer incidence and mortality rates in France with respect to latitude, an index for vitamin D production

William B Grant 1,✉
PMCID: PMC3081677  PMID: 21547101

Abstract

France has unexplained large latitudinal variations in cancer incidence and mortality rates. Studies of cancer rate variations in several other countries, as well as in multicountry studies, have explained such variations primarily in terms of gradients in solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) doses and vitamin D production. To investigate this possibility in France, I obtained data on cancer incidence and mortality rates for 21 continental regions and used this information in regression analyses with respect to latitude. This study also used dietary data. Significant positive correlations with latitude emerged for breast, colorectal, esophageal (males), lung (males), prostate, both uterine cervix and uterine corpus, all and all less lung cancer. Although correlations with latitude were similar for males and females, the regression variance for all and all less lung cancer was about twice as high for males than for females. Lung cancer incidence and mortality rates for females had little latitudinal gradient, indicating that smoking may have also contributed to the latitudinal gradients for males. On the basis of the available dietary factor, micro- and macronutrient data, dietary differences do not significantly affect geographical variation in cancer rates. These results are consistent with solar UVB's reducing the risk of cancer through production of vitamin D. In the context of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level-cancer incidence relations, cancer rates could be reduced significantly in France if everyone obtained an additional 1,000 IU/day of vitamin D. Many other benefits of vitamin D exist as well.

Key words: breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, diet, esophageal cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, prostate cancer, ultraviolet-B, uterine corpus cancer, vitamin D

Introduction

France has large geographical variations in cancer incidence and mortality rates, with rates generally increasing with increasing latitude.1–11 Incidence rates for all cancers are 40% higher for males in the north than in the south and are 25% higher for females, whereas mortality rates are 30% and 15% higher, respectively, on the basis of quadric regression fits with respect to latitude.11 However, despite more than 25 years of study of geographic variations in cancer rates in France, no comprehensive explanations for these variations appear to exist.

However, studies have linked such geographic variations to variations in solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) doses and irradiances in several countries, including the United States,12–16 Japan,17,18 Australia,19–21 Spain22 and China.23 The literature includes one randomized, controlled trial of vitamin D supplementation with sufficient amount to have a significant effect, finding a 35% reduction in all-cancer incidence for 1,100 IU/day of vitamin D.24 Recent publications have reviewed the ecological and observational evidence for a beneficial role of UVB and vitamin D in reducing the risk of cancer.25–29

Although many of these studies investigated only the effects of solar UVB in producing vitamin D, recent studies included several other factors—including smoking, alcohol consumption, ethnic background, urban/rural residence and poverty—finding that UVB and smoking were the two most important factors in explaining the variance.15,22 Although dietary factors are not thought to generate important variances in single-country studies, they do so in multicountry studies.30–35 Some regional differences are apparent in dietary factors important in cancer risk in France,36,37 and such data may also relate to regional differences in cancer rates.

The evidence in general that UVB irradiance and vitamin D reduce the risk of cancer continues to strengthen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer found the evidence convincing only for colorectal cancer.38 However, their Working Group report committed several serious errors and omissions, including dismissing the only randomized, controlled trial of sufficient vitamin D to significantly reduce the risk of cancer;24 evidence is reasonably strong for breast and several other cancers.39 Also, UVB and vitamin D, as agents to reduce the risk of cancer, generally satisfy the criteria for causality in a biological system that A. Bradford Hill established in reducing the risk of cancer very well for breast and colorectal cancer and well for several other types of cancer including bladder, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, ovarian, rectal, renal and uterine corpus cancer, plus Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.40 Other recent reviews also discuss the evidence.41–43 In addition, meta-analyses have found reasonable serum 5-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level-cancer incidence relations for breast and colorectal cancer.44–47 and a recent observational study in Finland found a nearly statistically significant reduced risk of ovarian cancer for those with serum 25(OH)D levels >57.8 nmol/L (23.1 ng/mL) compared to <31.5 nmol/L (12.6 ng/mL): the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for those followed between 3 and 13 years after serum draw was 0.43 (95% confidence interval, 0.18–1.05).48

