(a) Cancer risk |
Prospective case‐cohort study (nested in osteoporotic fractures in men study) |
U.S.A. All ethnicity, 1217 non‐Hispanic whites |
Prostate |
297/1351≥65 years |
No |
No association found between Vit D serum levels and subsequent risk of prostate cancer |
(Barnett et al., 2010) |
Prospective case‐control study (nested within prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial) |
U.S.A. non‐hispanic white |
Prostate |
749/781 |
No |
No association with Vit D and decreased risk of prostate cancer, higher circulating levels may be associated with increased risk of aggressive disease |
(Ahn et al., 2008) |
Prospective case‐control study (nested European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition) |
Europeans |
Prostate |
652/752 |
No |
The risk of prostate cancer did not vary significantly with Vit D levels |
(Travis et al., 2009) |
Prospective case‐control study (nested α‐tocopherol, β‐carotene prevention study) |
Finnish |
Prostate |
296/296 |
No |
No difference in Vit D levels between cases and controls |
(Faupel‐Badger et al., 2007) |
Prospective case‐control study (nested nutritional prevention cancer trial) |
U.S.A. Caucasians |
Prostate |
83/166 |
No |
No difference in prostate cancer risk |
(Jacobs et al., 2004) |
|
Prospective case‐control study (nested European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition) |
Europeans |
Colorectal |
1248/1248 |
Yes |
Strong inverse association between levels of pre‐diagnostic Vit D levels and risk of colorectal cancer |
(Jenab et al., 2010) |
Prospective case‐control study (nested nurses health study) |
U.S.A. |
Colorectal |
193/386 |
Yes |
25(OH)D levels but not 1,25‐dihyrdoxyvit D levels were associated in an inverse linear manner with risk of colorectal cancer (distal colon and rectal) |
(Feskanich et al., 2004) |
Prospective case‐control study (nested α‐tocopherol, β‐carotene prevention study) |
Finnish men |
Colorectal |
146/292 |
Yes |
25(OH)D levels but not 1,25‐dihyrdoxyvit D levels were associated in an inverse linear manner with risk of colorectal cancer (most marked for rectal cancer 55 cases; RR by quartile = 1.00, .93, .77, .37; trend P = 0.06) |
(Tangrea et al., 1997) |
|
Prospective case‐control study (nested cancer prevention study‐II nutrition cohort) |
U.S.A. |
Breast |
516/516 |
No |
No association between 25(OH)D levels and breast cancer risk |
(McCullough et al., 2009) |
Case series |
U.K. Caucasians |
Breast |
279 |
Yes |
Serum levels of 25(OH)D are significantly higher in patients with early stage breast cancer than those with locally advanced or metastatic |
(Palmieri et al., 2006) |
Prospective study (third national health and nutrition examination survey) |
U.S.A. |
Breast |
28 breast cancer deaths |
No |
No association between Vit D levels and risk of death from breast cancer |
(Freedman et al., 2007) |
Prospective case‐control study (nested nurses health study) |
U.S.A. |
Breast |
701/724 |
Trend to benefit |
Higher levels of both 25(OH)D (RR 0.73) and 1,25(OH)2D (RR 0.76) were associated with non significant lower risk of breast cancer. For both metabolites, the association was stronger ≥60 years |
(Bertone‐Johnson et al., 2005) |
|
Pool nested case‐control study (Cohort consortium vitamin D pooling project of rarer cancers) |
Multiple geographical location |
Pancreatic |
952/1333 |
Negative benefit |
High 25(OH)D level (≥100 nmol/L) was associated with a significant 2‐fold increase in pancreatic cancer risk overall (OR = 2.12) |
(Stolzenberg‐Solomon et al., 2010) |
Prospective case‐control study (nested α‐tocopherol, β‐carotene prevention study) |
Finnish Male smokers |
Pancreatic |
200/400 |
Negative benefit |
3‐fold increase risk of pancreatic cancer with high Vit D levels (highest versus lowest quintile, >65.5 versus <32.0 nmol/L: OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.56–5.48, Ptrend = 0.001) |
(Stolzenberg‐Solomon et al., 2006) |
|
(b) Outcome |
Prospective study (nested physicians health study) |
U.S.A. |
Prostate |
492/664 |
Yes |
Pre‐diagnostic Vit D levels tended to be inversely associated with risk of aggressive prostate cancer at diagnosis, especially men >65 years |
(Li et al., 2007) |
Association study |
Norway |
Prostate |
160 |
Yes |
Serum Vit D levels 50–80 nmol/L and >80 compared to <50 had better prognosis (cause specific mortality) (RR0.33; RR0.16) |
(Tretli et al., 2009) |
Prospective cohort study |
Japan |
Colorectal |
257 |
Yes |
Higher Vit D levels were associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.91, P = .027) |
(Mezawa et al., 2010) |