34% reduction in breast CA
 

This study is very interesting for two reasons. First of all, the decrease in breast cancer was significant (34.4%) for the women with the highest levels and secondly because the patients with the reduced incidence still have very low (10 - 20 ng/mL = 25 - 50 nmol/L) levels which makes one wonder what the reduction would have been with levels >40 ng/mL = 100 nmol/L.

Studies like this highlight the damage that is being done by the anti-UVR zealots. Imagine the lives saved if breast cancer incidence could be reduced by 34% (or more).


Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 May 22. [Epub ahead of print]
Vitamin D status and breast cancer in Saudi Arabian women: case-control study.

Yousef FM, Jacobs ET, Kang PT, Hakim IA, Going S, Yousef JM, Al-Raddadi RM, Kumosani TA, Thomson CA.
Source

Department of Nutritional Sciences and the Faculty of Science, Department of Biochemistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The role of vitamin D in breast cancer prevention is equivocal. Saudi Arabian women may be at greater risk of vitamin D deficiency because of a darker skin type and a greater likelihood of reduced ultraviolet B radiation exposure. Data regarding the vitamin D status of Saudi Arabian women and its relation to breast cancer risk are lacking.
OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the association between circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and breast cancer risk in Saudi Arabian women.
DESIGN:

A case-control study was conducted among 120 breast cancer cases and 120 controls. The study population was drawn from patients admitted to King Fahd Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from June to August 2009. Participants completed questionnaires on diet and medical history, and serum samples were collected from all women to measure circulating 25(OH)D concentrations.
RESULTS:

The participants had a mean age of 47.8 y and a mean body mass index (BMI; in kg/m2) of 30.0. Breast cancer cases had significantly lower (mean ± SD) serum concentrations of 25(OH)D (9.4 ± 6.4 ng/mL) than did controls (15.4 ± 12.3 ng/mL; P = 0.001). In comparison with those in the highest category of vitamin D status for this population (≥20 ng/mL), the adjusted ORs (95% CIs) for invasive breast cancer were 6.1 (2.4, 15.1) for women with a serum 25(OH)D concentration <10 ng/mL and 4.0 (1.6, 10.4) for women with a serum concentration of ≥10 to <20 ng/mL (P-trend = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION:

An inverse association exists between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and breast cancer risk in Saudi Arabian women.

Re: 34% reduction in breast CA
 

Why the heck can't we get anyone to do these types of controlled studies here in the US? ITA? ASA? Any of the ones who beg for our money every year?

Re: 34% reduction in breast CA
 

This question was asked to a prominent researcher at a meeting in Toronto a few years ago. He responded that he "didn't need the hassle" from the derms (who are very powerful in medical schools/research organizations). Easier to give vitamin D supplements. However, this question still exists - are supplements as "biologically effective" as UVR-induced vitamin D?

Re: 34% reduction in breast CA
 

If this person is afraid of going where the true will lead, then he/she isn't much of a "prominent researcher". My advise would be to find someone less "prominent", in other words, young and hungry; give them the money for the study and see what we get.

The good news is that the truth is on the side of our industry. But, We need to get a study done that passes scientific muster and someone with enough courage to do it.

The question with this study, should be obvious; what did humans do before vitamin D supplements existed? We obviously got it from somewhere. And if we didn't have anything but sunlight for 6000 years, we should have been dropping dead left and right from melanoma right? Look at the historic death rates from M and other Vit D deficient related disease and see where the trend is going. 350,000 people a year die from breast cancer, and 8,000 a year die from melanoma. The math doesn't add up for the derms.

But is sounds real scary and ominous when you hear on a radio ad the someone dies of melanoma every hour.

Re: 34% reduction in breast CA
 

More evidence supporting the premise that increased vitamin D blood levels results in a decrease in the incidence of breast cancer.

Breast cancer: A study in Carcinogenesis in 2008 found that breast cancer risk was 70% lower in women with blood levels of vitamin D greater than 30 ng/mL compared with those with blood levels less than 18 ng/mL.20 In the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, women with greater sun exposure had only one-half the incidence of breast cancer compared with those with less sun exposure.

Data from the Harvard Nurses Health Study and the St George’s Hospital Study found that women with the highest blood levels of calcidiol had a reduced risk of breast cancer. There was a clear dose-response relationship in which those with the lowest blood levels (less than 13 ng/mL) had the highest rates of breast cancer, and rates were successively lower as blood levels increased (up to 52 ng/mL). The blood level associated with a 35% reduction in breast cancer risk can be maintained by taking about 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day.

Vitamin D and Cancer — Evidence Suggests This Vital Nutrient May Cut Risk
By Densie Webb, PhD, RD / Today’s Dietitian / Vol. 14 No. 10 P. 58

http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/100112p58.shtml