However, a recent pooled analysis from ten studies on three continents of incidence of seven rarer types of cancer, endometrial, esophageal, gastric, kidney, ovarian and pancreatic cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) with respect to prediagnostic serum 25(OH)D with cases followed for a mean observation time of about 10 years, failed to find any beneficial effect of higher serum 25(OH)D levels.49 The number of cancer cases varied from 516 for ovarian cancer to 1,353 for lymphoma. Many of the smaller studies on breast and colorectal cancer had fewer than 500 cases, so case number does not seem to be the problem. It has been suggested that the single serum 25(OH)D level measurement is not a good representation of the value of serum 25(OH)D level at the time when it had the greatest impact on cancer incidence.50 Serum 25(OH)D levels are likely to be significantly different than at time of serum draw due to competing trends: reduced solar UVB irradiance due to concerns about skin cancer51 and increased oral intake of vitamin D due to rising public awareness of the health benefits of vitamin D. Two recent papers suggest that a single draw can not be relied upon as an indication of serum 25(OH)D level 7–14 years later.52,53

This report investigates the possible role of solar UVB through production of vitamin D in affecting the geographic variation of cancer incidence and mortality rates in France.

Results

Table 1 shows regression results for breast and colorectal6 cancer incidence and mortality rates. Both cancers had significant correlations with increasing latitude for at least one period. The correlation decreased with time for colorectal cancer for females.

Table 1.

Regression results for breast and colorectal cancer6 with respect to latitude

Cancer Sex Year Incidence (r, p) Mortality (r, p)
Breast F 1985 0.53, 0.01
1990 0.62, 0.002
1992 0.65, 0.002 0.69, 0.001
1995 0.62, 0.003
Colorectal M 1985 0.54, 0.01
1990 0.56, 0.008
1992 0.56, 0.008 0.53, 0.01
1995 0.56, 0.008
F 1985 0.74, 0.000
1990 0.72, 0.000
1992 0.65, 0.001 0.46, 0.04
1995 0.49, 0.02
Open in a new tab

F, female; M, male.

Table 2 presents the regression results for incidence and mortality rates for FNORS11 data. Latitude strongly correlated with incidence and mortality rates for all, all less lung cancer, breast, colorectal, esophageal (males), lung (males), prostate and both uterine cervix and uterine corpus cancers. Neither lung cancer nor dietary factors36,37 significantly correlated with cancer incidence or mortality rates when included with latitude.

Table 2.

Regression results for cancer mortality rates for 1998–200011 vs. latitude x latitude

Cancer Sex Incidence rate (r, adjusted R2, p) Mortality rate (r, adjusted R2, p)
All M 0.86, 0.73* 0.80, 0.65*
F 0.79, 0.60* 0.78, 0.59*
All less lung M 0.83, 0.67* 0.78, 0.30*
F 0.79, 0.60* 0.76, 0.55*
Breast F 0.60, 0.33, 0.004 0.66, 0.40, 0.001
Colorectal M 0.50, 0.21, 0.02 0.49, 0.20, 0.02
F 0.66, 0.40, 0.001 0.65, 0.39, 0.001
Esophageal M 0.86, 0.72* 0.81, 0.64*
F - 0.64, 0.38, 0.002
Lung M 0.71, 0.48* 0.54, 0.25, 0.01
F NS NS
Prostate M 0.64, 0.37, 0.002 0.68, 0.44, 0.001
Uterine, cervix F 0.60, 0.32, 0.004
Uterine, corpus F 0.71, 0.32, 0.004 0.64, 0.37, 0.002
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.001; F, female; inc, incidence rate; M, male; NS, not significant.

These results indicate a strong latitudinal gradient in cancer risk, although for some cancers, little change occurs in incidence or mortality rates between 43.5° and 46.5° for females. For males, lung cancer rates have a minimum value near 46°, increasing rapidly after 47.5°, but other cancers increase monotonically from 44°. Several factors, including more sun exposure and smoking by males, may contribute to the higher ratio of high-latitude to low-latitude rates for males than for females.

To further evaluate whether the gradient could be due to solar UVB, one can use data from the eastern United States. Solar UVB is an important contributor to cancer risk in the United States,13,15,16 but other factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, limited dietary factors, urban/rural residence and air pollution from coal-fired power plants also play a role.15,54 Unfortunately, lung cancer rates are higher in the Southern states, so all-cancer mortality rates are not so useful, nor are cancers strongly linked to smoking. One can use, for example, two cancers for which smoking may be only a minor risk factor: breast and colorectal, as well as all-cancer-less-lung cancer for females. For breast cancer for white females for 1950–1969,55 an extrapolation of the second-order regression fit indicates a 20% increase between 43.5° and 50.5°, which is two-thirds of that for France. The scatter plots for all-cancer-less-lung cancer for females is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

All cancer less lung cancer vs. latitude. Shown are data for females in the United States,55 1950–69 (dots) and females in France,11 1998–2000 (squares).

