Vitamin D Deficiency Makes Breast Cancer More Deadly
Women with low levels of vitamin D when they’re diagnosed with breast cancer are more likely to die from the disease than those who have higher levels of the vitamin, doctors are reporting.
The finding — part of a growing body of evidence that connects vitamin D to several types of cancer — was just published, ahead of the upcoming American Society of Clinical Oncology conference. It was based on a University of Toronto study of 512 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1989 and 1995. Researchers kept track of the women’s health through 2006.
Vitamin D levels were broken into three categories: “deficient” (192 of the women were in this group) “insufficient” (197 women) and “sufficient” (124 women). (Even among healthy women, high rates of vitamin D deficiency are common.)
Those with deficient levels were 73% more likely to die than those with sufficient levels. Cancer was also significantly more likely to spread to other parts of the body in women with vitamin D deficiency, the researchers found.
Previous studies have connected low vitamin D levels with higher risk of colon, prostate and breast cancer, as well as higher mortality from the cancers, according to this NEJM article.
The link is still poorly understood, but vitamin D may bind with cancer cells and slow the growth of cells or cause them to die.
Sunlight is an important source of vitamin D. Some foods, such oily fish, are also sources, as are dietary supplements. For more on vitamin D in foods and supplements, along with info on recommended daily intake by age and gender, see this page from the NIH.
Everything in moderation.
Hiding from the sun in fear of skin cancer was bound to have some unintended consequence.
This is an interesting and important finding that suggests a therapeutic role for vitamin D. But, association is not causality and vitamin D could cause more harm than good. It should not be used widely until after at least one large prospective randomized trial is published. It certainly should not be promoted as a cure for cancer at this time.
Having used vitamin D analogues for several years in clinical practice, it comes as no surprise that the powerful influence of the effects of vitamin D receptor stimulation has finally been recognised in the larger media. Anyone with some understanding of Retinoid receptors will realise the value of screening and correcting vitamin D deficiency. It is not proven as a cure for cancer. But it is beyond reasonable doubt that correcting vitamin D deficiency and maintaining mid-normal blood levels have cancer-prevention effects, in addition to benefits for the cardiovascular system, pancreatic insulin production, muscle and bone strength as well as salient effcts of diseases like multiple sclerosis. We even have some patients who swear that their long-standing depressive symptoms are alleviated by high dose vitamin D replacement. Interestingly, in our population, we find more than 80% of screened population to be vitamin D deficienct, irrespective of ethnic/racial differences. BTW it has not been proven that one can increase vitamin D stores by increasing sun exposure. It does help activate it if one’s stores are adequate. The real reason for this problem is yet unclear.
I enjoy learning from all these individual studies, as do many others. However, if the readers are adults working in NYC, they need an efficient multi-problem solving solution. A 20 minute walk after lunch helps with the exposure to the sun for vitamin D, yet is short enough to avoid the skin cancer risk. It also helps the heart, a muscle which needs exercise, and aids in digestion. When the follow-up to this study is performed 10 years from now, the people who heeded the advice and increased their intake of vitamin D will be pleased when the follow-up studies prove the early studies were right, then go into specifics on exactly how it works, and secondary benefits. Anyone who has been reading and benefiting from the nutritional studies for the past 20 years will have similar positive experiences.
Living above latitude 31 (less sunlight)can also increase risks for vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency and studies similar to above have even connected this to a higher prevalence of cancer in those regions.
This study only tells part of the story, and omits the significance of the VDR. When D25 is low, D125 is elevated and that dysregulation is probably the cause of chronic disease.
www.marshallprotocol.com
I found a blog post that makes an interesting argument that some of the studies showing lower Vit. D linked to increased mortality in osteoporosis and autoimmune disease are showing an effect of infection and Vit. D receptor disregulation rather than simple deficiency.
You won’t find any actual research that shows vitamin D + calcium increases bone density above calcium alone, though some people
still assert that conclusion. Vitamin D raises blood levels of calcium, yes. But not bone density.
Many people with low 25D have high 1,25D which is a product of 25D
That argues against deficiency in some cases. And in favor of infection + occasionally dysregulation of the Vitamin D Receptor resulting in overproduction of
1,25D from 25D (which leads to low levels of 25D, which appears like deficiency)
bacteriality.com/2007/09/15/vitamind/
They say high levels of 25D deactivates the Vitamin D receptor based on molecular modeling, though. That part I question. How much D3 supplementation does it take to maximize cathelidicin production?
I cannot find an answer to that question, and it should be simple.
Light during the day is important to generate more than vitamin D. It also helps increase the amount of nighttime melatonin. Melatonin is both a sleep promoter and a cancer fighter. Light at night can reduce the melatonin flow. My recent book “Great Sleep! Reduced Cancer!” (Amazon)documents the benefit of blocking blue light in the hours before bedtime.
WSJ's Health Blog offers news and analysis on health and the business of health. The lead writer is Jacob Goldstein. He came to The Wall Street Journal from the Miami Herald, where he was a medical writer. Scott Hensley, who covered the drug industry as a reporter for the Journal for seven years, is the editor and also a contributor. The blog also includes contributions from other staffers at the Journal, WSJ.com and Dow Jones Newswires. Write to us at 