Discussion

The results presented in Tables 1–3 are consistent with solar UVB, through the production of vitamin D, in reducing the risk of cancer incidence and mortality rates in France. Other studies had found that all cancers with significant correlations with latitude were vitamin D sensitive, although the evidence for cervical cancer is weak. For colorectal cancer,11 rates for females have a nearly monotonic increase in rate with increasing latitude, whereas rates for males have high rates in a band near the middle of France, suggesting the involvement of an unmodeled factor.

Table 3.

Ratio of high latitude to low latitude regression fit for cancer data for 1998–200011

Cancer Male incidence Male mortality Female incidence Female mortality
Breast 1.32 1.29
Cervical 1.42
Colorectal 1.20 1.18 1.24 1.21
Esophageal 2.74 2.04 1.91
Lung 1.64 1.51 NS NS
Prostate 1.26 1.25
Uterine corpus 1.38
Uterine cervical + corpus 1.32
All 1.42 1.30 1.24 1.16
All less lung 1.40 1.28 1.23 1.15
Open in a new tab

NS, not significant.

Lung cancer rates for males were much more important in the analysis than lung cancer rates for females because in France males smoke much more than females. Smoking is generally associated with risk for the cancers for which this study identified correlations with lung cancer.56,57

The fact that the increase between low and high latitude for all-cancer and all-cancer-less-lung-cancer is twice as high for males compared to females (Table 3) suggests that lung cancer may contribute to this finding even though lung cancer did not have a significant correlation in conjunction with latitude for any of the cancers or all-cancer-less-lung cancer.

Per several studies in the United States, summertime solar UVB doses seem to be much more important than those in wintertime.13,15 A UK study offers evidence that solar UVB doses are high enough in summer to produce some vitamin D. A study of 45-year-old British found that serum 25(OH)D levels increased from 35 nmol/L in winter to 75 nmol/L in summer from casual solar UVB irradiance.58 However, vitamin D production efficiency decreases with increasing age,59 so older French citizens would not experience such large changes. Indeed, a recent study found that about 45% of elderly French women have serum 25(OH)D levels <50 nmol/L and 90% have <80 nmol/L.60

One can use several reports in the literature to estimate the variation in vitamin D obtained from solar UVB. A study of the US Male Health Professionals cohort, using a vitamin D index based on oral-intake and UVB-produced vitamin D, estimated that 1,500 IU of vitamin D/day or an increase of 25 nmol/L in 25(OH)D could reduce male cancer mortality rates by 29%.14

The body can make at least 10,000 IU of vitamin D/day with whole-body UVB irradiance.61 However, since most people no longer spend much time in the sun with few clothes on, and solar UVB doses in France are somewhat weak due to its location. For comparison, in the eastern United States, which ranges from 26° to 48° N, the variation of colorectal cancer mortality rates for 1970–1994 is 30%, whereas that for all cancers for females varies by 20%. Smoking attenuates both values, whereas urban residence enhances them. France lies between 42.5° and 51° N. Northern France is more urbanized than Southern France. Thus, risk-modifying factors in addition to solar UVB and vitamin D are probably involved in the latitudinal gradients.

Although this analysis did not include several factors that could also affect cancer risk, such as diet, alcohol consumption, air pollution and degree of urbanization,13,15,54 a more comprehensive analysis should do so. However, the explanation that much of the increased risk of cancer with respect to increased latitude is related to UVB irradiance and vitamin D production is consistent with several US study findings. Those that included only indices for solar UVB13 yielded similar results to those that included other factors.15,16

Vitamin D also has many other health benefits, including reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus;62 autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis;63 bone conditions and diseases;64 and infectious diseases such as type A influenza,65,66 pneumonia,67 and sepsis/septicemia.68 Several recent reviews describe the benefits of vitamin D for diseases other than cancer69,70 as well as pregnancy outcomes.71 Previous work indicates that the health benefits of UVB and vitamin D greatly outweigh the adverse health effects of UV irradiance.72 Modeling studies estimate that increasing mean population serum 25(OH)D levels to more than 100 nmol/L could reduce the all-cause mortality rate by 15%–20%.72–75 It is encouraging to see growing interest in vitamin D in France.76

These results strongly suggest that solar UVB irradiance significantly affects cancer rates in France. While France now fortifies some of its food with vitamin D, reductions in cancer risk would probably manifest if foods such as milk and grain products were fortified to provide at least 1,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) and if officials encouraged people to take vitamin cholecalciferol supplements when they were not getting adequate vitamin D from diet or solar UVB. Thus, a better vitamin D policy in France would result in many important health benefits.

Data and Methods

Cancer incidence and mortality rate data came from several sources. Breast and colorectal cancer incidence rate data—age adjusted for the European age distribution for 21 continental regions of France for 1985, 1990, 1992 and 1995, as well as mortality rate data for 1992—come from Colonna et al.6

Cancer incidence and mortality rate data also come from a publication of the Fédération Nationale des Observatoires Régionaux de la Santé (FNORS).11 Mortality rate data for 1998–2000, age adjusted to the French population, were presented for all, breast, colorectal, esophageal, lung, prostate and uterine cancer and melanoma. Incidence data for these cancers were presented as estimates for 2000; thus, they are not deemed as reliable as the mortality rate data. Cancer registries have been established in only 12 departments. Incidence data issued from twelve administrative areas with cancer registries participating in the Francim network. These twelve areas which cover about 15% of the surface area of France were: Bas-Rhin, Calvados, Côte-d'Or, Doubs, Haut-Rhin, Hérault, Isère, Loire-Atlantique, Manche, Saône-et-Loire, Somme and Tarn.9 Thus, the values for the other nine departments would be based on data from the 12 departments as this study used the data for the 21 continental regions of France.

Three sets of data served as independent factors in this study: latitude of the population center of the region, lung cancer incidence and mortality rates and dietary factors. Latitude is assumed to be primarily the index of solar UVB dose, which is assumed to represent vitamin D production rates. Solar UVB doses at the surface have been developed using data from NASA's Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS), which show quasi-linear variation in latitude unless mountains affect the dose due to elevated surface level or changing the stratospheric ozone layer.77–79 In the US, summertime UVB doses east of the Rocky Mountains are much lower than at the same latitude to the west,77 owing to differences in surface elevation and stratospheric ozone layer due to the prevailing winds rising to cross the Rocky Mountains, thereby pushing the tropopause higher.

This study used the square of latitude because cancer rates appear to increase with the square of latitude, although using latitude gave very similar results. This index has worked well in several studies, especially when the UVB doses have a uniform latitudinal variation in the country and no large differences in skin phenotype or indoor/outdoor occupation exist, such as in Australia19–21 and China.23,79 However, in winter, when viral infections are more common, latitude squared worked well for multiple sclerosis.80 In Spain, evidently significant differences exist in indoor versus outdoor occupation.22 France has some variation in surface elevation, and although differences in indoor and outdoor occupation ratios likely occur by region, this study does not include them. Solar UVB appears to be the primary source of vitamin D in France,81 and no public policies designed to ensure that residents have adequate serum 25(OH)D levels seem to exist.82–86

Lung cancer rates have correlated highly with other smokingrelated cancers in several studies.15,22,87 Thus, this study uses those lung cancer rates as the index of smoking. Lung cancer is vitamin D sensitive to some extent, as well as ambient air pollution, so variations in lung cancer rates could also reflect differences in solar UVB irradiance.

The dietary data in reference 36 were for food types as well as macro- and micronutrients for women in eight regions of France with questionnaires mailed out between June 1993 and July 1995. The dietary data in reference 37 were only for macro- and micronutrients for four regions, gathered between 1995 and 2000.

All regression analyses were conducted using the SPSS 16.0 statistical package (SPSS, Chicago, IL) as discussed in reference 15.

Footnotes

Financial Disclosure

I receive or have received funding from the UV Foundation (McLean, VA), the Sunlight Research Forum (Veldhoven), Bio-Tech-Pharmacal (Fayetteville, AR), and the Vitamin D Council (San Luis Obispo, CA), and the Danish Sunbed Federation (Middelfart).

Note

After this paper was submitted, two papers reported reduced risk of breast cancer with respect to vitamin D.88,89 The second89 found a hazard ratio 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.82–0.98) for latitude <45.8° N compared to >48.6° N. Since ecological studies generally find lower inverse correlations for cancer incidence compared to cancer mortality rates,16,79 the results of the two studies are in good agreement.

References

  • 1.Czernichow P, Lerebours E, Hecketsweiler P, Colin R. Temporo-spatial epidemiology of cancer of the pancreas. Study of international and French mortality. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1985;9:767–775. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Launoy G, Grosclaude P, Pienkowski P, Faivre J, Menegoz F, Schaffer P, et al. Digestive cancers in France. Comparison of the incidence in 7 departments and estimation of incidence in the entire country of France. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1992;16:633–638. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Faivre J, Grosclaude P, Launoy G, Arveux P, Raverdy N, Menegoz F, et al. Digestive cancers in France. Geographic distribution and estimation of national incidence. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1997;21:174–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chaplain G, Grosclaude P, Arveux P, Raverdy N, Menegoz F, Henry-Amar M, et al. Female genital and breast cancers in France: geographic distribution and estimation of incidence. Bull Cancer. 1997;84:935–940. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Benhamiche AM, Colonna M, Aptel I, Launoy G, Schaffer P, Arveux P, et al. Estimation of the incidence of digestive tract cancers by region. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1999;23:1040–1047. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Colonna M, Grosclaude P, Faivre J, Revzani A, Arveux P, Chaplain G, et al. Cancer registry data based estimation of regional cancer incidence: application to breast and colorectal cancer in French administrative regions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:558–564. doi: 10.1136/jech.53.9.558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Colonna M, Grosclaude P, Launoy G, Arveux P, Buemi A, Raverdy N, et al. Estimate of regional prevalence of colorectal cancer in France. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2002;50:243–251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Peng J, Menegoz F, Lesec'h JM, Remontet L, Grosclaude P, Buemi A, et al. Larynx cancer in France: descriptive epidemiology and incidence estimation. Bull Cancer. 2004;91:363–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bouvier AM, Remontet L, Jougla E, Launoy G, Grosclaude P, Buemi A, et al. Incidence of gastrointestinal cancers in France. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2004;28:877–881. doi: 10.1016/s0399-8320(04)95152-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Eilstein D, Uhry Z, Cherie-Challine L, Isnard H. Lung cancer mortality among women in France. Trend analysis and projection between 1975 and 2014, with a Bayesian age-cohort model. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2005;53:167–181. doi: 10.1016/s0398-7620(05)84586-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fédération Nationale des Observatoires Régionaux de la Santé (FNORS), author Le cancer dans les régions de France. 2005. [June 13, 2010]. (Fre). http://www.fnors.org/fnors/ors/travaux/synthesekcer.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 1980;9:227–231. doi: 10.1093/ije/9.3.227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Grant WB. An estimate of premature cancer mortality in the US due to inadequate doses of solar ultraviolet-B radiation. Cancer. 2002;94:1867–1875. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Rimm EB, Hollis BW, Fuchs CS, Stampfer MJ, et al. Prospective study of predictors of vitamin D status and cancer incidence and mortality in men. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:451–459. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grant WB, Garland CF. The association of solar ultraviolet B (UVB) with reducing risk of cancer: multifactorial ecologic analysis of geographic variation in age-adjusted cancer mortality rates. Anticancer Res. 2006;26:2687–2699. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Boscoe FP, Schymura MJ. Solar ultraviolet-B exposure and cancer incidence and mortality in the United States 1993–2000. BMC Cancer. 2006;6:264. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-6-264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mizoue T. Ecological study of solar radiation and cancer mortality in Japan. Health Phys. 2004;87:532–538. doi: 10.1097/01.hp.0000137179.03423.0b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kinoshita S, Wagatsuma Y, Okada M. Geographical distribution for malignant neoplasm of the pancreas in relation to selected climatic factors in Japan. Int J Health Geogr. 2007;6:34. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-6-34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hughes AM, Armstrong BK, Vajdic CM, Turner J, Grulich AE, Fritschi L, et al. Sun exposure may protect against non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a case-control study. Int J Cancer. 2004;112:865–871. doi: 10.1002/ijc.20470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Astbury A. Triumf report, TRI-PP-05-01. 2005. [June 8, 2010]. Non uniformity in cancer mortality in the USA and Australia appears to share a common pathway. http://www.triumf.ca/publications/pub/arch05/pp-05-1.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Neale RE, Youlden DR, Krnjacki L, Kimlin MG, van der Pols JC. Latitude Variation in Pancreatic Cancer Mortality in Australia. Pancreas. 2009;38:387–390. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31819975f4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Grant WB. An ecologic study of cancer mortality rates in Spain with respect to indices of solar UV irradiance and smoking. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:1123–1128. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Grant WB. Does solar ultraviolet irradiation affect cancer mortality rates in China? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007;8:236–242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:1586–1591. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/85.6.1586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Garland CF, Garland FC, Gorham ED, Lipkin M, Newmark H, Mohr SB, et al. The role of vitamin D in cancer prevention. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:252–261. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.045260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Garland FC. Vitamin D for cancer prevention: Global perspective. Ann Epi. 2009;19:468–483. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.03.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mohr SB. A brief history of vitamin D and cancer prevention. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19:79–83. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Grant WB, Mohr SB. Ecological studies of ultraviolet B, vitamin D and cancer since 2000. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19:446–454. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Grant WB. Good evidence exists that solar ultraviolet-B and vitamin D reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. Am J Obstetrics Gynecol. 2010;203:e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Grant WB. An ecologic study of dietary and solar ultraviolet-B links to breast carcinoma mortality rates. Cancer. 2002;94:272–281. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Grant WB. Ecologic studies of solar UV-B radiation and cancer mortality rates. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2003;164:371–377. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-55580-0_27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Grant WB. The likely role of vitamin D from solar ultraviolet-B irradiance in increasing cancer survival. Anticancer Res. 2006;26:2605–2614. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mohr SB, Gorham ED, Garland CF, Grant WB, Garland FC. Are low ultraviolet B and high animal protein intake associated with risk of renal cancer? Int J Cancer. 2006;119:2705–2709. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mohr SB, Garland CF, Gorham ED, Grant WB, Garland FC. Is ultraviolet B irradiance inversely associated with incidence rates of endometrial cancer: an ecological study of 107 countries. Prev Med. 2007;45:327–331. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mohr SB, Garland CF, Gorham ED, Grant WB, Garland FC. Ultraviolet B irradiance and vitamin D status are inversely associated with incidence rates of pancreatic cancer worldwide. Pancreas. 2010;39:669–674. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3181ce654d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kesse E, Boutron-Ruault MC, Clavel-Chapelon F E3N group, author. Regional dietary habits of French women born between 1925 and 1950. Eur J Nutr. 2005;44:285–292. doi: 10.1007/s00394-004-0523-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Freisling H, Fahey MT, Moskal A, Ocké MC, Ferrari P, Jenab M, et al. Region-specific nutrient intake patterns exhibit a geographical gradient within and between European countries. J Nutr. 2010;140:1280–1286. doi: 10.3945/jn.110.121152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.IARC Working Group Report 5: Vitamin D and Cancer. Lyon, France: 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Grant WB. A critical review of Vitamin D and Cancer: A report of the IARC Working Group on vitamin D. Dermato-Endocrinology. 2009;1:25–33. doi: 10.4161/derm.1.1.7729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Grant WB. How strong is the evidence that solar ultraviolet B and vitamin D reduce the risk of cancer? An examination using Hill's criteria for causality. Dermato-Endocrinology. 2009;1:17–24. doi: 10.4161/derm.1.1.7388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Garland FC. Vitamin D for cancer prevention: Global perspective. Ann Epi. 2009;19:468–483. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.03.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Grant WB, Mohr SB. Ecological studies of ultraviolet B, vitamin D and cancer since 2000. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19:446–454. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Grant WB. Benefits of vitamin D in reducing the risk of cancer: Time to include vitamin D in cancer treatment? J Soc Integr Oncol. 2010;8:81–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Yin L, Grandi N, Raum E, Haug U, Arndt V, Brenner H. Meta-analysis: longitudinal studies of serum vitamin D and colorectal cancer risk. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;30:113–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04022.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Yin L, Grandi N, Raum E, Haug U, Arndt V, Brenner H. Meta-analysis: Serum vitamin D and breast cancer risk. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:2196–2205. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.03.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gandini S, Boniol M, Haukka J, Byrnes G, Cox B, Sneyd MJ, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and colorectal, breast and prostate cancer and colorectal adenoma. Int J Cancer. 2010 doi: 10.1002/ijc.25439. (Epub ahead of print) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Grant WB. Relation between prediagnostic serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and incidence of breast, colorectal, and other cancers. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2010;101:130–136. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2010.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Toriola AT, Surcel HM, Calypse A, Grankvist K, Luostarinen T, Lukanova A, et al. Independent and joint effects of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and calcium on ovarian cancer risk: A prospective nested case-control study. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:2799–805. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.05.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Helzlsouer KJ. For the VDPP Steering Committee. Overview of the Cohort Consortium Vitamin D Pooling Project of Rarer Cancers. Am J Epi. 2010;172:4–9. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Grant WB. Re: “Overview of the Cohort Consortium Vitamin D Pooling Project of Rarer Cancers. Am J Epi. 2010;172:1210–1211. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ginde AA, Liu MC, Camargo CA., Jr Demographic differences and trends of vitamin D insufficiency in the US population 1988–2004. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:626–632. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lim U, Freedman DM, Hollis BW, Horst RL, Purdue MP, Chatterjee N, et al. A prospective investigation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of lymphoid cancers. Int J Cancer. 2009;124:979–986. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jorde R, Sneve M, Hutchinson M, Emaus N, Figenschau Y, Grimnes G. Tracking of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels during 14 years in a population-based study and during 12 months in an intervention study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171:903–908. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Grant WB. Air pollution in relation to US cancer mortality rates: an ecological study; likely role of carbonaceous aerosols and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Anticancer Res. 2009;29:3537–3545. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Devesa SS, Grauman DJ, Blot WJ, Pennello GA, Hoover RN, Fraumeni JF., Jr . Atlas of Cancer Mortality in the United States 1950–1994. 1999. [June 13, 2010]. NIH Publication No. 99-4564. http://www3.cancer.gov/atlasplus/new.html. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Sadri G, Mahjub H. Passive or active smoking, which is more relevant to breast cancer. Saudi Med J. 2007;28:254–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wiley DJ, Wiesmeier E, Masongsong E, Gylys KH, Koutsky LA, Ferris DG, et al. Smokers at higher risk for undetected antibody for oncogenic human papilloma-virus type 16 infection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:915–920. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hyppönen E, Power C. Hypovitaminosis D in British adults at age 45 y: nationwide cohort study of dietary and lifestyle predictors. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:860–868. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/85.3.860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.MacLaughlin J, Holick MF. Aging decreases the capacity of human skin to produce vitamin D3. J Clin Invest. 1985;76:1536–1538. doi: 10.1172/JCI112134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Bruyíre O, Malaise O, Neuprez A, Collette J, Reginster JY. Prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy in European postmenopausal women. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:1939–1944. doi: 10.1185/030079907X219562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Holick MF, Chen TC, Lu Z, Sauter E. Vitamin D and skin physiology: a D-lightful story. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:28–33. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.07s211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Parker J, Hashmi O, Dutton D, Mavrodaris A, Stranges S, Kandala NB, et al. Levels of vitamin D and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and metaanalysis. Maturitas. 2010;65:225–236. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.12.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Ascherio A, Munger KL, Simon KC. Vitamin D and multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:599–612. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70086-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Bischoff-Ferrari HA. Vitamin D and fracture prevention. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2010;39:347–353. doi: 10.1016/j.ecl.2010.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Cannell JJ, Vieth R, Umhau JC, Holick MF, Grant WB, Madronich S, et al. Epidemic influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiol Infect. 2006;134:1129–1140. doi: 10.1017/S0950268806007175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Urashima M, Segawa T, Okazaki M, Kurihara M, Wada Y, Ida H. Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91:1255–1260. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Grant WB, Giovannucci D. The possible roles of solar ultraviolet-B radiation and vitamin D in reducing case-fatality rates from the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic in the United States. Dermato-Endocrinology. 2009;1:215–219. doi: 10.4161/derm.1.4.9063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Grant WB. Solar ultraviolet-B irradiance and vitamin D may reduce the risk of septicemia. Dermato-Endocrinology. 2009;1:37–42. doi: 10.4161/derm.1.1.7250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Holick MF. Vitamin D deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:266–281. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra070553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Cannell JJ, Hollis BW. Use of vitamin D in clinical practice. Altern Med Rev. 2008;13:6–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Lewis S, Lucas RM, Halliday J, Ponsonby AL. Vitamin D deficiency and pregnancy: From preconception to birth. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2010;54:1092–1102. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201000044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Grant WB. In defense of the sun: An estimate of changes in mortality rates in the United States if mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were raised to 45 ng/mL by solar ultraviolet-B irradiance. Dermato-Endocrinology. 2009;1:207–214. doi: 10.4161/derm.1.4.9841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Grant WB, Cross HS, Garland CF, Gorham ED, Moan J, Peterlik M, et al. Estimated benefit of increased vitamin D status in reducing the economic burden of disease in western Europe. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2009;99:104–113. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2009.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Grant WB, Schwalfenberg GK, Genuis SJ, Whiting SJ. An estimate of the economic burden and premature deaths due to vitamin D deficiency in Canada. Molec Nutr Food Res. 2010;54:1172–1181. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.200900420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Grant WB, Schuitemaker G. Health benefits of higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in The Netherlands. J Steroid Biochem Molec Biol. 2010;121:456–458. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2010.03.089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Audran M, Briot K. Critical reappraisal of vitamin D deficiency. Joint Bone Spine. 2010;77:115–119. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2009.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Leffell DJ, Brash DE. Sunlight and skin cancer. [June 11, 2010];Sci Am. 1996 275:52–53. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0796-52. http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ery_uv/dna_exp.gif. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Fioletov VE, McArthur LJ, Mathews TW, Marrett L. Estimated ultraviolet exposure levels for a sufficient vitamin D status in North America. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2010;100:57–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2010.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Chen W, Clements M, Rahman B, Zhang S, Qiao Y, Armstrong BK. Relationship between cancer mortality/incidence and ambient ultraviolet B irradiance in China. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21:1701–1709. doi: 10.1007/s10552-010-9599-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Grant WB. Hypothesis-Ultraviolet-B irradiance and vitamin D reduce the risk of viral infections and thus their sequelae, including autoimmune diseases and some cancers. Photochem Photobiol. 2008;84:356–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.2007.00266.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Webb AR, Engelsen O. Calculated ultraviolet exposure levels for a healthy vitamin D status. Photochem Photobiol. 2006;82:1697–1703. doi: 10.1562/2005-09-01-RA-670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Guillemant J, Allemandou A, Cabrol S, Peres G, Guillemant S. Vitamin D status in the adolescent: seasonal variations and effects of winter supplementation with vitamin D3. Arch Pediatr. 1998;5:1211–1215. doi: 10.1016/s0929-693x(98)81235-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Guinot C, Malvy D, Preziosi P, Galan P, Chapuy M, Maamer M, et al. Vitamin D concentrations in blood and skin phototype in a general adult population in France. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2000;127:1073–1076. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Ovesen L, Andersen R, Jakobsen J. Geographical differences in vitamin D status, with particular reference to European countries. Proc Nutr Soc. 2003;62:813–821. doi: 10.1079/PNS2003297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Mallet E, Claude V, Basuyau JP, Tourancheau E. Calcium and D vitamin status in toddlers: original study performed in the area of Roue. rch Pediatr. 2005;12:1797–1803. doi: 10.1016/j.arcped.2005.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Annweiler C, Schott AM, Allali G, Bridenbaugh SA, Kressig RW, Allain P, et al. Association of vitamin D deficiency with cognitive impairment in older women: cross-sectional study. Neurology. 2010;74:27–32. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181beecd3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Leistikow B. Lung cancer rates as an index of tobacco smoke exposures: validation against black male approximate non-lung cancer death rates 1969–2000. Prev Med. 2004;38:511–515. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.11.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Engel P, Fagherazzi G, Boutten A, Dupré T, Mesrine S, Boutron-Ruault MC, et al. Serum 25(OH) Vitamin D and risk of breast Cancer: A nested case-control study from the French E3N Cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;9:2341–2350. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Engel P, Fagherazzi G, Mesrine S, Boutron-Ruault MC, Clavel-Chapelon F. Joint effects of dietary vitamin D and sun exposure on breast cancer risk: results from the French E3N cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1039. In press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Dermato-endocrinology are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES